Uninterrupted Continuous and Intermittent Nebulizer Therapy in a COVID-19 Patient Using Sequential Vibratory Mesh Nebulizers: A Case Report

Multidrug Aerosol Delivery During Mechanical Ventilation

Background: In the critically ill, pulmonary vasodilators are often provided off label to intubated patients using continuous nebulization. If additional aerosol therapies such as bronchodilators or antibiotics are needed, vasodilator therapy may be interrupted. This study assesses aerosol systems designed for simultaneous delivery of two aerosols using continuous nebulization and bolus injection without interruption or circuit disconnection. Methods: One i-AIRE dual-port breath-enhanced jet nebulizer (BEJN) or two Aerogen® Solo vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) were installed on the dry side of the humidifier. VMN were stacked; one for infusion and the second for bolus drug delivery. The BEJN was powered by air at 3.5 L/min, 50 psig. Radiolabeled saline was infused at 5 and 10 mL/h with radiolabeled 3 and 6 mL bolus injections at 30 and 120 minutes, respectively. Two adult breathing patterns (duty cycle 0.13 and 0.34) were tested with an infusion time of 4 hours. Inhaled mass (IM) expressed as % of initial syringe activity (IM%/min) was monitored in real time with a ratemeter. All delivered radioaerosol was collected on a filter at the airway opening. Transients in aerosol delivery were measured by calibrated ratemeter. Results: IM%/h during continuous infusion was linear and predictable, mean ± standard deviation (SD): 2.12 ± 1.45%/h, 2.47 ± 0.863%/h for BEJN and VMN, respectively. BEJN functioned without incident. VMN continuous aerosol delivery stopped spontaneously in 3 of 8 runs (38%); bolus delivery stopped spontaneously in 3 of 16 runs (19%). Tapping restarted VMN function during continuous and bolus delivery runs. Bolus delivery IM% (mean ± SD): 20.90% ± 7.01%, 30.40% ± 11.10% for BEJN and VMN, respectively. Conclusion: Simultaneous continuous and bolus nebulization without circuit disconnection is possible for both jet and mesh technology. Monitoring of VMN devices may be necessary in case of spontaneous interruption of nebulization.

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.

The Spectrum of Antibiotic Prescribing During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Literature Review

Objectives: Over the last decades, there has been a significant increase in antimicrobial prescribing and consumption associated with the development of patients' adverse events and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to the point of becoming a global priority. This study aims at evaluating antibiotic prescribing during COVID-19 pandemic from November 2019 to December 2020. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted primarily through the NCBI database, using PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant literature for the period between November 1, 2019 and December 19, 2020, using the keywords: COVID-19 OR SARS-Cov-2 AND antibiotics restricted to the English language excluding nonclinical articles. Five hundred twenty-seven titles were identified; all articles fulfilling the study criteria were included, 133 through the NCBI, and 8 through Google Scholar with a combined total of 141 studies. The patient's spectrum included all ages from neonates to elderly with all associated comorbidities, including immune suppression. Results: Of 28,093 patients included in the combined studies, 58.7% received antibiotics (16,490/28,093), ranging from 1.3% to 100% coverage. Antibiotics coverage was less in children (57%) than in adults with comorbidities (75%). Broad-spectrum antibiotics were prescribed presumptively without pathogen identifications, which might contribute to adverse outcomes. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant and wide range of antibiotic prescribing in patients affected by the disease, particularly in adults with underlying comorbidities, despite the paucity of evidence of associated bacterial infections. The current practice might increase patients' immediate and long-term risks of adverse events, susceptibility to secondary infections as well as aggravating AMR.