Comparing COPD treatment: nebulizer, metered dose inhaler, and concomitant therapy

A nanotechnology driven effectual localized lung cancer targeting approaches using tyrosine kinases inhibitors: Recent progress, preclinical assessment, challenges, and future perspectives

The higher incidence and mortality rate among all populations worldwide explains the unmet solutions in the treatment of lung cancer. The evolution of targeted therapies using TKI has encouraged anticancer therapies. However, on-target and off-target effects and the development of drug resistance limited the anticancer potential of such targeted biologics. The advances in nanotechnology-driven-TKI embedded carriers offered a new path toward lung cancer treatment. It is the inhalation route of administration known for its specific, precise, and efficient drug delivery to the lungs. The development of numerous TKI-nanocarriers through inhalation is proof of TKI growth. The future scopes involve using potential lung cancer biomarkers to achieve localized active cancer-targeting strategies. The adequate knowledge of in vitro absorption models usually helps establish better in vitro - in vivo correlation/extrapolation (IVIVC/E) to successfully evaluate inhalable drugs and drug products. The advanced in vitro and ex vivo lung tissue/ organ models offered better tumor heterogeneity, etiology, and microenvironment heterogeneity. The involvement of LCO, human organ chip models, and GEMMs has resolved the challenges associated with conventional in vitro and in vivo models. To access potential inhalation-based drug-based therapies, biological barriers, drug delivery, device-based challenges, and regulatory challenges must be encountered associated with their development. A proper understanding of material toxicity, size-based particle deposition at active disease sites, mucociliary clearance, phagocytosis, and the presence of enzymes and surfactants are required to achieve successful IDD. This article summarizes the future of lung cancer therapy using targeted drug-mediated inhalation using TKI.

A Retrospective Review of an Inhaler to Nebulizer Therapeutic Interchange Program Across a Health System

Background: The hospitals of the Saint Alphonsus Health System (SAHS) have implemented a metered dose inhaler (MDI) to nebulization therapeutic interchange program in which all orders for albuterol/ipratropium and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonists (ICS/LABA) MDIs are therapeutically interchanged to nebulizers by pharmacy. Objectives: The primary outcome measure is to assess the percent of albuterol/ipratropium and ICS/LABA inhalers therapeutically interchanged to nebulized solutions. Secondary outcomes include assessment of readmission rates, the percentage of patients discharged with the appropriate MDI, and a financial analysis of the implementation of the therapeutic interchange program. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study was approved by the system's institutional review board and conducted between October 15, 2019, and February 15, 2020. Adult patients with history of asthma or COPD admitted to one of the SAHS hosptials with an order placed for ipratropium/albuterol, fluticasone/salmeterol, mometasone/formoterol, or budesonide/formoterol MDIs were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they were presumed to have or tested positive for COVID-19. Results: Therapeutic interchanges were successfully completed in 94.3% of the orders included in this evaluation. Discharge discrepancies occurred in 14.3% of orders assessed. No correlation was found between discharge discrepancies and 30-day readmissions. The MDI to nebulized solution interchanges saved $13,908.16 in medication cost in the sample population. Conclusion: The first phase of implementing the SAHS inhaler to nebulizer therapeutic interchange program was operationally and clinically successful. The program is projected to continue to reduce medication waste and provide cost savings for the health system.

The emerging role of nebulization for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at home

Inhalation therapy is the cornerstone of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. However, for many COPD patients who are managed at home, nebulization therapy offers an effective alternative treatment and fulfills the gap of catering to the specific population of patients who are unable to use handheld inhaler devices appropriately. The present review highlights key aspects, namely selection of the right beneficiaries for home nebulization, available drugs in nebulized formulations for the treatment of COPD, and the importance of care, cleaning, and maintenance, which are prerequisites for ensuring successful nebulization therapy.

Maintenance Therapy with Nebulizers in Patients with Stable COPD: Need for Reevaluation

Patients with stable COPD rely heavily on inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids to control symptoms, maximize quality of life, and avoid exacerbations and costly hospitalizations. These drugs are typically delivered by hand-held inhalers or nebulizers. The majority of patients are prescribed inhalers due to their perceived convenience, portability, and lower cost, relative to nebulizers. Unfortunately, poor inhaler technique compromises symptom relief in most of these patients. In contrast to one or two puffs through an inhaler, nebulizers deliver a drug over many breaths, through tidal breathing, and hence are more forgiving to poor inhalation technique. To what extent susceptibility to errors in their use may influence the relative effectiveness of these two types of inhalation device has received little attention in COPD research. In 2005, a systematic review of the literature concluded that nebulizers and inhalers are equally effective in patients who are adequately trained to use their inhalation device. This conclusion was based on two small clinical trials that only examined objective measures of lung function. Since then, additional studies have found that maintenance therapy administered by nebulizers could improve patients' reported feelings of symptom relief, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment, compared to therapy administered by inhalers. Because it has been 15 years since the publication of the systematic review, in this article we summarize the results of studies that compared the effectiveness of inhalers with that of nebulizers in patients with stable COPD and discuss their implications for clinical practice and need for future research.

Evaluation of systemic absorption and bronchodilator effect of glycopyrronium bromide delivered by nebulizer or a dry powder inhaler in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Effective bronchodilator therapy depends upon adequate drug deposition in the lung. COPD patients who are unable to administer medications efficiently with conventional inhalers may benefit from the use of a nebulizer device. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic bioavailability and bronchodilator response of glycopyrronium bromide (GLY) administered by a novel nebulizer (eFlow® closed system [CS] vibrating membrane nebulizer) or dry powder inhaler (DPI) in subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, five-way crossover study, subjects received a sequence of either 50 μg GLY delivered by eFlow CS nebulizer (GLY/eFlow) or 63 μg GLY delivered by DPI (GLY/DPI), with and without activated charcoal, followed by intravenous infusion of 50 μg GLY with a washout period of 7 days between doses. Endpoints included plasma pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy.

Results

The mean (± SD) baseline predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of the 30 subjects who completed the study was 51 ± 15%, with a FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of 50 ± 11%. Without charcoal, the absolute systemic bioavailability of GLY/eFlow and GLY/DPI were approximately 15 and 22%, respectively. Changes from baseline in FEV₁ at 60 min post-dose, without administration of charcoal, were 0.180 L and 0.220 L for GLY/eFlow and GLY/DPI, respectively; FEV₁ improvements were similar when charcoal was administered (0.220 L for both GLY/eFlow and GLY/DPI). There were no significant differences in spirometry between the two devices. Fewer subjects administered GLY/eFlow reported adverse events (n = 15) than GLY/DPI (n = 18).

Conclusions

After single doses, GLY/DPI delivered numerically higher peak and steady state levels of drug than did GLY/eFlow. Nebulized GLY produced similar bronchodilation but lower systemic levels of drug than GLY/DPI. Slightly higher number of subjects reported adverse events with GLY/DPI than with GLY/eFlow. Nebulized GLY may offer an effective alternative to patients with COPD not adequately treated with other devices.

Trial registration

NCT02512302 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered 28 May 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1113-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

DPI formulations for high dose applications - Challenges and opportunities

This opinion piece gives reasons for high dose DPI applications, points out challenges and shows opportunities and possible solutions for high dose DPI. This piece of work shall set the stage for more in-depth reviews of state of the art and research papers addressing the challenges of high dose DPI which shall be included in the special issue of IJP.

Do not do in COPD: consensus statement on overuse

Background

To identify practices that do not add value, cause harm, or subject patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to a level of risk that outweighs possible benefits (overuse).

Methods

A qualitative approach was applied. First, a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals used the Metaplan technique to draft and rank a list of overused procedures as well as self-care practices in patients with stable and exacerbated COPD. Second, in successive consensus-building rounds, description files were created for each "do not do" (DND) recommendation, consisting of a definition, description, quality of supporting evidence for the recommendation, and the indicator used to measure the degree of overuse. The consensus group comprised 6 pulmonologists, 2 general practitioners, 1 nurse, and 1 physiotherapist.

Results

In total, 16 DND recommendations were made for patients with COPD: 6 for stable COPD, 6 for exacerbated COPD, and 4 concerning self-care.

Conclusion

Overuse poses a risk for patients and jeopardizes care quality. These 16 DND recommendations for COPD will lower care risks and improve disease management, facilitate communication between physicians and patients, and bolster patient ability to provide self-care.

A review of nebulized drug delivery in COPD

Current guidelines recommend inhaled pharmacologic therapy as the preferred route of administration for treating COPD. Bronchodilators (β₂-agonists and antimuscarinics) are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy in patients with COPD, with long-acting agents recommended for patients with moderate to severe symptoms or those who are at a higher risk for COPD exacerbations. Dry powder inhalers and pressurized metered dose inhalers are the most commonly used drug delivery devices, but they may be inadequate in various clinical scenarios (eg, the elderly, the cognitively impaired, and hospitalized patients). As more drugs become available in solution formulations, patients with COPD and their caregivers are becoming increasingly satisfied with nebulized drug delivery, which provides benefits similar to drugs delivered by handheld inhalers in both symptom relief and improved quality of life. This article reviews recent innovations in nebulized drug delivery and the important role of nebulized therapy in the treatment of COPD.

Inhaler technique: facts and fantasies. A view from the Aerosol Drug Management Improvement Team (ADMIT)

Health professionals tasked with advising patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) how to use inhaler devices properly and what to do about unwanted effects will be aware of a variety of commonly held precepts. The evidence for many of these is, however, lacking or old and therefore in need of re-examination. Few would disagree that facilitating and encouraging regular and proper use of inhaler devices for the treatment of asthma and COPD is critical for successful outcomes. It seems logical that the abandonment of unnecessary or ill-founded practices forms an integral part of this process: the use of inhalers is bewildering enough, particularly with regular introduction of new drugs, devices and ancillary equipment, without unnecessary and pointless adages. We review the evidence, or lack thereof, underlying ten items of inhaler ‘lore’ commonly passed on by health professionals to each other and thence to patients. The exercise is intended as a pragmatic, evidence-informed review by a group of clinicians with appropriate experience. It is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the literature; rather, we aim to stimulate debate, and to encourage researchers to challenge some of these ideas and to provide new, updated evidence on which to base relevant, meaningful advice in the future. The discussion on each item is followed by a formal, expert opinion by members of the ADMIT Working Group.

Review of drug safety and efficacy of arformoterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease guidelines recommend maintenance therapy using long-acting bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have daily symptoms. Arformoterol is the (R, R) - enantiomer of the racemic formoterol and is more potent than (R, R/ S, S) - formoterol.

AREAS COVERED

Currently, arformoterol is one of two nebulized long-acting β-agonists on the market. It has a low incidence of cardiovascular side effects with incidence of arrhythmia and ischemia similar to placebo. β-adrenergic adverse effects are infrequent, numerically lower than formoterol, but have a quicker onset of action than salmeterol. There was no observed clinical tolerance over 12 months. arformoterol is safe in combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, tiotropium and rescue inhalers. A 12-month Phase IV trial found no increased risk of respiratory death or COPD exacerbation-related hospitalizations. arformoterol can potentially benefit patients with hyperinflation and low inspiratory flow rates.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of the centers for medicare and medicaid services penalization for COPD readmissions may boost the appeal of long-acting bronchodilators as new discharge medications. With the advent of ultra long-acting bronchodilators, its potential as a once daily agent in isolation or combination with these new therapies needs further study.

Inhaler devices for patients with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continues to be associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk in spite of updated guidelines and a better understanding of this condition. Progressive airflow limitation and resultant hyperinflation-the respiratory hallmarks of this complex and often under-diagnosed disease-can be treated with pharmacotherapies emitted via nebulizers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, or a Soft Mist inhaler. Pharmaceutical company proprietary issues, technological innovations, and societal pressure have expanded the list of available inhalers, with a limited range of medications available for any one device. Each device has different operating and maintenance instructions, and successful use of a given drug/device combination requires that patients understand, maintain, and use each of their devices properly in order to ensure consistent and optimal pulmonary drug delivery. Clinicians are faced with a range of physical and psychosocial issues unique to each patient with COPD that must be overcome in order to match a suitable inhaler to the individual. Improved drug delivery afforded by next-generation inhalers, coupled with an awareness of device-specific and patient-specific variables affecting inhaler use, may improve clinical outcomes in the treatment of COPD.

Albuterol and levalbuterol use and spending in Medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The evidence for the benefits of branded levalbuterol over generic albuterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is inconclusive. However, there are significant cost differences between these products.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined use and spending on albuterol and levalbuterol in a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries with COPD enrolled in Part D in 2006. It also examined differences in patient characteristics and use of other COPD drugs among recipients of these 2 short-acting β-agonists.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 5% Medicare files for 2005-2006 linked to the 2006 Medicare Part D files. The sample consisted of all fee-for-service beneficiaries with COPD enrolled in stand-alone Part D plans in 2006. Patient characteristics and other COPD medication use were compared across albuterol-only users, levalbuterol-only users, and users of both albuterol and levalbuterol. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify factors independently associated with levalbuterol use.

RESULTS

There were 5.5 times more albuterol users than levalbuterol users in 2006; however, mean annual spending on levalbuterol was 18.6 times higher per user in 2006 than spending on albuterol ($1876 vs $101 per user, respectively). Levalbuterol-only users were more likely to be older than albuterol-only users (mean age: 71.5 vs 68.7 years; P < 0.05), as well as sicker (mean prescription drug hierarchical condition category score: 1.72 vs 1.55; P < 0.05) and residing in the South (67.9% vs 41.6%; P < 0.05). Levalbuterol-only users were more likely to use nebulizer forms covered under Part B than inhaler forms covered under Part D (78.6% vs 26.8%, respectively; P < 0.05), whereas albuterol-only users were more likely to use inhaler forms covered under Part D than nebulizer forms covered under Part B (82.2% vs 33.0%, respectively; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of Medicare beneficiaries with COPD enrolled in Part D, mean annual spending in 2006 was significantly higher for levalbuterol than for albuterol. The differences between levalbuterol and albuterol users in terms of patient characteristics, geographic region, and drug formulation/device type, coupled with the inconclusive evidence for efficacy differences in the literature, highlight the need for further comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of these agents.

Nebulized formoterol: a review of clinical efficacy and safety in COPD

A nebulized formulation of formoterol, Perforomist^®, 20 μg/2 ml, has been available since 2007 for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We review the safety and efficacy data obtained during its development. In a dose-finding study, formoterol inhalation solution (FFIS) was similar to the formoterol originator, Foradil^® 12 μg DPI (FA) in patients with COPD. In a 12-week efficacy study, FFIS manifested a rapid onset of action and FEV₁ peak, AUC_0–12, and trough levels similar to FA. No loss of efficacy, tachyphylaxis, was observed over 12 weeks of regular administration. In placebo-controlled studies in COPD patients receiving maintenance tiotropium, the addition of FFIS significantly augmented bronchodilation over the 6-week treatment duration, signifying that nebulized formoterol can further improve lung function in patients who are receiving tiotropium without an observed increase in adverse reactions. The safety profile of FFIS during 12-week and 1-year studies revealed adverse events that were similar to those of placebo and FA. Cardiac rhythm studies, including frequent ECGs and Holter monitoring, did not indicate any increase in rate or rhythm disturbances greater than placebo or FA. We conclude that maintenance use of Perforomist^® is appropriate for patients with COPD who require or prefer a nebulizer for management of their disease.

Nebulized formoterol provides added benefits to tiotropium treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The use of one or more long-acting bronchodilators is key in the maintenance therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis pooled the results of two double-blind studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (FFIS) to maintenance tiotropium (TIO) treatment.

METHODS

Following a run-in period of 7-14 days with once-daily TIO 18 microg, COPD subjects (> or =25% to <65% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)]) were randomized to twice-daily FFIS 20 microg (n=145) or nebulized placebo (PLA, n=140) while continuing on maintenance TIO for 6 weeks. Efficacy was measured using serial spirometry, transition dyspnea index (TDI), rescue albuterol use, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).

RESULTS

The mean standardized area under the curve for FEV(1) over 3 hours (FEV(1)AUC(0-3)), the primary efficacy variable, was significantly higher in the FFIS/TIO group than the PLA/TIO group on day 1 (140 mL difference, P<0.0001) and week 6 (192 mL difference, P<0.0001). Mean TDI scores in the FFIS/TIO and PLA/TIO groups were 1.97 and 0.67, respectively (P=0.0001). Mean albuterol use declined in the FFIS/TIO group from 2.6 to 1.5 puffs/day compared with little change in the PLA/TIO group (P<0.0001). SGRQ scores were similar between treatment groups with the exception of the symptoms score, which improved in the FFIS/TIO group (-5.8) compared with PLA/TIO (-1.0), and more FFIS/TIO-treated subjects experienced a clinically significant improvement in total SGRQ score. More PLA/TIO-treated subjects than FFIS/TIO-treated subjects experienced adverse events (AEs) (45.7% vs. 31.0%) and COPD exacerbations (7.9% vs. 3.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of FFIS to maintenance TIO treatment for moderate to severe COPD results in significantly improved FEV(1) and dyspnea, decreased rescue medication use, and a lower incidence of AEs and COPD exacerbations. The addition of FFIS to TIO yields clinically and statistically significant benefits for COPD patients and might be of long-term benefit.

Medication adherence issues in patients treated for COPD

Although medical treatment of COPD has advanced, nonadherence to medication regimens poses a significant barrier to optimal management. Underuse, overuse, and improper use continue to be the most common causes of poor adherence to therapy. An average of 40%–60% of patients with COPD adheres to the prescribed regimen and only 1 out of 10 patients with a metered dose inhaler performs all essential steps correctly. Adherence to therapy is multifactorial and involves both the patient and the primary care provider. The effect of patient instruction on inhaler adherence and rescue medication utilization in patients with COPD does not seem to parallel the good results reported in patients with asthma. While use of a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medications and improve efficacy, pharmacoeconomic factors may influence patient’s selection of both the device and the regimen. Patient’s health beliefs, experiences, and behaviors play a significant role in adherence to pharmacological therapy. This manuscript reviews important aspects associated with medication adherence in patients with COPD and identifies some predictors of poor adherence.

Efficacy and safety of formoterol fumarate delivered by nebulization to COPD patients

Nebulized solutions of long-acting bronchodilators provide an alternative to DPI and MDI delivery, particularly for COPD patients unable to use hand-held devices easily or correctly. The long-acting beta2-agonist, formoterol fumarate, is differentiated by its onset of significant bronchodilation within 5 min of administration. In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, COPD subjects (n=351, mean forced expiratory volume FEV1=1.3 L, 44% predicted) received nebulized formoterol fumarate (Perforomist inhalation solution; FFIS 20 microg) or DPI (Foradil Aerolizer; FA 12 microg), or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with 12-h pulmonary function tests, and quality of life was assessed before and after treatment with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). At the 12-week endpoint, FFIS significantly increased FEV1 AUC0-12h relative to placebo (p<0.0001). No evidence of tachyphylaxis was observed as indicated by maintained FEV1 AUC and reduced rescue albuterol use throughout treatment. FFIS also significantly increased peak FEV1, trough FEV1, and standardized FVC AUC0-12h compared with placebo. SGRQ assessment at Week 12 demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvements in total score (FFIS vs placebo, -4.9, p=0.0067), symptom, and impact scores. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two active treatments. Drug related AEs in the FFIS arm with a frequency > or = 1% and exceeding placebo were dry mouth, nausea, and insomnia. Nebulized FFIS provided significant improvement in respiratory status and quality of life in subjects with COPD relative to placebo and was well tolerated. The efficacy and safety profile of FFIS was comparable to FA DPI.

Concomitant treatment with nebulized formoterol and tiotropium in subjects with COPD: a placebo-controlled trial

Adding a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) by dry powder inhaler (DPI) to tiotropium provides significantly increased and sustained bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients over either product alone. To demonstrate similar benefits with a nebulized LABA, a placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of formoterol fumarate inhalation solution in subjects receiving tiotropium as a maintenance treatment for COPD. After a 7-14-day screening period using tiotropium 18 microg once daily, subjects with diagnosed COPD (> or = 25% to <65% predicted FEV(1)) were randomized to receive 20 microg formoterol fumarate inhalation solution twice daily for nebulization plus tiotropium (FFIS/TIO) or nebulized placebo twice daily plus tiotropium (PLA/TIO) for 6 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with spirometry at each visit (Day 1, Week 1, 3, 6), the transition dyspnea index (TDI), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Baseline characteristics were comparable, including mean FEV(1)% predicted. At Week 6, FEV(1) AUC(0-3) was 1.52 L for FFIS/TIO-treated subjects vs. 1.34 L for PLA/TIO-treated subjects (p<0.0001). The mean TDI scores in the FFIS/TIO and PLA/TIO groups were 2.30 and 0.16, respectively (p=0.0002). SGRQ did not change significantly with 6 weeks treatment, with the exception of FFIS/TIO improvements in symptom score vs. PLA/TIO (p=0.04). More PLA/TIO- than FFIS/TIO-treated subjects experienced AEs (39.7% vs. 22.9%), COPD exacerbations (7.9% vs. 4.5%), and serious AEs (3.2% vs. 1.5%). Nebulized formoterol fumarate in combination with tiotropium provided statistically and clinically significant improvements in bronchodilation and symptom control over tiotropium alone and demonstrated good tolerability.