Ability of using different dry powder inhalers during COPD exacerbations

High inhaler resistance does not limit successful inspiratory maneuver among patients with asthma or COPD

INTRODUCTION

There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.

AREAS COVERED

For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.

Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD—A Systematic Scoping Review

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients.

Management of severe acute exacerbations of COPD: an updated narrative review

Background

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may experience an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms that results in additional therapy; this event is defined as a COPD exacerbation (AECOPD). Hospitalization for AECOPD is accompanied by a rapid decline in health status with a high risk of mortality or other negative outcomes such as need for endotracheal intubation or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Treatments for AECOPD aim to minimize the negative impact of the current exacerbation and to prevent subsequent events, such as relapse or readmission to hospital.

Main body

In this narrative review, we update the scientific evidence about the in-hospital pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used in the management of a severe AECOPD. We review inhaled bronchodilators, steroids, and antibiotics for the pharmacological approach, and oxygen, high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) oxygen therapy, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) as non-pharmacological treatments. We also review some studies of non-conventional drugs that have been proposed for severe AECOPD.

Conclusion

Several treatments exist for severe AECOPD patients requiring hospitalization. Some treatments such as steroids and NIMV (in patients admitted with a hypercapnic acute respiratory failure and respiratory acidosis) are supported by strong evidence of their efficacy. HFNC oxygen therapy needs further prospective studies. Although antibiotics are preferred in ICU patients, there is a lack of evidence regarding the preferred drugs and optimal duration of treatment for non-ICU patients. Early rehabilitation, if associated with standard treatment of patients, is recommended due to its feasibility and safety. There are currently few promising new drugs or new applications of existing drugs.