ResumoObjetivo: Validar dois escores para medir a habilidade de pacientes em utilizar inaladores pressurizados (IPs) ou inaladores de pó (IPos), verificar os erros mais comuns na sua utilização e identificar os pacientes que necessitam de um programa educacional para o uso desses dispositivos.Métodos: Este estudo foi realizado em três etapas: validação da confiabilidade dos escores de uso dos dispositivos inalatórios; validação do conteúdo dos escores utilizando-se uma amostra de conveniência; e realização de testes para a validação de critério e a validação discriminante desses instrumentos em pacientes que preenchiam os critérios de inclusão do estudo.Resultados: A amostra de conveniência foi composta por 16 pacientes, e houve discordância interobservador em 19% e 25% para os escores de IPo e IP, respectivamente. Após a análise de expertos no assunto, os escores sofreram modificações e foram aplicados em 72 pacientes. A dificuldade mais relevante no uso de ambos os dispositivos foi a manutenção da capacidade pulmonar total após inspiração profunda. O grau de correlação dos escores por observador foi de 0,97 (p < 0,0001). Houve boa concordância interobservador na classificação dos pacientes como aptos/não aptos para uso de IPo (50%/50% e 52%/58%; p < 0,01) e de IP (49%/51% e 54%/46%; p < 0,05).Conclusões: Os escores validados permitem identificar e corrigir os erros da técnica inalatória ao longo das consultas e, em consequência, melhorar o manejo dos dispositivos para inalação.

AbstractObjective: To validate two scores quantifying the ability of patients to use metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs); to identify the most common errors made during their use; and to identify the patients in need of an educational program for the use of these devices.Methods: This study was conducted in three phases: validation of the reliability of the inhaler technique scores; validation of the contents of the two scores using a convenience sample; and testing for criterion validation and discriminant validation of these instruments in patients who met the inclusion criteria.Results: The convenience sample comprised 16 patients. Interobserver disagreement was found in 19% and 25% of the DPI and MDI scores, respectively. After expert analysis on the subject, the scores were modified and were applied in 72 patients. The most relevant difficulty encountered during the use of both types of devices was the maintenance of total lung capacity after a deep inhalation. The degree of correlation of the scores by observer was 0.97 (p < 0.0001). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of patients as able/not able to use a DPI (50%/50% and 52%/58%; p < 0.01) and an MDI (49%/51% and 54%/46%; p < 0.05).Conclusions: The validated scores allow the identification and correction of inhaler technique errors during consultations and, as a result, improvement in the management of inhalation devices.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a aderência ao tratamento e a técnica de utilização de dispositivos inalatórios em pacientes com asma após atenção farmacêutica complementar. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo controlado com dois grupos paralelos: grupo estudo e grupo controle. Foram selecionados 60 asmáticos persistentes, utilizando regularmente inaladores dosimetrados (IDs), inaladores de pó seco (IPS) ou ambos. Os pacientes foram avaliados em três visitas durante 60 dias. As instruções foram fornecidas em todas as visitas aos pacientes do grupo estudo e apenas na primeira visita do grupo controle. Os pacientes que utilizaram < 80% ou > 120% do total de doses prescritas foram classificados como não aderentes. A manobra inalatória foi quantificada por escores, e uma técnica satisfatória foi definida por uma pontuação superior a 7 (máximo, 9) para o uso de ID e superior a 4 (máximo, 5) para o uso de IPS. RESULTADOS: Concluíram o estudo 28 pacientes no grupo estudo e 27 no grupo controle, dos quais 18 (64,3%) e 20 (74,7%), respectivamente, foram classificados como aderentes. Houve um aumento nas medianas dos escores do uso de ID entre a primeira e a terceira visitas tanto no grupo estudo quanto no grupo controle (de 3 [variação, 0-5] para 8 [variação, 8-9]; p < 0,001; e de 5 [variação, 2-6] para 7 [variação, 6-8]), assim como nas medianas dos escores do uso de DPS (de 3 [variação, 2-4] para 5 [variação, 4-5]; e de 3 [variação, 2-4] para 5 [variação, 4-5]). CONCLUSÕES: A orientação fornecida pelo farmacêutico ao paciente foi importante para auxiliar na adequada realização da técnica inalatória, principalmente quanto ao uso de IDs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment compliance and use of inhaled medications of patients with asthma receiving complementary pharmaceutical care. METHODS: A controlled prospective parallel study involving a study group and a control group. We selected 60 patients with persistent asthma and using metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs) or both. The patients were evaluated three times over 60 days. Instructions were provided to the patients in the study group at all visits but only at the first visit to those in the control group. The patients using < 80% or > 120% of the total number of prescribed doses were classified as noncompliant. The inhalation technique was quantified by a scoring system. A satisfactory technique was defined as a score higher than 7 (maximum, 9) for MDIs and higher than 4 (maximum, 5) for DPIs. RESULTS: The final study sample comprised 28 study group patients and 27 control group patients, of whom 18 (64.3%) and 20 (74.7%), respectively, were considered treatment compliant. From the first to the third visits, there were increases, in the study and control groups, in the median MDI-use score (from 3 [range, 0-5] to 8 [range, 8-9]; p < 0.001; and from 5 [range, 2-6] to 7 [range, 6-8]), as well as in the median DPI-use score (from 3 [range, 2-4] to 5 [range, 4-5] and from 3 [range, 2-4] to 4 [range, 3-5]). CONCLUSIONS: The counseling provided by the pharmacist to the patient was important to assist in the implementation of the appropriate inhalation technique, especially for MDI use.

AIMS: Pandemics impose large demands on the health care system. The supply of appropriate chemotherapeutic agents, namely oseltamivir solution, presented a serious challenge in the recent influenza pandemic. This study reports on the rational series of pharmacotechnical steps that were followed to appropriately handle bulk oseltamivir powder to meet the increased demand. METHODS: During a six-week period in August and September of 2009, a task force was created in the Central Pharmacy of Hospital das Clínicas to convert imported oseltamivir phosphate into ready-to-use solution for utilization by physicians and public health authorities. The protocol included dissolution, physico-chemical tests and the bottling of a liquid microdose formulation for emergency room and outpatient dispensing with adequate quality control during all phases. RESULTS: The successful production routine was based on a specially designed flowchart according to which a batch of 33210 g of oseltamivir powder was converted into 32175 solution units during the aforementioned period with a net loss of only 2.6%. The end products were bottles containing 50 ml of 15 mg/mL oseltamivir solution. The measured concentration was stable and accurate (97.5% - 102.0% of the nominal value). The drug was prescribed as both a prophylactic and therapeutic agent. DISCUSSION: Hospital pharmacies are conventionally engaged in the manipulation of medical prescriptions and specialty drugs. They are generally responsible for only small-scale equipment used for manufacturing and quality-control procedures. The compounding of oseltamivir was a unique effort dictated by exceptional circumstances. CONCLUSION: The shortage of oseltamivir solution for clinical use was solved by emergency operationalization of a semi-industrial process in which bulk powder was converted into practical vials for prompt delivery.