A mesh nebulizer is more effective than jet nebulizer to nebulize bronchodilators during non-invasive ventilation of subjects with COPD: A randomized controlled trial with radiolabeled aerosols

Polymyxin B Plus Aerosolized Colistin vs Polymyxin B Alone in Hospital-acquired Pneumonia ("AEROCOL" Study): A Feasibility Study

Introduction

In hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) due to extensively drug resistant gram-negative pathogens, can treatment with high-dose colistin aerosolization using specific aerosol delivery protocol, improve clinical outcome in addition to systemic polymyxin-B?

Materials and methods

In a randomized control trial, invasively ventilated adult ICU patients with HAP in whom clinicians decided to start systemic polypeptide antibiotics, were randomized to receive either intravenous polymyxin-B plus high-dose colistin nebulization (5-MIU 8-hourly) using specific protocol or intravenous polymyxin-B alone.

Results

The study was closed early after recruiting 60% of planned patients because of slow rate of recruitment (24 patients in over 30 months). Treatment success (Primary outcome) was nonsignificantly higher in intervention group (63.66 vs 30.77%; p = 0.217). There was higher rate of microbiological cure in intervention group (60 vs 9.09%: p = 0.018). Numerically better secondary outcomes including fever-free days, ventilator- or vasopressor free days at day-7, ICU and hospital mortality also did not reach statistical significance. Two episodes of transient hypoxia were seen during aerosol delivery. However, overall incidences of adverse effects were not different between groups.

Conclusion

This study could not confirm superiority of high-dose colistin aerosolization plus systemic polymyxin-B strategy over polymyxin-B alone in treating HAP due to extensive drug resistance (XDR) gram-negative pathogens.

How to cite this article

Ghosh S. Polymyxin B Plus Aerosolized Colistin vs Polymyxin B Alone in Hospital-acquired Pneumonia ("AEROCOL" Study): A Feasibility Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(8):792-795.

Comparison of the Application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

To comparison of the application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Research Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: The amount of inhaler in the urine sample at 30 minutes after inhalation therapy (USAL0.5), The total amount of inhaler in urine sample within 24 hours (USAL24), Aerosol emitted, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Forced vital capacity (FVC).

Results

Ten studies were included with a total of 314 study participants, including 157 subjects in the VMN group and 157 subjects in the JN group. The data analysis results of USAL0.5, MD (1.88 [95% CI, 0.95 to 2.81], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. USAL24, MD (1.61 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.09], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. The results of aerosol emitted showed a statistically significant difference in MD (3.44 [95% CI, 2.84 to 4.04], P = 0.000). The results of FEV1 showed MD (0.05 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.35], P=0.716), the results were not statistically significant. The results of FVC showed MD (0.11 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.41], P=0.459), the results were not statistically significant. It suggests that VMN is better than JN and provides higher aerosols, but there is no difference in improving lung function between them.

Conclusion

VMN is significantly better than JN in terms of drug delivery and utilization in the treatment of patients with COPD. However, in the future use of nebulizers, it is important to select a matching nebulizer based on a combination of factors such as mechanism of action of the nebulizer, disease type and comorbidities, ventilation strategies and modes, drug formulations, as well as cost-effectiveness, in order to achieve the ideal treatment of COPD.

Atomization efficacy of a novel micro-dose mesh nebulizer (CVS-100) versus the traditional mesh nebulizer (M102) in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized non-inferiority clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the atomization efficacy of a novel micro-dose mesh nebulizer (CVS-100) versus the traditional mesh nebulizer (M102) in nebulizing a combination of ipratropium bromide and salbutamol for treatment of stable moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A randomized, parallel, non-inferiority study was conducted. A total of 64 stable COPD patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group in a 1:1 ratio. Each the experimental group received nebulized Combivent (Compound Ipratropium Bromide Solution) with CVS-100, while the control group received Combivent with M102. Lung ventilation function was measured before and 30 min after nebulization, and the difference in percentage of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) of predicted value (FEV1%pred), the forced expiratory flow at 50% (FEF50%), the forced expiratory flow at 75% (FEF75%), the mid-expiratory flow (FEF25-75%), and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV) was evaluated. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at 3.5%.

RESULTS

The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in FEV1%pred between the two groups was -1.83357, which was greater than -3.5. No significant differences were found in FEF50%, FEF75%, FEF25∼75%, MVV before and after nebulization between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The novel micro-dose mesh nebulizer (CVS-100) was found to be non-inferior to the traditional mesh nebulizer (M102) in terms of the change in FEV1%pred from baseline after nebulization. Similar results were observed for all other measures of efficacy.

Prospective randomised unblinded comparison of sputum viscosity for three methods of saline nebulisation in mechanically ventilated patients: A pilot study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Heat and moisture exchanger (HME) filters are commonly used as passive circuit humidifiers during mechanical ventilation, however, are only ~80% efficient. As a result, patients that undergo mechanical ventilation in critical care with HME filter circuits will be exposed to partial airway humidification. This is associated with detrimental effects including increased secretion load which has been shown to be an independent predictor of failed extubation. Nebulised normal saline is commonly utilised to supplement circuit humidification in ventilated patients with high secretion loads, although there are no randomised control trials evaluating its use. Novel vibrating mesh nebulisers generate a fine aerosol resulting in deeper lung penetration, potentially offering a more effective means of nebulisation in comparison to jet nebulisers. The primary aim of this study is to compare the viscosity of respiratory secretions after treatment with nebulised normal saline administered via vibrating mesh nebuliser or jet nebuliser.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised controlled trial is enrolling 60 mechanically ventilated adult critical care patients breathing on HME filter circuits with high secretion loads. Recruited patients will be randomised to receive nebulised saline via 3 modalities: 1) Continuous vibrating mesh nebuliser; 2) Intermittent vibrating mesh nebuliser or 3) Intermittent jet nebuliser. Over the 72-hr study period, the patients' sputum viscosity (measured using a validated qualitative sputum assessment tool) and physiological parameters will be recorded by an unblinded assessor. A median reduction in secretion viscosity of ≥0.5 on the qualitative sputum assessment score will be deemed as a clinically significant improvement between treatment groups at analysis.

DISCUSSION

At the conclusion of this trial, we will provisionally determine if nebulised normal saline administered via vibrating mesh nebulisation is superior to traditional jet nebulisation in terms of reduced respiratory secretion viscosity in intubated patients. Results from this pilot study will provide information to power a definitive clinical study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrails.Gov Registry (NCT05635903).

Impact of gas humidification and nebulizer position under invasive ventilation: preclinical comparative study of regional aerosol deposition

Successful aerosol therapy in mechanically ventilated patients depends on multiple factors. Among these, position of nebulizer in ventilator circuit and humidification of inhaled gases can strongly influence the amount of drug deposited in airways. Indeed, the main objective was to preclinically evaluate impact of gas humidification and nebulizer position during invasive mechanical ventilation on whole lung and regional aerosol deposition and losses. Ex vivo porcine respiratory tracts were ventilated in controlled volumetric mode. Two conditions of relative humidity and temperature of inhaled gases were investigated. For each condition, four different positions of vibrating mesh nebulizer were studied: (i) next to the ventilator, (ii) right before humidifier, (iii) 15 cm to the Y-piece adapter and (iv) right after the Y-piece. Aerosol size distribution were calculated using cascade impactor. Nebulized dose, lung regional deposition and losses were assessed by scintigraphy using 99mtechnetium-labeled diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid. Mean nebulized dose was 95% ± 6%. For dry conditions, the mean respiratory tract deposited fractions reached 18% (± 4%) next to ventilator and 53% (± 4%) for proximal position. For humidified conditions, it reached 25% (± 3%) prior humidifier, 57% (± 8%) before Y-piece and 43% (± 11%) after this latter. Optimal nebulizer position is proximal before the Y-piece adapter showing a more than two-fold higher lung dose than positions next to the ventilator. Dry conditions are more likely to cause peripheral deposition of aerosols in the lungs. But gas humidification appears hard to interrupt efficiently and safely in clinical use. Considering the impact of optimized positioning, this study argues to maintain humidification.

Low-dose intrapulmonary drug delivery device for studies on next-generation therapeutics in mice

Although nebulizers have been developed for delivery of small molecules in human patients, no tunable device has been purpose-built for targeted delivery of modern large molecule and temperature-sensitive therapeutics to mice. Mice are used most of all species in biomedical research and have the highest number of induced models for human-relevant diseases and transgene models. Regulatory approval of large molecule therapeutics, including antibody therapies and modified RNA highlight the need for quantifiable dose delivery in mice to model human delivery, proof-of-concept studies, efficacy, and dose-response. To this end, we developed and characterized a tunable nebulization system composed of an ultrasonic transducer equipped with a mesh nebulizer fitted with a silicone restrictor plate modification to control the nebulization rate. We have identified the elements of design that influence the most critical factors to targeted delivery to the deep lungs of BALB/c mice. By comparing an in silico model of the mouse lung with experimental data, we were able to optimize and confirm the targeted delivery of over 99% of the initial volume to the deep portions of the mouse lung. The resulting nebulizer system provides targeted lung delivery efficiency far exceeding conventional nebulizers preventing waste of expensive biologics and large molecules during proof-of-concept and pre-clinical experiments involving mice. (Word Count =207).

Effect of Nebuliser and Patient Interface Type on Fugitive Medical Aerosol Emissions in Adult and Paediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Open circuit aerosol therapy is associated with the potential for fugitive emissions of medical aerosol. Various nebulisers and interfaces are used in respiratory treatments, including the recent consideration of filtered interfaces. This study aims to quantify fugitive medical aerosols from various nebuliser types, in conjunction with different filtered and non-filtered interfaces.

METHODS

For both simulated adult and paediatric breathing, four nebuliser types were assessed including; a small volume jet nebuliser (SVN), a breath enhanced jet nebuliser (BEN), a breath actuated jet nebuliser (BAN) and a vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN). A combination of different interfaces were used including filtered and unfiltered mouthpieces, as well as open, valved and filtered facemasks. Aerosol mass concentrations were measured using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer at 0.8 m and 2.0 m. Additionally, inhaled dose was assessed.

RESULTS

Highest mass concentrations recorded were 214 (177, 262) µg m^-3 at 0.8 m over 45-minute run. The highest and lowest fugitive emissions were observed for the adult SVN facemask combination, and the adult BAN filtered mouthpiece combination respectively. Fugitive emissions decreased when using breath-actuated (BA) mode compared to continuous (CN) mode on the BAN for the adult and paediatric mouthpiece combination. Lower fugitive emissions were observed when a filtered facemask or mouthpiece was used, compared to unfiltered scenarios. For the simulated adult, highest and lowest inhaled dose were 45.1 (42.6, 45.6)% and 11.0 (10.1,11.9)% for the VMN and SVN respectively. For the simulated paediatric, highest and lowest inhaled dose were 44.0 (42.4, 44.8)% and 6.1 (5.9, 7.0)% for the VMN and BAN CN respectively. Potential inhalation exposure of albuterol was calculated to be up to 0.11 µg and 0.12 µg for a bystander and healthcare worker respectively.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates the need for filtered interfaces in clinical and homecare settings to minimise fugitive emissions and to reduce the risk of secondary exposure to care givers.

Not all nebulizers are created equal: Considerations in choosing a nebulizer for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation

INTRODUCTION

Aerosol therapy is commonly prescribed in the mechanically ventilated patient. Jet nebulizers (JN) and vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN) are the most common nebulizer types, however, despite VMN's well established superior performance, JN use remains the most commonly used of the two. In this review, we describe the key differentiators between nebulizer types and how considered selection of nebulizer type may enable successful therapy and the optimization of drug/device combination products.

AREAS COVERED

Following a review of the published literature up to February 2023, the current state of the art in relation to JN and VMN is discussed under the headings of in vitro performance of nebulizers during mechanical ventilation, respective compatibility with formulations for inhalation, clinical trials making use of VMN during mechanical ventilation, distribution of nebulized aerosol throughout the lung, measuring the respective performance of nebulizers in the patient and non-drug delivery considerations in nebulizer choice.

EXPERT OPINION

Whether for standard care, or the development of drug/device combination products, the choice of nebulizer type should not be made without consideration of the unique needs of the combination of each of drug, disease and patient types, as well as target site for deposition, and healthcare professional and patient safety.

Delivery technology of inhaled therapy for asthma and COPD

Inhaled therapy is the cornerstone of the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Drugs such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are administered directly to the airways for local effect and rapid onset of action while systemic exposure and side effects are minimized. There are four major types of inhaler devices used clinically to generate aerosols for inhalation, namely, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), nebulizers, Soft Mist™ inhalers (SMIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Each of them has its own unique characteristics that can target different patient groups. For instance, patients' inhaler technique is critical for pMDIs and SMIs to achieve proper drug deposition in the lung, which could be challenging for some patients. Nebulizers are designed to deliver aerosols to patients during tidal breathing, but they require electricity to operate and are less portable than other devices. DPIs are the only device that delivers aerosols in dry powder form with better stability, but they rely on patients' inspiration effort for powder dispersion, rendering them unsuitable for patients with compromised lung function. Choosing a device that can cater for the need of individual patient is paramount for effective inhaled therapy. This chapter provides an overview of inhaled therapy for the management of asthma and COPD. The operation principles, merits and limitations of different delivery technologies are examined. Looking ahead, the challenges of delivering novel therapeutics such as biologics through the pulmonary route are also discussed.

Aerosolised micro and nanoparticle: formulation and delivery method for lung imaging

Purpose

The application of contrast and tracing agents is essential for lung imaging, as indicated by the wide use in recent decades and the discovery of various new contrast and tracing agents. Different aerosol production and pulmonary administration methods have been developed to improve lung imaging quality. This review details and discusses the ideal characteristics of aerosol administered via pulmonary delivery for lung imaging and the methods for the production and pulmonary administration of dry or liquid aerosol.

Methods

We explored several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, while preparing this review to discover and obtain the abstracts, reports, review articles, and research papers related to aerosol delivery for lung imaging and the formulation and pulmonary delivery method of dry and liquid aerosol. The search terms used were "dry aerosol delivery", "liquid aerosol delivery", "MRI for lung imaging", "CT scan for lung imaging", "SPECT for lung imaging", "PET for lung imaging", "magnetic particle imaging", "dry powder inhalation", "nebuliser", and "pressurised metered-dose inhaler".

Results

Through the literature review, we found that the critical considerations in aerosol delivery for lung imaging are appropriate lung deposition of inhaled aerosol and avoiding toxicity. The important tracing agent was also found to be Technetium-99m (^99mTc), Gallium-68 (⁶⁸Ga) and superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle (SPION), while the essential contrast agents are gold, iodine, silver gadolinium, iron and manganese-based particles. The pulmonary delivery of such tracing and contrast agents can be performed using dry formulation (graphite ablation, spark ignition and spray dried powder) and liquid aerosol (nebulisation, pressurised metered-dose inhalation and air spray).

Conclusion

A dual-imaging modality with the combination of different tracing or contrast agents is a future development of aerosolised micro and nanoparticles for lung imaging to improve diagnosis success.

Graphical abstract

Nuclear medicine imaging methods as novel tools in the assessment of pulmonary drug disposition

INTRODUCTION

Drugs for the treatment of respiratory diseases are commonly administered by oral inhalation. Yet surprisingly little is known about the pulmonary pharmacokinetics of inhaled molecules. Nuclear medicine imaging techniques (i.e. planar gamma scintigraphy, single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT] and positron emission tomography [PET]) enable the noninvasive dynamic measurement of the lung concentrations of radiolabeled drugs or drug formulations. This review discusses the potential of nuclear medicine imaging techniques in inhalation biopharmaceutical research.

AREAS COVERED

(i) Planar gamma scintigraphy studies with radiolabeled inhalation formulations to assess initial pulmonary drug deposition; (ii) imaging studies with radiolabeled drugs to assess their intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics; (iii) receptor occupancy studies to quantify the pharmacodynamic effect of inhaled drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

Imaging techniques hold potential to bridge the knowledge gap between animal models and humans with respect to the pulmonary disposition of inhaled drugs. However, beyond the mere assessment of the initial lung deposition of inhaled formulations with planar gamma scintigraphy, imaging techniques have rarely been employed in pulmonary drug development. This may be related to several technical challenges encountered with such studies. Considering the wealth of information that can be obtained with imaging studies their use in inhalation biopharmaceutics should be further investigated.

Pharmacokinetic Characteristics of Nebulized Colistimethate Sodium Using Two Different Types of Nebulizers in Critically Ill Patients with Ventilator-Associated Respiratory Infections

Background: Rising antimicrobial resistance has led to a revived interest in inhaled colistin treatment in the critically ill patient with ventilator-associated respiratory infection (VARI). Nebulization via vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) is considered the current standard-of-care, yet the use of generic jet nebulizers (JNs) is more widespread. Few data exist on the intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics of colistin when administered through VMNs, while there is a complete paucity regarding the use of JNs. Methods: In this study, 18 VARI patients who received 2 million international units of inhaled colistimethate sodium (CMS) through a VMN were pharmacokinetically compared with six VARI patients who received the same drug dose through a JN, in the absence of systemic CMS administration. Results: Surprisingly, VMN and JN led to comparable formed colistin exposures in the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) (median (IQR) AUC0-24: 86.2 (46.0-185.9) mg/L∙h with VMN and 91.5 (78.1-110.3) mg/L∙h with JN). The maximum ELF concentration was 10.4 (4.7-22.6) mg/L and 7.4 (6.2-10.3) mg/L, respectively. Conclusions: Based on our results, JN might be considered a viable alternative to the theoretically superior VMN. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the ELF can be advised due to the observed low exposure, high variability, and appreciable systemic absorption.

Feasibility of pressurized intra peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy using an ultrasound aerosol generator (usPIPAC)

Background

We tested the feasibility of ultrasound technology for generating pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (usPIPAC) and compared its performance vs. comparator (PIPAC).

Material and methods

A piezoelectric ultrasound aerosolizer (NextGen, Sinaptec) was compared with the available technology (Capnopen, Capnomed). Granulometry was measured for water, Glc 5%, and silicone oil using laser diffraction spectrometry. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) spraying patterns were determined with methylene blue. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) was measured by fluorescence microscopy in the enhanced inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder model (eIBUB). Tissue DOX concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Results

The droplets median aerodynamic diameter was (usPIPAC vs. PIPAC): H₂0: 40.4 (CI 10–90%: 19.0–102.3) vs. 34.8 (22.8–52.7) µm; Glc 5%: 52.8 (22.2–132.1) vs. 39.0 (23.7–65.2) µm; Silicone oil: 178.7 (55.7–501.8) vs. 43.0 (20.2–78.5) µm. 2D and 3D blue ink distribution pattern of usPIPAC was largely equivalent with PIPAC, as was DOX tissue concentration (usPIPAC: 0.65 (CI 5-95%: 0.44–0.86) vs. PIPAC: 0.88 (0.59–1.17) ng/ml, p = 0.29). DOX tissue penetration with usPIPAC was inferior to PIPAC: usPIPAC: 60.1 (CI 5.95%: 58.8–61.5) µm vs. PIPAC: 1172 (1157–1198) µm, p < 0.001). The homogeneity of spatial distribution (top, middle and bottom of the eIBUB) was comparable between modalities.

Discussion

usPIPAC is feasible, but its performance as a drug delivery system remains currently inferior to PIPAC, in particular for lipophilic solutions.

The history, current state and perspectives of aerosol therapy

Nebulization is a very effective method of drug administration. This technique has been popular since ancient times when inhalation of plants rich in tropane alkaloids with spasmolytic and analgesic effects was widely used. Undoubtedly, the invention of anasthesia in the 19th century had an influence on the development of this technique. It resulted in the search for devices that facilitated anasthesia such as pulveriser or hydronium. From the second half of the 21st century, when the first DPI and MDI inhalers were launched, the constant development of aerosol therapy has been noticed. This is due to the fact that nebulization, compared with other means of medicinal substance application (such as oral and intravenous routes of administration), is safer and it exhibits a positive dose/efficacy ratio connected to the reduction of the dose. It enables drugs administration through the lung and possesses very fast onset action. Therefore, various drugs prescribed in respiratory diseases (such as corticosteroids, β-agonists, anticholinergics) are present on the market in a form of an aerosol.

Nebulized exosomes derived from allogenic adipose tissue mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with severe COVID-19: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Existing clinical studies supported the potential efficacy of mesenchymal stromal cells as well as derived exosomes in the treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to explore the safety and efficiency of aerosol inhalation of the exosomes derived from human adipose-derived MSCs (haMSC-Exos) in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The MEXCOVID trial is a phase 2a single-arm, open-labelled, interventional trial and patients were enrolled in Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China. Eligible 7 patients were assigned to receive the daily dose of haMSCs-Exos (2.0 × 10⁸ nano vesicles) for consecutively 5 days. The primary outcomes included the incidence of prespecified inhalation-associated events and serious adverse events. We also observed the demographic data, clinical characteristics, laboratory results including lymphocyte count, levels of D-dimer and IL-6 as well as chest imaging.

RESULTS

Seven severe COVID-19 related pneumonia patients (4 males and 3 females) were enrolled and received nebulized haMSC-Exos. The median age was 57 year (interquartile range (IQR), 43 year to 70 year). The median time from onset of symptoms to hospital admission and administration of nebulized haMSC-Exos was 30 days (IQR, 15 days to 40 days) and 54 d (IQR, 34 d to 69 d), respectively. All COVID-19 patients tolerated the haMSC-Exos nebulization well, with no evidence of prespecified adverse events or clinical instability during the nebulization or during the immediate post-nebulization period. All patients presented a slight increase of serum lymphocyte counts (median as 1.61 × 10⁹/L vs. 1.78 × 10⁹/L). Different degrees of resolution of pulmonary lesions after aerosol inhalation of haMSC-Exos were observed among all patients, more obviously in 4 of 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial shows that a consecutive 5 days inhalation dose of clinical grade haMSC-Exos up to a total amount of 2.0 × 10⁹ nano vesicles was feasible and well tolerated in seven COVID-19 patients, with no evidence of prespecified adverse events, immediate clinical instability, or dose-relevant toxicity at any of the doses tested. This safety profile is seemingly followed by CT imaging improvement within 7 days. Further trials will have to confirm the long-term safety or efficacy in larger population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

MEXCOVID, NCT04276987.

Recent advances in acoustic microfluidics and its exemplary applications

Acoustic-based microfluidics has been widely used in recent years for fundamental research due to its simple device design, biocompatibility, and contactless operation. In this article, the basic theory, typical devices, and technical applications of acoustic microfluidics technology are summarized. First, the theory of acoustic microfluidics is introduced from the classification of acoustic waves, acoustic radiation force, and streaming flow. Then, various applications of acoustic microfluidics including sorting, mixing, atomization, trapping, patterning, and acoustothermal heating are reviewed. Finally, the development trends of acoustic microfluidics in the future were summarized and looked forward to.

[Aerosol Therapy in Intensive Care Unit]

Inhalation therapy is a cornerstone especially in pulmonary diseases or comorbidities, either in invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. In pediatric patients, mainly in respiratory failure of the premature born child inhalation of surfactant is crucial in the therapy. Additional drugs given by inhalation are antibiotics, mucoactive substances and drugs that treat pulmonary hypertension. This article describes main deposition mechanisms of inhalation therapies and presents recommendations for correct performance of inhalation therapy in invasively as well as noninvasively ventilated patients in ICU. Also safety aspects for patients and medical staff during aerosol therapy in the Corona pandemic era are discussed.

Nebulized Antibiotics for Healthcare- and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Global emergence of multidrug-resistant and extensive drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria has increased the risk of treatment failure, especially for healthcare- or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). Nebulization of antibiotics, by providing high intrapulmonary antibiotic concentrations, represents a promising approach to optimize the treatment of HAP/VAP due to multidrug-resistant and extensive drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, while limiting systemic antibiotic exposure. Aminoglycosides and colistin methanesulfonate are the most common nebulized antibiotics. Although optimal nebulized drug dosing regimen is not clearly established, high antibiotic doses should be administered using vibrating-mesh nebulizer with optimized ventilator settings to ensure safe and effective intrapulmonary concentrations. When used preventively, nebulized antibiotics reduced the incidence of VAP without any effect on mortality. This approach is not yet recommended and large randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm its benefit and explore the impact on antibiotic selection pressure. Compared with high-dose intravenous administration, high-dose nebulized colistin methanesulfonate seems to be more effective and safer in the treatment of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and VAP caused by multidrug resistant and extensive-drug resistant gram-negative bacteria. Adjunctive nebulized aminoglycosides could increase the clinical cure rate and bacteriological eradication in patients suffering from HAP/VAP due to multidrug-resistant and extensive drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. As nebulized aminoglycosides broadly diffuse in the systemic circulation of patients with extensive bronchopneumonia, monitoring of plasma trough concentrations is recommended during the period of nebulization. Large randomized controlled trials comparing high dose of nebulized colistin methanesulfonate to high dose of intravenous colistin methanesulfonate or to intravenous new β-lactams in HAP/VAP due to multidrug-resistant and extensive drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria are urgently needed.

Reconciling Oxygen and Aerosol Delivery with a Hood on In Vitro Infant and Paediatric Models

This study aimed to evaluate optimal aerosol and oxygen delivery with a hood on an infant model and a paediatric model. A facemask and a hood with three inlets, with or without a front cover, were used. A small-volume nebuliser with a unit-dose of salbutamol was used for drug delivery and an air entrainment nebuliser was used to deliver oxygen at 35%. Infant and paediatric breathing patterns were mimicked; a bacterial filter was connected to the end of a manikin trachea for aerosol drug collection, and an oxygen analyser was used to measure the oxygen concentration. For the infant model, inhaled drug dose was significantly higher when the nebuliser was placed in the back of the hood and with a front cover. This was verified by complementary computational simulations in a comparable infant-hood model. For the paediatric model, the inhaled dose was greater with a facemask than with a hood. Oxygen delivery with a facemask and a hood with a front cover achieved a set concentration in both models, yet a hood without a front cover delivered oxygen at far lower concentrations than the set concentration.

Nebulized antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: methodological framework for future multicenter randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although experimental evidence supports the use of nebulized antibiotics in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), two recent multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate any benefit in VAP caused by Gram-negative bacteria (GNB). This review examines the methodological requirements concerning future RCTs.

RECENT FINDINGS

High doses of nebulized antibiotics are required to reach the infected lung parenchyma. Breath-synchronized nebulizers do not allow delivery of high doses. Mesh nebulizers perform better than jet nebulizers. Epithelial lining fluid concentrations do not reflect interstitial lung concentrations in patients receiving nebulized antibiotics. Specific ventilator settings for optimizing lung deposition require sedation to avoid patient's asynchrony with the ventilator.

SUMMARY

Future RCTs should compare a 3-5 day nebulization of amikacin or colistimethate sodium (CMS) to a 7-day intravenous administration of a new cephalosporine/ß-lactamase inhibitor. Inclusion criteria should be a VAP or ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis caused by documented extensive-drug or pandrug resistant GNB. If the GNB remains susceptible to aminoglycosides, nebulized amikacin should be administered at a dose of 40 mg/kg/day. If resistant to aminoglycosides, nebulized CMS should be administered at a dose of 15 millions international units (IU)/day. In VAP caused by pandrug-resistant GNB, 15 millions IU/day nebulized CMS (substitution therapy) should be compared with a 9 millions IU/day intravenous CMS.

Preclinical efficacy and clinical safety of clinical-grade nebulized allogenic adipose mesenchymal stromal cells-derived extracellular vesicles

Mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) turn out to be a promising source of cell-free therapy. Here, we investigated the biodistribution and effect of nebulized human adipose-derived MSC-EVs (haMSC-EVs) in the preclinical lung injury model and explored the safety of nebulized haMSC-EVs in healthy volunteers. DiR-labelled haMSC-EVs were used to explore the distribution of nebulized haMSC-EVs in the murine model. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced murine lung injury model was established, and survival rate, as well as WBC counts, histology, IL-6, TNF-α and IL-10 levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were measured to explore the optimal therapeutic dose of haMSC-EVs through the nebulized route. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were involved and received the haMSC-EVs once, ranging from 2 × 108 particles to 16 × 108 particles (MEXVT study, NCT04313647). Nebulizing haMSC-EVs improved survival rate to 80% at 96 h in P. aeruginosa-induced murine lung injury model by decreasing lung inflammation and histological severity. All volunteers tolerated the haMSC-EVs nebulization well, and no serious adverse events were observed from starting nebulization to the 7th day after nebulization. These findings suggest that nebulized haMSC-EVs could be a promising therapeutic strategy, offering preliminary evidence to promote the future clinical applications of nebulized haMSC-EVs in lung injury diseases.

Delivered dose with jet and mesh nebulisers during spontaneous breathing, noninvasive ventilation and mechanical ventilation using adult lung models

What is the delivered dose with jet and mesh nebulisers during spontaneous breathing (SB), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and mechanical ventilation (MV) using an adult lung model with exhaled humidity (EH)? The delivery of salbutamol sulfate (2.5 mg per 3 mL) with jet (Mistymax10) and mesh nebulisers (Aerogen Solo) was compared during SB, NIV, and MV using breathing parameters (tidal volume 450 mL, respiratory rate 20 breaths per min, inspiratory:expiratory ratio 1:3) with three lung models simulating exhaled humidity. A manikin was attached to a sinusoidal pump via a filter at the bronchi to simulate an adult with SB. A ventilator (V60) was attached via a facemask to a manikin with a filter at the bronchi connected to a test lung to simulate an adult receiving NIV. A ventilator-dependent adult was simulated through a ventilator (Servo-i) operated with a heated humidifier (Fisher & Paykel) attached to an endotracheal tube (ETT) with a heated-wire circuit. The ETT was inserted into a filter (Respirgard II). A heated humidifier was placed between the filter and test lung to simulate exhaled humidity (35±2°C, 100% relative humidity). Nebulisers were placed at the Y-piece of the inspiratory limb during MV and positioned between the facemask and the leak-port during NIV. A mouthpiece was used during SB. The delivered dose was collected in an absolute filter that was attached to the bronchi of the mannequin during each aerosol treatment and measured with spectrophotometry. Drug delivery during MV was significantly greater than during NIV and SB with a mesh nebuliser (p=0.0001) but not with a jet nebuliser (p=0.384). Delivery efficiency of the mesh nebuliser was greater than the jet nebuliser during MV (p=0.0001), NIV (p=0.0001), and SB (p=0.0001). Aerosol deposition obtained with a mesh nebuliser was greater and differed between MV, NIV, and SB, while deposition was low with a jet nebuliser and similar between the modes of ventilation tested.

Evaluation of Aerosol Therapy during the Escalation of Care in a Model of Adult Cystic Fibrosis

Lung disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF). CF patients inhale antibiotics regularly as treatment against persistent bacterial infections. The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of clinical intervention on aerosol therapy during the escalation of care using a bench model of adult CF. Droplet size analysis of selected antibiotics was completed in tandem with the delivered aerosol dose (% of total dose) assessments in simulations of various interventions providing oxygen supplementation or ventilatory support. Results highlight the variability of aerosolised dose delivery. In the homecare setting, the vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN) delivered significantly more than the jet nebuliser (JN) (16.15 ± 0.86% versus 6.51 ± 2.15%). In the hospital setting, using VMN only, significant variability was seen across clinical interventions. In the emergency department, VMN plus mouthpiece (no supplemental oxygen) was seen to deliver (29.02 ± 1.41%) versus low flow nasal therapy (10 L per minute (LPM) oxygen) (1.81 ± 0.47%) and high flow nasal therapy (50 LPM oxygen) (3.36 ± 0.34%). In the ward/intensive care unit, non-invasive ventilation recorded 19.02 ± 0.28%, versus 22.64 ± 1.88% of the dose delivered during invasive mechanical ventilation. These results will have application in the design of intervention-appropriate aerosol therapy strategies and will be of use to researchers developing new therapeutics for application in cystic fibrosis and beyond.

Comparison of Vibrating Mesh and Jet Nebulizers During Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background: Advances in aerosol technology have improved drug delivery efficiency during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of aerosol therapy during NIV in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is very limited. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of bronchodilators administered through a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and jet nebulizer (JN) during NIV in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD. Methods: Prospective randomized cross-over study included 30 patients treated with NIV for acute exacerbation of COPD in an acute care hospital. Patients were consented and enrolled after stabilization of acute exacerbation (3-5 days after admission). Subjects were randomly assigned into two treatment arms receiving salbutamol (2.5 mg): with VMN (Aerogen Solo) and JN (Sidestream) positioned between the leak port and the nonvented oronasal mask during bilevel ventilation with a single-limb circuit. Measurements (clinical data, pulmonary function tests [PFTs], and arterial blood gases) were performed at baseline, 1, and 2 hours after treatment. Results: All measured PFT parameters significantly increased in both groups, but numerically results were better after inhalation with VMN than with JN: for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) (mean increase from baseline to 120 minutes-165 ± 64 mL vs. 116 ± 46 mL, p = 0.001) and for forced vital capacity (FVC) (mean increase-394 ± 154 mL vs. 123 ± 57 mL, p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant reduction in respiratory rate and in Borg dyspnea score after therapy with VMN in comparison with the conventional JN. In both groups, there were improvements in PaCO₂, but with VMN these changes were significantly higher. Conclusion: Bronchodilator administration in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD during NIV with VMN resulted in clinically significant improvements in FVC and in Borg dyspnea score. Additional studies required to determine the impact on clinical outcomes.

Aerosol delivery via noninvasive ventilation: role of models and bioanalysis

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is external support for respiration to assist breathing in case of respiratory failure (either hypercapnic or hypoxemic) without patient intubation. Nowadays, medicated aerosols are normally delivered to mechanically ventilated patients by nebulizers and pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) attached to adapter or spacer that fit into the ventilated circuit. Studies with obstructive lung disease patients have shown that aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation is possible and of benefit. There are several models for investigating the aerosol delivery and deposition during mechanical ventilation such as in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo models, these models depend on the technique used for quantitative or qualitative measurement of the deposited aerosol. In vitro models could be used for calculating the total emitted doses from different aerosol-generating devices or for aerodynamic characterization of the deposited inhaled medications. In vivo models dependents of extracting drugs from biological samples for measuring its concentration and bioavailability (pharmacokinetic model) or be dependent on the imaging technique of the radioactive aerosol. Applying different methods to predict aerosol efficiency before starting NIV and to quantify aerosol delivery during NIV are promising approaches that guide clinicians to avoid treatment failure before and during patient therapy.

The utilization of aerosol therapy in mechanical ventilation patients: a prospective multicenter observational cohort study and a review of the current evidence

Background

Aerosol delivery via mechanical ventilation has been reported to vary significantly among different intensive care units (ICU). The optimal technique for using each aerosol generator may need to be updated with the available evidence.

Methods

A 2-week prospective multicenter observational cohort study was implemented to record aerosol delivery for mechanically ventilated adult patients in Chinese ICUs. Our data included the type of aerosol device and its placement, ventilator type, humidification, and aerosolized medication administered. A guide for the optimal technique for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation was summarized after a thorough literature review.

Results

A total of 160 patients (105 males) from 28 ICUs were enrolled, of whom 125 (78.1%) received aerosol therapy via invasive ventilation. Among these 125 patients, 53 received ventilator-integrated jet nebulizer, with 64% (34/53) of them placed the nebulizer close to Y piece in the inspiratory limb. Further, 56 patients used continuous nebulizers, with 84% (47/56) of them placed the nebulizer close to the Y piece in the inspiratory limb. Of the 35 patients who received aerosol therapy via noninvasive ventilation, 30 received single limb ventilators and continuous nebulizers, with 70% (21/30) of them placed between the mask and exhalation port. Only 36% (58/160) of the patients received aerosol treatments consistent with optimal practice.

Conclusions

Aerosol delivery via mechanical ventilation varied between ICUs, and only 36% of the patients received aerosol treatments consistent with optimal practice. ICU clinicians should be educated on the best practices for aerosol therapy, and quality improvement projects aim to improve the quality and outcome of patients with the optimal technique for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation are warranted.

Future Trends in Nebulized Therapies for Pulmonary Disease

Aerosol therapy is a key modality for drug delivery to the lungs of respiratory disease patients. Aerosol therapy improves therapeutic effects by directly targeting diseased lung regions for rapid onset of action, requiring smaller doses than oral or intravenous delivery and minimizing systemic side effects. In order to optimize treatment of critically ill patients, the efficacy of aerosol therapy depends on lung morphology, breathing patterns, aerosol droplet characteristics, disease, mechanical ventilation, pharmacokinetics, and the pharmacodynamics of cell-drug interactions. While aerosol characteristics are influenced by drug formulations and device mechanisms, most other factors are reliant on individual patient variables. This has led to increased efforts towards more personalized therapeutic approaches to optimize pulmonary drug delivery and improve selection of effective drug types for individual patients. Vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN) are the dominant device in clinical trials involving mechanical ventilation and emerging drugs. In this review, we consider the use of VMN during mechanical ventilation in intensive care units. We aim to link VMN fundamentals to applications in mechanically ventilated patients and look to the future use of VMN in emerging personalized therapeutic drugs.