Survey of patients' views of domiciliary nebuliser treatment for chronic lung disease

Prevalence and Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Gulf Countries with a Focus on Inhaled Pharmacotherapy

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable, progressive disease and the third leading cause of death worldwide. The epidemiological data of COPD from Gulf countries are very limited, as it remains underdiagnosed and underestimated. Risk factors for COPD include tobacco cigarette smoking, water pipe smoking (Shisha), exposure to air pollutants, occupational dusts, fumes, and chemicals. Inadequate treatment of COPD leads to worsening of disease. The 2024 GOLD guidelines recommend use of inhaled bronchodilators, corticosteroids, and adjunct therapies for treatment and management of COPD patients based on an individual assessment of the severity of symptoms and risk of exacerbations. This article reviews COPD pharmacotherapy in the Gulf countries and explores the role of nebulization in the management of COPD in this region. Methods: To review the COPD pharmacotherapy in the Gulf Countries, literature search was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar databases (before December 2022), using search terms such as COPD, nebulization, inhalers/inhalation, aerosols, and Gulf countries. Relevant articles from the reference list of identified studies were reviewed. Consensus statements, expert opinion, and other published review articles were included. Results: In the Gulf countries, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), soft mist inhalers, and nebulizers are used for drug delivery to COPD patients. pMDIs and DPIs are most prone to errors in technique and other common device handling errors. Nebulization is another mode of inhalation drug delivery, which is beneficial in certain patient populations such as the elderly and patients with cognitive impairment, motor or neuromuscular disorders, and other comorbidities. Conclusion: There is no major difference between Gulf countries and rest of the world in the approach to management of COPD. Nebulizers should be considered for patients who have difficulties in accessing or using MDIs and DPIs, irrespective of geographical location.

Perceptions and Attitudes of Patients and Their Family Caregivers on Nebulization Therapy for COPD

Purpose

The aim of the survey was to evaluate attitudes and perceptions toward nebulization therapy for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Indian population.

Patients and methods

A cross-sectional, multicenter, quantitative survey was conducted from July to August 2019 among 103 COPD patients [>40 years, either gender, belonging to socio-economic class (SEC) A or SEC B] and their family caregivers. One-on-one interviews were conducted telephonically via an online survey platform (KoBo data collection tool) using a structured questionnaire. Patients receiving home nebulization were included, and the usage of nebulizers, satisfaction, and benefits and concerns with nebulizers were assessed.

Results

Overall, 47% patients were on handheld inhalers + nebulizer, 54% used nebulizer for >8 weeks, and 27% used nebulizers daily for home maintenance. Majority of the patients (77%) were satisfied with nebulization therapy. Around 70% family caregivers opined that the quality of life of COPD patients improved post-nebulization therapy. The benefits of nebulizers perceived by patients were easier breathing (89%), feeling of well-being (86%), and ease of use (86%), while family caregivers reported reduced hospitalization (76%) and easier breathing (75%). Among those with prior experience with inhalers, 72% felt nebulizers gave long-term relief, while 65% perceived having immediate relief compared to inhaler. Overall, 61% opined that benefits with nebulizers outweighed the inconvenience associated with its use. Key concerns regarding nebulizers cited by patients were time-consuming procedure (50%), feeling of dependency (49%), and social embarrassment (48%), while family caregivers highlighted social embarrassment (45%) and multiple daily use (45%) as major concerns. Majority of the patients (73%) were compliant with their recommended frequency of the nebulizer.

Conclusion

This first-of-its-kind survey highlights that the majority of patients and family caregivers were satisfied with nebulizers and reported improvements in symptoms and reduced hospitalizations with nebulizer therapy. The patients preferred nebulized therapy to inhalers.

Indian Guidelines on Nebulization Therapy

Inhalational therapy, today, happens to be the mainstay of treatment in obstructive airway diseases (OADs), such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is also in the present, used in a variety of other pulmonary and even non-pulmonary disorders. Hand-held inhalation devices may often be difficult to use, particularly for children, elderly, debilitated or distressed patients. Nebulization therapy emerges as a good option in these cases besides being useful in the home care, emergency room and critical care settings. With so many advancements taking place in nebulizer technology; availability of a plethora of drug formulations for its use, and the widening scope of this therapy; medical practitioners, respiratory therapists, and other health care personnel face the challenge of choosing appropriate inhalation devices and drug formulations, besides their rational application and use in different clinical situations. Adequate maintenance of nebulizer equipment including their disinfection and storage are the other relevant issues requiring guidance. Injudicious and improper use of nebulizers and their poor maintenance can sometimes lead to serious health hazards, nosocomial infections, transmission of infection, and other adverse outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to have a proper national guideline on nebulization practices to bridge the knowledge gaps amongst various health care personnel involved in this practice. It will also serve as an educational and scientific resource for healthcare professionals, as well as promote future research by identifying neglected and ignored areas in this field. Such comprehensive guidelines on this subject have not been available in the country and the only available proper international guidelines were released in 1997 which have not been updated for a noticeably long period of over two decades, though many changes and advancements have taken place in this technology in the recent past. Much of nebulization practices in the present may not be evidence-based and even some of these, the way they are currently used, may be ineffective or even harmful. Recognizing the knowledge deficit and paucity of guidelines on the usage of nebulizers in various settings such as inpatient, out-patient, emergency room, critical care, and domiciliary use in India in a wide variety of indications to standardize nebulization practices and to address many other related issues; National College of Chest Physicians (India), commissioned a National task force consisting of eminent experts in the field of Pulmonary Medicine from different backgrounds and different parts of the country to review the available evidence from the medical literature on the scientific principles and clinical practices of nebulization therapy and to formulate evidence-based guidelines on it. The guideline is based on all possible literature that could be explored with the best available evidence and incorporating expert opinions. To support the guideline with high-quality evidence, a systematic search of the electronic databases was performed to identify the relevant studies, position papers, consensus reports, and recommendations published. Rating of the level of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation was done using the GRADE system. Six topics were identified, each given to one group of experts comprising of advisors, chairpersons, convenor and members, and such six groups (A-F) were formed and the consensus recommendations of each group was included as a section in the guidelines (Sections I to VI). The topics included were: A. Introduction, basic principles and technical aspects of nebulization, types of equipment, their choice, use, and maintenance B. Nebulization therapy in obstructive airway diseases C. Nebulization therapy in the intensive care unit D. Use of various drugs (other than bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) by nebulized route and miscellaneous uses of nebulization therapy E. Domiciliary/Home/Maintenance nebulization therapy; public & health care workers education, and F. Nebulization therapy in COVID-19 pandemic and in patients of other contagious viral respiratory infections (included later considering the crisis created due to COVID-19 pandemic). Various issues in different sections have been discussed in the form of questions, followed by point-wise evidence statements based on the existing knowledge, and recommendations have been formulated.

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.

Role of nebulized glycopyrrolate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

In the upcoming years, the proportion of elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will increase, according to the progressively aging population and the increased efficacy of the pharmacological treatments, especially considering the management of chronic comorbidities. The issue to prescribe an appropriate inhalation therapy to COPD patients with significant handling or coordination difficulties represents a common clinical experience; in the latter case, the choice of an inadequate inhalation device may jeopardize the adherence to the treatment and eventually lead to its ineffectiveness. Treatment options that do not require particular timing for coordination between activation and/or inhalation or require high flow thresholds to be activated should represent the best treatment option for these patients. Nebulized bronchodilators, usually used only in acute conditions such as COPD exacerbations, could fulfill this gap, enabling an adequate drug administration during tidal breathing and without the need for patients' cooperation. However, so far, only short-acting muscarinic antagonists have been available for nebulization. Recently, a nebulized formulation of the inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrrolate, delivered by means of a novel proprietary vibrating mesh nebulizer closed system (SUN-101/eFlow®), has progressed to Phase III trials and is currently in late-stage development as an option for maintenance treatment in COPD. The present critical review describes the current knowledge about the novel nebulizer technology, the efficacy, safety, and critical role of nebulized glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD. To this end, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library have been searched for relevant papers. According to the available results, the efficacy and tolerability profile of nebulized glycopyrrolate may represent a valuable and dynamic treatment option for the chronic pharmacological management of patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/eFlow® CS (nebulized glycopyrrolate) in moderate-to-very-severe COPD: Results from the glycopyrrolate for obstructive lung disease via electronic nebulizer (GOLDEN) 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

SUN-101 is a combination of glycopyrrolate delivered through an innovative, electronic nebulizer, intended for the treatment of patients with COPD. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this new drug device combination.

METHODS

Replicate Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate solution administered by an investigational eFlow^® Closed System (eFlow^® CS) nebulizer in subjects with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, including those with continued background use of a long-acting beta₂-agonist ± inhaled corticosteroid and/or history of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive placebo or glycopyrrolate (25 μg or 50 μg twice daily [BID]) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Week 12 compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in forced vital capacity (FVC) after 12 weeks, change from baseline in health status measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at 12 weeks/end of study (EOS), and change in rescue medication use, as well as change from baseline in FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 12 h after 12 weeks in the GOLDEN 3 sub-study. Daytime and night-time symptoms were recorded using an electronic diary. Safety was monitored throughout the study, including major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

A total of 653 subjects were randomized in GOLDEN 3 and 641 in GOLDEN 4. Treatment with glycopyrrolate 25 μg BID and 50 μg BID resulted in statistically significant and clinically important changes from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with placebo at Week 12 (GOLDEN 3: 0.105 L and 0.126 L; p ≤ 0.0001; GOLDEN 4: 0.084 L and 0.082 L; p ≤ 0.0001). Nebulized glycopyrrolate 25 μg BID and 50 μg BID also resulted in improvements in FVC change from baseline versus placebo at Week 12 (GOLDEN 3: 0.149 L and 0.167 L, p < 0.001; GOLDEN 4: 0.130 L and 0.113 L, p < 0.01), and in SGRQ change from baseline score versus placebo at Week 12/EOS (GOLDEN 3: -3.072 [p < 0.05] and -1.848; GOLDEN 4: -3.585 and -3.557, p < 0.01). LS mean change from baseline in EXACT-respiratory symptoms total score at Week 12 for placebo and nebulized glycopyrrolate 25 and 50 μg BID were -0.936, -1.903 and -1.502 for GOLDEN 3 and -0.376, -1.647 and -1.532 for GOLDEN 4. Rescue medication use was unchanged. Nebulized glycopyrrolate was well tolerated at both doses based on the incidence of adverse events and CV events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these studies demonstrated statistically significant and clinically important improvements in pulmonary function and patient-reported health outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile, support the use of glycopyrrolate/eFlow^® CS as a potential maintenance treatment for moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Guiding Principles for the Use of Nebulized Long-Acting Beta2-Agonists in Patients with COPD: An Expert Panel Consensus

Determining which patients with COPD may benefit from a nebulized long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) is a challenge in current practice. In the absence of strong clinical guidelines addressing this issue, an expert panel convened to develop guiding principles for the use of nebulized LABA therapy in patients with COPD. This article summarizes these guiding principles and other practical issues discussed during a roundtable meeting.

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.

Assistance of family carers for patients with COPD using nebulisers at home: a qualitative study

Objective

For many patients with chronic conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the assistance of family carers with medicines is vital for optimal treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify the assistance carers provide to patients with COPD using nebuliser-delivered therapy at home, and the problems experienced that may impact on the safety and effectiveness of therapy and contribute to carer burden.

Methods

A cross-sectional, qualitative descriptive study was conducted with participants recruited from primary and intermediate care. Home interviews were conducted with 14 carers who assisted a family member with COPD using a nebuliser. Qualitative procedures enabled analysis of nebuliser-related activities and problems experienced by carers.

Results

The carer sample included 10 female and 4 male carers, with a mean age of 61 years: 11 spouses and 3 daughters. They had assisted patients with use of their nebuliser and associated medications for, on average, 4.5 years. Assistance ranged from taking full responsibility for nebuliser use to providing help with particular aspects only when required. Nebuliser-related activities included assembling and setting up equipment, mixing medicines, operating the device, dismantling and cleaning equipment. Difficulties were described with all aspects of care. Carers reported concerns about medication side effects and the lack of information provided.

Conclusions

The study revealed the vital role of carers in enabling effective therapy. The wide-ranging responsibilities assumed by carers and problems experienced relate to all aspects of COPD management with nebulisers, and have a potential impact on treatment outcomes and carer burden. A systematic approach to addressing carers' needs and prioritising support would be anticipated to have positive consequences for patients, carers and health services.

Efficacy and safety of nebulized glycopyrrolate for administration using a high efficiency nebulizer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AIMS

To establish the dose-response for pharmacodynamics (bronchodilatation), safety and pharmacokinetics for a nebulized formulation of the long acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrrolate (EP-101) with a high efficiency nebulizer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe COPD (GOLD II/III), with reversible lung function, were enrolled into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, six period crossover study (n = 42). Patients received single doses of EP-101 (12.5-400 μg) and placebo via a high efficiency nebulizer (eFlow® PARI nebulizer), with washout between treatments. Plasma pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of patients (n = 11).

RESULTS

All treatments were well tolerated with similar adverse event rates reported with placebo and at all doses. There were no clinically relevant changes in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure or in ECG parameters including QTc interval. Following treatment with EP-101 at all doses there was a rapid bronchodilator response within 5 min. Significant improvements in mean change from baseline FEV1 at 24 h were reported at doses ≥ 50 μg compared with placebo, with a clear dose-response relationship. Mean changes in FEV1 were 0.10 l (95% CI 0.06, 0.14) and 0.12 l (95% CI 0.08, 0.16) for 100 μg and 200 μg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Single doses of EP-101 ranging from 12.5 μg to 400 μg were well tolerated. EP-101 delivered by high efficiency nebulizer device produced a rapid onset of bronchodilatation with clinically meaningful improvements in lung function maintained over a 24 h period at all doses >50 μg.

Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. COPD is characterized by poor treatment adherence, and patient medication preferences may contribute to adherence.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment with an internet panel drawn from the USA was used to evaluate preference and willingness to pay (WTP) of COPD patients for long-acting maintenance medications. Key attributes derived from earlier qualitative research (brief literature review and focus groups) with COPD patients on maintenance therapy included symptom relief, speed of feeling medication start to work, inhaler ease of use, rescue medication use, side effects, and monthly out-of-pocket co-pay. Patients were presented with hypothetical medications with different profiles and asked which they preferred. Utilities and marginal WTP in monthly co-pay dollars were estimated for all patients and by severity.

Results

Utilities for 515 participants were in the expected direction and highest for the most favorable attribute levels. Each attribute evaluated was important, and participants were willing to pay a premium to obtain each benefit. On average, WTP was as high as $US64 for complete symptom relief, $US59 for no side effects, $US32 to rarely use rescue medication, $US16 for a quick and easy to use inhaler, and $US13 for feeling medication work quickly (within 5 min; average WTP $US18/month for patients with severe/very severe COPD).

Conclusion

As expected, efficacy and safety were most valued by patients; however, this study showed that other COPD medication attributes, such as rescue medication, ease of use, and feeling medication work quickly, are also important in patient preferences.

Perceptions and attitudes toward the use of nebulized therapy for COPD: patient and caregiver perspectives

Although delivery of medications through nebulization is effective for patients with COPD, nebulization is often perceived negatively. This survey evaluated patient and caregiver attitudes and perceptions related to the use of nebulization for the management of COPD. A total of 400 patients and a separate population of 400 caregivers were randomly selected and interviewed via telephone. Responses were assessed on the basis of 4 domains: health of patients with COPD, satisfaction with nebulization therapy, benefits and challenges, and the caregiver role. Most patients (58%) self-classified their COPD as "mild to moderate," with shortness of breath upon minimal to moderate exertion; caregivers reported similar findings. The majority of patients and caregivers (89% and 92%, respectively) were "generally satisfied with their (or their friend's or family member's) current nebulized treatment." Based on their personal experiences, 80% of patients and caregivers reported that using a nebulizer was better than using only an inhaler. Patients and caregivers agreed (79% and 85%, respectively) that the benefits of nebulization therapy outweighed the difficulties or inconveniences. Patients believed that their overall quality of life had improved since beginning nebulization (75%) and that nebulization better enabled their caregiver to provide care (77%); caregivers echoed this sentiment. Overall, this survey demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of patients and caregivers were satisfied with nebulization therapy, reporting benefits in symptom relief, ease of use, and improved quality of life.

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.

Inhaler mishandling is very common in patients with chronic airflow obstruction and long-term home nebuliser use

Inhalers and nebulisers are devices used for delivering aerosolised drugs in subjects with Chronic Airflow Obstruction (CAO). This multicentre, cross-sectional observational study was performed in a large population of outpatients with CAO regularly using home aerosol therapy and referring to chest clinics. The aims of the study were to compare the characteristics of the group of subjects with CAO who were using home nebulisers but also experienced with inhalers vs. those only using inhalers and to investigate whether the first group of subjects was particularly prone to inhaler misuse. Information was gained evaluating the responses to a standardised questionnaire on home aerosol therapy and the observations of inhaler technique. We enrolled 1527 patients (58% males; mean ± SE; aged 61.1 ± 0.4 years; FEV1% pred 69.9 ± 0.6; 51% and 44% respectively suffering from COPD and asthma) who were only inhaler users (OIU group) and 137 (85% males; aged 67.7 ± 1.3 years; FEV1% pred 62.3 ± 2.9; 60% and 23% respectively suffering from COPD and asthma) who were using both nebulisers and inhalers (NIU group). Nebuliser users were older, had more severe obstruction, related symptoms and health care resources utilisation. Nebulisers users performed more critical inhalers errors than those of the OIU group (49% vs. 36%; p = 0.009). We conclude that our patients with CAO and regular nebuliser treatment had advanced age, severe respiratory conditions and common inhaler misuse.

Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes and quality of life with the I-neb AAD system in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The I-neb Adaptive Aerosol Delivery (AAD) System is a novel portable mesh nebulizer that provides patient feedback regarding adherence to prescribed treatment and compliance with the correct use of the device.

METHODS

This multicenter study was composed of 98 patients aged 53-80 years with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The primary variables were ease of use and satisfaction, which were assessed after 3 months of use of the I-neb AAD System (assessed at visit 2) and after 3 months of use of the patient's previous nebulizer system (assessed at visit 1) using matched questions from pre- and poststudy questionnaires. Quality of life was also assessed at visits 1 and 2 using the validated Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), which consists of dyspnea, emotional function, fatigue, and mastery domains. Differences in the distribution of responses between the pre- and poststudy ease of use and satisfaction questions were analyzed using the Marginal Homogeneity test. Differences in mean CRQ scores between the pre- and poststudy assessments were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.

RESULTS

Patient responses on the ease of use and satisfaction questions significantly (p < or = 0.001) favored the I-neb AAD System compared with the patient's previous nebulizer system. In addition, significant (p < or = 0.015) improvements in the CRQ dimensions of dyspnea and fatigue were reported with the I-neb AAD System compared with the patients' previous nebulizer systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study demonstrated that patients were more satisfied with the I-neb AAD System and found it easier to use than their previous nebulizer systems. In addition, the I-neb AAD System significantly improved dyspnea and fatigue compared with the patients' previous nebulizer systems, which may reflect improved adherence or more correct use of the nebulizer system with the I-neb AAD System.

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.

Exacerbation rate, health status and mortality in COPD--a review of potential interventions

COPD is prevalent in Western society and its incidence is rising in the developing world. Acute exacerbations of COPD, about 50% of which are unreported, lead to deterioration in quality of life and contribute significantly to disease burden. Quality of life deteriorates with time; thus, most of the health burden occurs in more severe disease. COPD severity and frequent and more severe exacerbations are all related to an increased risk of mortality. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have similar effects on quality of life but ICS/long-acting bronchodilator combinations and the long-acting antimuscarinic tiotropium all improve health status and exacerbation rates and are likely to have an effect on mortality but perhaps only with prolonged use. Erythromycin has been shown to decrease the rate of COPD exacerbations. Pulmonary rehabilitation and regular physical activity are indicated in all severities of COPD and improve quality of life. Noninvasive ventilation is associated with improved quality of life. Long-term oxygen therapy improves mortality but only in hypoxic COPD patients. The choice of an inhaler device is a key component of COPD therapy and this requires more attention from physicians than perhaps we are aware of. Disease management programs, characterized as they are by patient centeredness, improve quality of life and decrease hospitalization rates. Most outcomes in COPD can be modified by interventions and these are well tolerated and have acceptable safety profiles.

Nebulized formoterol effect on bronchodilation and satisfaction in COPD patients compared to QID ipratropium/albuterol MDI

OBJECTIVE

Bronchodilator maintenance treatment improves pulmonary function and health-related quality of life in COPD patients. Pulmonary function and patient preference/satisfaction were compared before and after treatment with a short-acting ipratropium/albuterol combination and long-acting nebulized formoterol.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, crossover trial was conducted at 16 centers in the US. COPD subjects (n=109, 52.8% predicted FEV1) received nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist**, FFIS 20g BID) or ipratropium and albuterol combined in a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) (Combiventy, IPR-ALB, QID) for 2 weeks. After a 1-week washout, subjects were crossed over to the other treatment. Efficacy was assessed with 6-h pulmonary function tests and the transition dyspnea index (TDI). Treatment satisfaction and preference were assessed after treatment. Post-hoc subgroup analyses were conducted by age, gender and COPD severity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Morning pre-dose FEV1 (trough) after 2 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

FFIS significantly increased morning pre-dose FEV1 relative to IPR-ALB (p = 0.0015). FFIS also improved pre-dose FEV1 beyond that of IPR-ALB in subjects who were older (65 years), male, and with both moderate and severe/very severe COPD. Post-dose efficacy at 6 h was maintained in the FFIS group compared with IPR-ALB (p<or= 0.0001). Patient satisfaction and the perception of disease control were significantly greater with FFIS in the older, male, and severe subgroups. Severe subjects preferred FFIS to IPR-ALB. Both FFIS and IPR-ALB treatments resulted in clinically meaningful changes in dyspnea, but no significant differences were observed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a 2-week treatment period, twice-daily nebulized FFIS was significantly more effective in improving lung function than the IPR-ALB combination MDI delivered four times daily. Although the open-label design may limit interpretation of pulmonary function, the crossover design enabled demonstration of greater treatment satisfaction and perception of disease control following nebulized FFIS treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00462540.

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.

Compatibility and aerosol characteristics of formoterol fumarate mixed with other nebulizing solutions

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often given admixtures of nebulizable drugs to minimize the time of administration in treatment regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the physicochemical compatibility and aerodynamic characteristics of formoterol fumarate 20 microg/2 mL when mixed or sequentially nebulized with budesonide inhalation suspension 0.5 mg/2 mL, ipratropium bromide 0.5 mg/2.5 mL, cromolyn sodium 20 mg/2 mL, or acetylcysteine 10% (100 mg/mL).

METHODS

The admixtures were prepared in triplicate and analyzed for physicochemical compatibility at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after mixing at room temperature. Physical compatibility was determined by visual examination and measurements of pH, osmolality, and turbidity. Chemical stability was evaluated using compendial or in-house-validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay methods. The aerodynamic characteristics of the admixtures or sequentially nebulized drugs were determined from aerosols generated from a Pari LC Plus nebulizer, using an 8-stage cascade impactor followed by HPLC analysis of the deposited drug.

RESULTS

The admixtures remained clear, colorless solutions with no precipitation, except for cloudiness observed in the formoterol/budesonide combination due to budesonide suspension. The pH, osmolality, and turbidity for all admixtures were within the initial values (< or = 3%), and there were no significant changes (< or = 2%) in potency of the active components throughout the 1-hour study period. Due to increased drug volume or reconcentration in the nebulizer cup, the respirable fraction/delivered dose increased significantly (p < 0.05) for the mixed or sequentially nebulized drug. However, the fine particle fraction (FPF), mass median aerodynamic diameter, and geometric standard deviation generally remained unchanged for all admixtures, with the exception of FPF for the formoterol/budesonide combination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that admixtures of formoterol with budesonide, ipratropium, cromolyn, or acetylcysteine are physically and chemically compatible. However, admixing or sequential nebulization significantly increased the amount of drug delivered compared with single drug nebulization. The clinical implications of the in vitro data in patients with COPD have not been determined.

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.

Long-term safety of nebulized formoterol: Results of a twelve-month open-label clinical trial

Formoterol fumarate is a long-acting β2-agonist that is an effective bronchodilator for the maintenance management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The safety profile of the newly developed nebulized formoterol was evaluated over a twelve-month period in an open-label, active-control study. After completing a twelve-week double-blind double-dummy period, 569 subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease entered an open-label extension study and received twice-daily 20 µg formoterol fumarate inhalation solution for nebulization (FFIS) or 12 µg formoterol fumarate dry powder inhalation (FA) for 52 weeks. Most of the FFIS-treated subjects (86%) completed at least six months of open-label treatment with over 90% compliance, comparable to the FA group (88%). Results of safety monitoring for adverse events, laboratory values, and cardiac changes were similar between treatment groups. Three hundred forty (73%) of FFIS-treated subjects and 83 (78%) of FA-treated subjects experienced an adverse event over the course of the study, the majority of which were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment. COPD exacerbation occurred in 15.8% of FFIS-treated and 17.9% of FA-treated subjects. Deaths, serious adverse events, and discontinuations for adverse events occurred in 1.3, 16.2, and 5.4% of the nebulized group versus 1.9, 17.9, and 7.5% of the inhaled group, respectively. There were no clinically important changes from baseline in laboratory tests, including serum potassium and glucose, or vital signs and no treatment-related increases in cardiac arrhythmias, heart rate, or QTc prolongation. We conclude that nebulized formoterol fumarate twice daily is well tolerated over long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe COPD subjects and has a similar safety profile to the DPI formulation.

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.

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

PURPOSE

Patients using albuterol and ipratropium for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can use either nebulizers or metered dose inhalers. This study compared the 2 methods of delivering medication and the concomitant use of both nebulizer and inhaler, with respect to health-related quality of life, patient symptoms, and efficacy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients over 50 years old with COPD were randomized into 3 groups: nebulizer, inhaler, or concomitant treatment. Quality of life was assessed using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks. Other efficacy measurements at these time-points included pre- and post-dose forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1). Symptom scores and peak flow measurements were recorded in patient diaries.

RESULTS

Of 140 patients enrolled, 126 completed at least one post-baseline assessment. At week 6, both groups using a nebulizer achieved statistically significant improvements from baseline in questionnaire symptoms, and the concomitant treatment group had clinically and statistically significant improvement in total questionnaire score. At week 12, the concomitant group still maintained significant improvement in symptom sub-scores. The 3 groups showed little change over time in peak flow or FEV1, with no significant difference among groups. Both groups using a nebulizer had significant improvement over time in diary symptom scores, although differences between groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients using combined nebulizer therapy morning and night with mid-day inhaler use had the most statistically significant improvements in quality of life indices. This concomitant regimen provides the additional symptom relief offered by a nebulizer with the convenience of an inhaler when patients are away from home.

Efficacy of Nebulized Flunisolide Combined with Salbutamol and Ipratropium Bromide in Stable Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of nebulized corticosteroids in the prevention of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been poorly studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nebulized flunisolide (1 mg) + salbutamol/ipratropium bromide (1,875/375 microg) b.i.d. in comparison with placebo + salbutamol/ipratropium bromide.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study on 114 patients with COPD of moderate-to-severe degree. The main outcome was the frequency of severe exacerbations over a 6-month period. Before and after treatment, respiratory symptoms, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), shuttle walking test distance and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

The total number of exacerbations was slightly lower in the flunisolide group compared to the placebo group (19 vs. 34, p = 0.054); the number of patients experiencing at least one exacerbation during the study was also decreased (16 vs. 26, p = 0.059). In particular, type 3 Anthonisens's exacerbations were significantly reduced by flunisolide (p = 0.044). In the placebo group, scores were higher than in the flunisolide group but nonsignificant for dyspnea, cough, sputum amount and purulence. FEV(1) was significantly increased compared to baseline in both groups, and the area under the FEV(1)-time curve during the 6-month period was significantly greater in the flunisolide group (5.2 +/- 10.6 vs. 2.1 +/- 5.0, flunisolide vs. placebo, respectively; p = 0.047). For shuttle walking test distance and scores of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, no significant difference between the baseline evaluation and the end of the study was observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized flunisolide is a good alternative to other inhaled corticosteroids when added to nebulized salbutamol/ipratropium bromide in the long-term treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients.