↓ Skip to main content

The economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the impact of poor inhalation technique with commonly prescribed dry powder inhalers in three European countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the impact of poor inhalation technique with commonly prescribed dry powder inhalers in three European countries
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1482-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Lewis, S. Torvinen, P. N. R. Dekhuijzen, H. Chrystyn, A. T. Watson, M. Blackney, A. Plich

Abstract

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, which impose a substantial burden on healthcare systems and society. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonists (LABA), often administered using dry powder inhalers (DPIs), are frequently prescribed to control persistent asthma and COPD. Use of DPIs has been associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to increased healthcare resource use and costs. A model was developed to estimate the healthcare resource use and costs associated with asthma and COPD management in people using commonly prescribed DPIs (budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler(®) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler(®)) over 1 year in Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). The model considered direct costs (inhaler acquisition costs and scheduled and unscheduled healthcare costs), indirect costs (productive days lost), and estimated the contribution of poor inhalation technique to the burden of illness. The direct cost burden of managing asthma and COPD for people using budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler(®) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler(®) in 2015 was estimated at €813 million, €560 million, and €774 million for Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Poor inhalation technique comprised 2.2-7.7 % of direct costs, totalling €105 million across the three countries. When lost productivity costs were included, total expenditure increased to €1.4 billion, €1.7 billion and €3.3 billion in Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively, with €782 million attributable to poor inhalation technique across the three countries. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion of patients prescribed ICS and LABA FDCs, and least sensitive to differences in the number of antimicrobials and oral corticosteroids prescribed. The cost of managing asthma and COPD using commonly prescribed DPIs is considerable. A substantial, and avoidable, contributor to this burden is poor inhalation technique. Measures that can improve inhalation technique with current DPIs, such as easier-to-use inhalers or better patient training, could offer benefits to patients and healthcare providers through improving disease outcomes and lowering costs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Other 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 16 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,944,147
of 17,641,103 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,292
of 5,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,349
of 265,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,641,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.