Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be prevented by inhaled treatment. Errors in inhaler handling, not taken into account in clinical trials, could impact drug delivery and minimise treatment benefit. We aimed to assess real-life inhaler device handling in COPD patients and its association with COPD exacerbations.To this end, 212 general practitioners and 50 pulmonologists assessed the handling of 3393 devices used for continuous treatment of COPD in 2935 patients. Handling errors were observed in over 50% of handlings, regardless of the device used. Critical errors compromising drug delivery were respectively made in 15.4%, 21.2%, 29.3%, 43.8%, 46.9% and 32.1% of inhalation assessment tests with Breezhaler® (n=876), Diskus® (n=452), Handihaler® (n=598), pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (n=422), Respimat® (n=625) and Turbuhaler® (n=420).The proportion of patients requiring hospitalisation or emergency room visits in the past 3 months for severe COPD exacerbation was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0–4.5) in the absence of error and 6.9% (95% CI 5.3–8.5) in the presence of critical error (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14–3.04, p<0.05).Handling errors of inhaler devices are underestimated in real life and are associated with an increased rate of severe COPD exacerbation. Training in inhaler use is an integral part of COPD management.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen have a long history of safe and effective use as both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics/antipyretics. The mechanism of action of all NSAIDs is through reversible inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) including gastrointestinal bleeding as well as cardiovascular and renal effects have been reported with NSAID use. In many cases, ADRs may occur because of drug–drug interactions (DDIs) between the NSAID and a concomitant medication. For example, DDIs have been reported when NSAIDs are coadministered with aspirin, alcohol, some antihypertensives, antidepressants, and other commonly used medications. Because of the pharmacologic nature of these interactions, there is a continuum of risk in that the potential for an ADR is dependent on total drug exposure. Therefore, consideration of dose and duration of NSAID use, as well as the type or class of comedication administered, is important when assessing potential risk for ADRs. Safety findings from clinical studies evaluating prescription-strength NSAIDs may not be directly applicable to OTC dosing. Health care providers can be instrumental in educating patients that using OTC NSAIDs at the lowest effective dose for the shortest required duration is vital to balancing efficacy and safety. This review discusses some of the most clinically relevant DDIs reported with NSAIDs based on major sites of ADRs and classes of medication, with a focus on OTC ibuprofen, for which the most data are available.

The use of Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) as secondary endpoints in the development of new antidepressants has grown in recent years. The objective of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item, patient-administered version of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S). Data from a multicentre, double-blind, 8-week, randomised controlled trial of 278 outpatients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder were used to evaluate the validity, reliability and sensitivity to change of the MADRS-S using psychometric methods. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to identify the most appropriate threshold to define perceived remission. No missing values were found at the item level, indicating good acceptability of the scale. The construct validity was satisfactory: all items contributed to a common underlying concept, as expected. The correlation between MADRS-S and physicians' MADRS was moderate (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) indicating that MADRS-S is complementary rather than redundant to the MADRS. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84, and the stability over time of the scale, estimated on a sub-sample of patients whose health status did not change during the first week of the study, was good (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.78). MADRS-S sensitivity to change was shown. Using a threshold value of 5, the definition of "perceived remission" reached a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 75%. Taking account of patient's perceptions of the severity of their own symptoms along with the psychometric properties of the MADRS-S enable its use for evaluative purposes in the development of new antidepressant drugs.

Pre-clinical studies, active-control clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate that escitalopram (S-citalopram) might be more effective than citalopram, the racemic mixture of S- and R-citalopram. The present study aimed to confirm the superior efficacy of escitalopram over citalopram. A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed in which general practitioners and psychiatrists compared fixed doses of escitalopram (20 mg/day) with citalopram (40 mg/day) over 8 weeks in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) [baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score > or =30]. Primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to last assessment in the MADRS total score. Out of 138 (aged 44.1+/-10.9 years; initial MADRS score 36.3+/-4.8) and 142 (aged 46.2+/-11.1 years; initial MADRS score 35.7+/-4.4) evaluable patients who were randomized to escitalopram and citalopram, respectively, six and 15 withdrew prematurely (P=0.05). The MADRS score decreased more in the escitalopram than in the citalopram arm (-22.4+/-12.9 versus -20.3+/-12.7; P<0.05). There were more treatment responders with escitalopram (76.1%) than with citalopram (61.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted remitter rates were 56.1% and 43.6%, respectively (P<0.05). Tolerability was similar in both groups. This randomized double-blind trial confirms that escitalopram has a superior effect to citalopram in MDD.