[Respimat®, first Soft Mist™ inhaler: new perspectives in the management of COPD]

Nebulizers

Nebulizers generate aerosols from liquid-based solutions and suspensions. Nebulizers are particularly well suited to delivering larger doses of medication than is practical with inhalers and are used with a broad range of liquid formulations. When the same drug is available in liquid or inhaler form, nebulizers are applicable for use with patients who will not or cannot reliably use a pressurized metered-dosed inhaler (pMDI) or dry powder inhaler (DPI) due to poor lung function, hand-breath coordination, cognitive abilities (e.g., infants, elderly) or device preference. In a nebulizer, liquid medication is placed in a reservoir and fed to an aerosol generator to produce the droplets. A series of tubes and channels direct the aerosol to the patient via an interface such as mouthpiece, mask, tent, nasal prongs or artificial airway. All nebulizers contain these basic parts, although the technology and design used can vary widely and can result in significant difference in ergonomics, directions for use, and performance. While many types of nebulizers have been described, the three categories of modern clinical nebulizers include: (1) pneumatic jet nebulizers (JN); (2) ultrasonic nebulizers (USN); and (3) vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN). Nebulizers are also described in terms of their reservoir size. Small volume nebulizers (SVNs), most commonly used for medical aerosol therapy, can hold 5 to 20 mL of medication and may be jet, ultrasonic, or mesh nebulizers. Large volume nebulizers, typically jet or ultrasonic nebulizers, hold up to 200 mL and may be used for either bland aerosol therapy or continuous drug administration.

[Reducing the environmental impact of inhalers dispensed in France. From diagnosis to sustainable action]

OBJECTIVES

While inhaled drugs are mainly used to treat chronic respiratory diseases, they are also responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. To highlight this issue, a dispensed analysis and a carbon footprint evaluation of inhalers in France have been conducted.

METHODS

A national qualitative and quantitative analysis of dispensed inhalers in community pharmacies (CP) and hospitals (H) was conducted in France for 2019. A data review from the literature led to the determination of the inhalers carbon footprint, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) during the inhaler life cycle.

RESULTS

Close to 40 million inhalers were dispensed by community pharmacies and one million by hospitals in 2019. It concerned three types of inhalers: metered-dose inhalers (MDI) [CP: 49%; H: 45%], dry powder inhalers (DPI) [CP: 47%; H: 51%], and soft mist inhalers (SMI) [CP: 4%; H: 4%]. According to the literature, MDI have the highest carbon footprint, ranging from 11 to 28 kgCO2e versus less than 1 kgCO2e for DPI/SMI. In 2019, the national carbon footprint of salbutamol (MDI), the most dispensed inhaler, was estimated to be over 310 million kgCO2e (CP+H) corresponding to more than 310,000 round-trip Paris-New York.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the involvement of MDI in GHG emissions. Taking actions as part of a global and coordinated approach to limit their environmental impact is possible and thus is a priority.

Instant velocity and consistency of emitted cloud change by the different levels of canister filling with Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs), but not with Soft Mist Inhalers (SMIs): a bench study

Background

Inhalation is the preferred route for respiratory drug delivery, but several factors contribute to the variability of the respirable dose fraction. Instant velocity and the dynamic characteristics of the droplet cloud represent crucial factors. Aim was to measure and compare the instant velocity and the consistency of emitted cloud from five different MDIs (A - Salbutamol sulphate 100mcg, GSK; B - Salbutamol sulphate 100mcg, Valeas; C - Salmeterol xinafoate/Fluticasone propionate 25/125mcg, GSK; D - Formoterol fumarate/Bechlomethasone propionate 6/100mcg, Chiesi; E - Formoterol fumarate/Fluticasone dipropionate 5/125mcg, Mundipharma) and one SMI (Tiotropium bromide 5mcg, Boehringer Ingelheim), at different distance from the nozzle and canister filling.

Methods

Measurements were made at 90, 50, and 10% of canister filling, and at 5, 10, and 20 cm from the nozzle, for a total of 972 puffs. A high speed video photography protocol was adopted and high speed cameras (1.200 frames/sec.) were used. Data were acquired by means of specialized softwares. Temperature, humidity, and vibrations occurrence were strictly controlled during measurements. Statistics: Anova and p < 0.05 were accepted as the minimum significance level.

Results

MDIs generated different Instant velocities: MDI B generated the highest, while MDI A the lowest. As expected, velocity decreased in proportion to the distance from the nozzle. Except with MDI C, instant velocity decreased significantly over the first 50% of canister emptying, but dropped by >33% at 90% of emptying with all other MDIs (p < 0–037; p < 0.001; p < 0.005, and p < 0.001, respectively). Instant velocity was extremely lower (p < 0.001) and constant for all levels of canister filling (p = ns) with SMI. All MDIs had a very fast jet phase, ranging 0.01–0.03 s at 10 cm, and 0.03–0.05 s at 20 cm from the nozzle, without any significant difference from each other (p = ns). MDIs generated a cloud similarly tight (p = ns) at 10 and 20 cm from the nozzle, while it was extremely wider and constant with the SMI (p = 0–001). Also the cloud turbulence was minimized during the SMI emission.

Discussion and Conclusions

MDIs are characterized by a substantial variability in both their instant velocity and consistency of the emitted cloud at different levels of canister filling. SMI generates a much slower soft mist cloud which is constantly homogeneous and independent of canister emptying. These peculiarities assessed at bench are suggesting a higher dose consistency and a much more effective therapeutic performance also in real life.

The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients

Background

The usability of inhalation devices depends on several factors, eg, the drug to inhale, device handling, and patients’ training. Usability is then presumed to have economic consequences.

Aim

To assess and compare the cost of patients’ training for proper usability of Breezhaler and Genuair (both dry powder inhalers) and Respimat (a soft mist inhaler) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outpatients.

Methods

The acceptance and handling of the three devices were investigated by means of the Handling Questionnaire. The time spent in specific training for ensuring a proper actuation and the corresponding costs were also calculated. Linear and logistic regressions were used in order to investigate the factors influencing proper handling of the devices. A significance level of P<0.05 was accepted.

Results

According to both the patients’ and the nurse’s judgments, Genuair and Respimat were perceived as the easiest devices to use, while Breezhaler required the highest number of attempts for achieving the first proper actuation (2.6 vs 1.6; P<0.0001). The total training cost per patient (including the nurse’s time for demonstration and that for attending the patients’ maneuvers) was €1.38±€1.21. Breezhaler was found to be the most expensive as the cost per patient was €2.35±€1.26, which was three to four times higher than that of Genuair and Respimat (both devices involved a cost of <€1 per patient, with negligible differences between each other). Asthma and COPD patients showed a similar trend, with better outcomes reported for asthma patients probably due to lower age.

Conclusion

Substantial differences were found to exist in patients’ acceptability and handling of the three devices. The economic impact of specific training was also different and strictly related to the comprehension of the procedure for actuation of each device. Respimat as a soft mist inhaler and Genuair as an metered-dose inhaler proved to be the most convenient in economic terms also.

Acceptability and preference of three inhalation devices assessed by the Handling Questionnaire in asthma and COPD patients

BACKGROUND

The patients' criteria of preference for inhalation devices can affect the extent of their adherence to treatment and outcomes. Aim of this study was to assess and compare the patients' preference and acceptability (PPA) for Breezhaler and Genuair (both Dry Powder Inhalers), and for Respimat (a Soft Mist Inhaler) in asthma and COPD out-patients by means of the Handling Questionnaire.

METHODS

The Handling Questionnaire is a validated instrument which allows the investigation of different domains of PPA; it also takes into account the patients' age and gender, together with their previous experience with the inhalation devices and their previous education approach to them. Differences in terms of preference, acceptance and usability were assessed by linear and logistic regressions in order to evaluate factors influencing the proper actuation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data from 333 patients were collected: Genuair and Respimat were the most liked and perceived as the easiest to use at glance by patients, but also as the least problematic according to the patients' and nurse's judgments. Mean number of attempts for achieving the first effective actuation was the highest with Breezhaler (2.6 vs 1.6; p <0.0001). Linear regressions showed that longer the explanation, higher was the number of attempts to the first proper actuation (0.58 additional attempts every 10 s increase in the first explanation, p <0.0001). Devices requiring less manoeuvres for the actuation were used properly after less attempts (0.38 increase in the number of attempts every additional manoeuvres, p <0.0001). Respimat proved to be the most indicated in COPD patients since it was the most liked and its successful rate at first attempt was the highest. Logistic regressions confirmed these data. Previous experience with DPIs and/or MDIs did not affect the patient preference and acceptability, independently whether suffering from asthma or COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences are existing in patient's preference and acceptability for inhalation devices, mainly related to the handling and the understanding of the different devices.