search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
WHAT’S NEW?


DEVICE CHOICE IMPACTS ASTHMA CONTROL, REAL- WORLD STUDY


DEMONSTRATES Despite effective medication being available, 82% of asthma patients report being poorly controlled, frequently due to poor inhaler technique. Studies indicate that patients who use a Valved Holding Chamber (VHC) with their pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) have better asthma control.


A recent real-world study in more than 18,000 patients has demonstrated the AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* Anti- Static VHC provides superior asthma control when compared with other chambers. This VHC was associated with a significant delay in time to first exacerbation (p=0.0005) and a significant 13% reduction in A&E visits (p=0.0167) compared with control, non- anti-static chambers. There was also a strong trend towards a reduction in hospitalisations (p=0.0702). The device is available on prescription in the UK.


Trudell Medical UK Regional Head, Europe, Alan Clark said: “The current NHS crisis is exacerbated by patients presenting to A&E with respiratory problems that oſten get worse in winter. New AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* Anti-Static VHC may reduce some of the 121,000 A&E attendances made by asthma patients annually in the UK. A 13% reduction may mean 15,730 fewer visits to A&E by asthma patients each year. Furthermore, if all people with asthma currently using a pMDI plus VHC in the UK were switched to the AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* Anti-Static VHC, our budget impact model shows that in one year the UK health system could reallocate £7.2m of healthcare resources to other areas of need due to a reduction in demand by asthma patients.”


The AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* Anti- Static VHC is designed with user-friendly features to improve patients’ inhaler technique and to ensure delivery of the intended dose, leading to clinical benefits for patients. The chamber


twitter.com/TomorrowsCare


is made from an antistatic polymer which prevents electrostatic charge- related loss of medication and allows it to be used straight out of the packet without pre-treatment. The Flow-Vu* inhalation indicator allows caregivers to co-ordinate actuation of the pMDI with inhalation and to count breaths ensuring the patient gets the intended dose of their medication.


Dr Dermot Ryan, President of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group and former primary care physician, commented: “It’s great to see a company take a very good product and make it even better by putting the patient at the centre of the development process and using their feedback to make it easier to use. The data strongly suggest that by improving delivery of medication to the lungs the AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* Anti-Static VHC can demonstrably reduce use of hospital resources.”


For those with asthma, particularly children, the choice of VHC - sometimes


referred to as spacer/holding chamber devices- to help deliver medication is an important consideration. It is also evident that performance differences exist between VHCs. Thus, chamber shape, volume and length, the use of conventional statically charged versus anti-static materials, inhalation valve function, and facemask design have all been variously implicated in performance differences between different spacers/VHCs. Therefore, it is important to note that not all spacers/ VHCs perform equally well.


Real-world study co-author, Dr Jason Suggett (Group Director of Global Science and Technology, Trudell Medical International) said that the study also further supports the fact that chambers are not interchangeable.


Dr Suggett said: “The European Medicines Agency recommended in 2009 that development of a pMDI should include the testing of at least one specific named chamber, and that any substitution must be supported by appropriate in vitro or clinical data demonstrating equivalence.


“We presented laboratory data at the recent Respiratory Drug Delivery Europe meeting that confirmed that not all chambers perform equally well with the same pMDI, which underlines the importance of recognising the impact and potential risks of substituting one device for another.”


References are available on request. www.aerochambervhc.com


- 9 -


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54