Economic impact and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcomes of a comprehensive inhaler to nebulization therapy protocol implementation in a large multi-state healthcare system

Estimating Tiotropium Wasted Doses After Adding Revefenacin to an Inpatient Formulary: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Revefenacin is a once-daily nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Revefenacin is supplied as single-use nebulized vials, which may be preferable and less costly for hospital and health-system pharmacies to dispense versus multidose tiotropium inhalers. Estimates of LAMA multidose inhaler wasted doses remains unknown. Methods: This was a single-center descriptive cross-sectional study conducted between January 1 2021 and December 31 2021. Adult patients 18 years and older admitted to a 500-bed academic medical center in the southern United States and were ordered multidose tiotropium packages or single-use revefenacin vials during the study period were included. Results: Among 602 inpatients, there were 705 LAMA orders: 541 tiotropium (76.7%) and 164 revefenacin (23.3%). Four hundred ninety-five tiotropium orders (91.5%) wasted between 20% and 90% of multidose packages. Approximately $24,000 tiotropium doses were wasted versus single-use revefenacin vials. Conclusion: Multidose inhalers of tiotropium dispensed to hospitalized patients contributed to wasted doses compared to nebulized single-use revefenacin vials. Opportunities exist to minimize wasted doses of multidose long-acting inhalers dispensed to hospitalized patients.

Systemic Steroid and Nebulized Budesonide Combination Therapy Versus Systemic Steroid Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Community Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes and costs of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and systemic corticosteroid combination therapy versus systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods: Hospitalized patients aged 41 to 85 years old who received ≥40 mg/day of systemic prednisone equivalents between April 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017 and April 3, 2018 to July 31, 2018 with a primary discharge diagnosis of AECOPD. Two cohorts were identified: those who received >2 doses of ICS (combination therapy) and those who received ≤2 doses of ICS (monotherapy) while on systemic corticosteroid therapy. Primary outcomes were progression of respiratory support or ≥20% increase in daily dose of systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), COPD 30-day readmissions, in-hospital mortality, and nebulized budesonide costs. Results: One hundred twenty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Daily corticosteroid dose increases were similar between the combination and monotherapy cohorts (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.76) as was progression in ventilatory support (12% vs. 8%, P = 0.53). In-hospital mortality (4% vs. 1%, P = 0.36) and COPD 30-day readmissions (16% vs. 9%, P = 0.22) were not significantly different, however, patients in the combination arm had longer lengths of stay (4.8 days vs. 3.9 days, P = 0.04). Total nebulized budesonide costs were $1857 with a mean of $37 per patient stay for combination therapy cohort. Conclusion: Outcomes showed no clinical difference between combination therapy and monotherapy. This study suggests monotherapy may be more cost-effective while providing similar outcomes for the treatment of hospitalized patients with AECOPD.

Economic and workload impact of therapeutic interchange of inhaler medications and nebulizer solutions

PURPOSE

To examine the financial impact of automatic formulary substitution of nebulization solutions for pressurized metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers and the effect of the automatic substitution initiative on respiratory care practitioner (RCP) workload at a community hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted in a 326-bed nonacademic community hospital. Adult patients who received respiratory medications and had an inpatient stay, were admitted for observation, or had an emergency room visit from December 2016 through February 2017 (the control group) or from December 2017 through February 2018 (the study group) were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were the cost of respiratory medications per hospital stay and the number of RCP visits per hospital stay. The secondary outcome was the cost of wasted doses per hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 3,766 patients were included in the study: 2,030 in the study group and 1,736 in the control group. The mean cost of respiratory medications per hospital stay was significantly lower in the study group vs the control group ($13.29 vs $36.48, P < 0.001). The mean number of RCP visits per hospital stay was also statistically lower in the study group vs the control group (11.6 vs 12.9, P = 0.04). The mean cost of wasted doses was significantly lower in study group vs the control group ($0.25 vs $22.91, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Automatic formulary substitution of nebulization solutions for inhaler medications significantly decreased medication costs without increasing the average number of RCP visits per hospital stay.

Nebulized Therapies in COPD: Past, Present, and the Future

Current guidelines recommend inhalation therapy as the preferred route of drug administration for treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Inhalation devices consist of nebulizers and handheld inhalers, such as dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), and soft mist inhalers (SMIs). Although pMDIs, DPIs and SMIs may be appropriate for most patients with COPD, certain patient populations may have challenges with these devices. Patients who have cognitive, neuromuscular, or ventilatory impairments (and receive limited assistance from caregivers), as well as those with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow may not derive the full benefit from handheld inhalers. A considerable number of patients are not capable of producing a peak inspiratory flow rate to overcome the internal resistance of DPIs. Furthermore, patients may have difficulty coordinating inhalation with device actuation, which is required for pMDIs and SMIs. However, inhalation devices such as spacers and valved holding chambers can be used with pMDIs to increase the efficiency of aerosol delivery. Nebulized treatment provides patients with COPD an alternative administration route that avoids the need for inspiratory flow, manual dexterity, or complex hand-breath coordination. The recent approval of two nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonists has added to the extensive range of nebulized therapies in COPD. Furthermore, with the availability of quieter and more portable nebulizer devices, nebulization may be a useful treatment option in the management of certain patient populations with COPD. The aim of this narrative review was to highlight recent updates and the treatment landscape in nebulized therapy and COPD. We first discuss the pathophysiology of patients with COPD and inhalation device considerations. Second, we review the updates on recently approved and newly marketed nebulized treatments, nebulized treatments currently in development, and technological advances in nebulizer devices. Finally, we discuss the current applications of nebulized therapy in patients with COPD.