Peak inspiratory flow rate measurement by using In-Check DIAL for the different inhaler devices in elderly with obstructive airway diseases

Suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate: a noticeable risk factor for inhaler concordance in patients with chronic airway diseases

BACKGROUND

Inhaler concordance and the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) are important determinants of treatment effects in patients with chronic airway diseases. Adequate PIFR is required for driving aerosol medication into the lower respiratory tract. However, the relationship between them has not been discussed previously. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of inhaler concordance and PIFR in Chinese patients with chronic airway diseases and discuss the associated variables and the relationship between them.

METHODS

In this single-centre, observational study, a total of 680 patients with chronic airway diseases were enrolled from July 2021 to April 2023. We collected data on the socio-demographic and clinical variables of inhaler concordance using the test of adherence to inhalers (TAI) and PIFR. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine variables related to inhaler concordance and PIFR.

RESULTS

A total of 49.4% of patients had low concordance. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more concordant than patients with asthma (mean TAI score: 43.60 vs 41.20; p<0.01), while there was no difference in concordance between the asthma-COPD overlap group and the asthma or COPD group. Suboptimal PIFR (adjusted OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.51) increased the risk of poor concordance among all patients, while triple therapy (adjusted OR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.86) reduced the risk. A total of 54.9% of patients had suboptimal PIFR. Older age, lower educational level, use of dry powder inhalers and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted were significantly correlated with insufficient PIFR. Subgroup analysis revealed a greater proportion of patients with insufficient PIFR during exacerbation than during the stable phase (61.7% vs 43.5%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Inhaler concordance was low, and suboptimal PIFR was a risk factor for poor concordance among Chinese patients with chronic airway diseases. In addition, current inhalation devices may not be suitable, and PIFR reassessment should be considered for patients with COPD during exacerbation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered in chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100052527) on 31 October 2021.

Prevalence and Factors Affecting the Optimal and Non-optimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Stable and Exacerbation Phases of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Bronchial Asthma in India

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma pose significant threats and challenges to global health care, emphasizing the need for precise inhaler therapies to overcome this burden. The optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is a crucial determinant for the right selection and effective use of an inhaler device. It also helps to improve the treatment effectiveness of obstructive airway diseases worldwide as it allows effective drug delivery to distal airways and lung parenchyma. It is used as a selection criterion by physicians around the world for selecting personalized inhaler devices.

OBJECTIVE

To find out the optimal and non-optimal PIFR prevalence and its influencing factors in stable and exacerbation phases of COPD and bronchial asthma in Tamil Nadu, India.

METHODOLOGY

It is a single-center, observational, cross-sectional study conducted from February 2022 to August 2023. The patients who meet the diagnostic criteria specified by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines for COPD and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for bronchial asthma are enrolled in our study. The PIFR was measured using a hand-held digital spirometry device, along with demographic data collection. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and chi-square tests, were performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

Gender, height, and disease severity significantly impacted the PIFR. Females, normal BMI individuals, and those with moderate disease severity exhibited higher optimal PIFR rates. Stable or exacerbation phases, disease, and smoking status do not influence either optimal or non-optimal PIFR. Notably, substantial differences in lung function parameters were observed between optimal (60-90 L/min) and non-optimal PIFR (insufficient: <30 L/min, suboptimal: 30-60 L/min, excessive: >90 L/min) groups, highlighting their impact on respiratory health.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the importance of personalized inhaler strategies, considering gender, height, and disease severity. Proper inhaler device selection, continuous monitoring of inhaler technique, and tailored inhaler education at every OPD visit are vital for optimizing effective COPD and bronchial asthma management and improving adherence to treatment.

Exploration of quality criteria for the detection of peak inspiratory flow under different resistance conditions

BACKGROUND

At present, robust quality criteria and methods for the assessment of Peak inspiratory flow meter performance are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

A standard flow-volume simulator for quality control analyses of an inhalation assessment device was utilized with different simulated resistance levels in order to propose a quality testing method and associated standard for this device type.

METHODS

A standard flow-volume simulator was utilized to assess the performance of an In-Check DIAL® (Device I) and an intelligent inhalation assessment device (Device P) at a fixed volume and flow rate. Indices used to evaluate these two instruments included repeatability, accuracy, linearity, and impedance.

RESULTS

Both devices exhibited good repeatability (<± 3 L/min). The difference between test results and standard simulator values for Device P was less than ± 5 L/min at resistance level R1 but higher than ± 5 L/min at resistance levels R2-5, while Device I were greater than 5 L/min at all resistance levels. The relative error for Device P was <± 10% at resistance levels R1, R2, and R4, but > 10% at resistance levels R3 and R5. The relative error values for Device I at all five resistance levels were > 10%. Device P passed the linearity test at the R2 resistance level, while Device I partially passed the linearity test at all five resistance levels.

CONCLUSION

Standard monitoring methods and standards provide a valuable approach to the more reliable clinical assessment and application of these instruments.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Part 3: Inhaler Technique and Counseling Pearls

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy management can be complex given the various types of inhaler devices available, even within a therapeutic class. Appropriateness of an inhaler relies on many patient-specific factors. Senior care pharmacists can positively impact patient care by providing appropriate inhaler assessment as well as education on inhaler technique to ensure maximal benefit from therapeutic treatment choices.

Correlation between Hand Grip Strength and Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is required for effective drug delivery to distal airways when using dry powder inhalers (DPIs). This study aimed to examine the association between PIFR and hand grip strength (HGS) in stable COPD patients. A cross-sectional study was conducted. PIFR was measured using the In-check DIAL to assess for Accuhaler and Turbuhaler DPIs. HGS was measured using a handheld dynamometer. A PIFR of <60 L/min was considered suboptimal PIFR. Demographics, clinical data, and spirometric data were collected and compared. Eighty-one patients (86% men) were included. Mean age was 73.3 ± 8.9 years. FEV1 was 65.3 ± 23.7%. The prevalence of suboptimal PIFR was 38% and 59% for Accuhaler and Turbuhaler, respectively. HGS in the suboptimal PIFR group was lower than in the optimal PIFR group for Accuhaler (22.8 ± 4.7 vs. 33.2 ± 6.9 kg, p < 0.001) and for Turbuhaler (25.3 ± 6.4 vs. 35.1 ± 6.3 kg, p < 0.001). The equation for predicted Accuhaler PIFR (L/min) was −30.340 + (0.274 × hand grip strength) − (0.206 × age) + (0.219 × height) + (1.019 × FVC). The equation for predicted Turbuhaler PIFR (L/min) was 56.196 + (0.321 × hand grip strength) − (0.196 × female) − (0.224 × age) + (0.304 × FVC). The best cutoff values of HGS for predicting optimal PIFR in Accuhaler and Turbuhaler were 26.8 kg (with 82% sensitivity and 84% specificity) and 31.9 kg (with 79% sensitivity and 90% specificity), respectively. In conclusion, HGS correlated with PIFR in patients with clinically stable COPD, especially in the group with pronounced symptoms without frequent exacerbations. HGS threshold values associated with suboptimal PIFR were identified. HGS may be used as an alternative tool to assess an optimal inspiratory force for DPIs.

One additional educational session in inhaler use to patients with COPD in primary health care - A controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether one additional educational session about inhaler use, delivered to patients with COPD in primary healthcare, could affect the patients' skills in inhaler use. Specifically, to study the effects on errors related to handling the device, to inhalation technique, and to both.

METHODS

This nonrandomized controlled clinical trial included 64 patients who used devices and made errors. COPD nurses assessed inhaler use using a checklist and educated patients. Intervention group received one additional educational session after two weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients in the IG had more devices (n = 2,1) compared to patients in the CG (n = 1,6) (p = 0.003). No other statistically significant differences were seen at baseline. At follow-up, intervention group showed a lower proportion of patients who made errors related to handling the device (p = 0.006). No differences were seen in the other categories.

CONCLUSION

One additional educational session in inhaler use for patients with COPD was effective in reducing the proportion of patients making errors related to handling of their devices.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Categorization of errors might help healthcare professionals to assess the suitability of patients' devices, tailor patient education, and thus improve patient health.

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose

To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI).

Patients and methods

The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the “Test of Adherence to Inhalers” questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period.

Results

Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, “insufficient inspiratory effort” with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03–1.31). “no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and “not breathing out calmly after inhalation” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU.

Conclusion

sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Measuring Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)—a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)—are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check™ DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check™ DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice.

Optimizing inhalation therapy in the aspect of peak inhalation flow rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma

Background

Pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are commonly used drug-delivering devices for patients with chronic airway diseases. Appropriate peak inhalation flow rate (PIFR) and inhaler technique is essential for effective therapy. We aimed at optimizing inhalation therapy through the analysis of PIFRs in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma as well as the effect of technique training using In-Check DIAL® to help patients to achieve their optimal inspiratory flow rates.

Methods

The study continuously enrolled patients who were diagnosed as COPD or asthma from respiratory clinics. PIFRs were described and analyzed between the newly-diagnosed and follow-up patients, and the stable and acute exacerbation patients, respectively. Every participant was trained inhaler technique using In-Check DIAL®. PIFRs before and after training was compared by self-control analysis.

Results

Among a total of 209 patients, the average age was 56.9 years. For DPIs users, 10.8% patients had a PIFR < 30 L/min and 44.1% patients had a PIFR ≥ 60 L/min before technique training. After technique training, scarcely patient (1.5%) had a PIFR < 30 L/min, and 60.5% patients had a PIFR ≥ 60 L/min. The patient’s average PIFR increased by 5.6L/min after training. The increase in PIFR before and after training was significant (p < 0.001) for most patients, but no significant variation was found in patients with acute exacerbation (p = 0.822).

Conclusions

A considerable number of patients with COPD or asthma were not able to achieve the minimum or optimal PIFR for DPIs. Inhaler training can increase patients’ PIFRs and improve their ability to use DPIs.

Trail registration The study has registered in chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900024707) and been approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University (B2019-142).

Assessment of peak inspiratory flow in the management of acute inspiratory dyspnoea

PURPOSE

Assessment of inspiratory dyspnoea associated with upper airway obstruction is based on subjective clinical and nasal fibreoptic laryngoscopy (NFL) signs. The aim of this study was to determine whether peak inspiratory flow (PIF) measurement could indicate the need for upper airway release surgery in patients with acute inspiratory dyspnoea during emergency.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution study (February 2018-March 2020) of 48 patients with acute inspiratory dyspnoea and PIF measurement (Peak Flow In-Check Dial G16^®-Harlow-England) was conducted. The surgical decision was based on the clinical evaluation of the patient's respiratory tolerance and NFL.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included in this study. Thirty-five patients underwent surgery (PIF: 36 L/min), and 13 patients did not (PIF: 58 L/min) (p = 0.0009). Three of these 13 patients underwent an operation later (PIF value: 42 L/min versus 63 L/min for the 10 others [p = 0.25]).

CONCLUSION

PIF measurement is a quantitative, objective, inexpensive, non-invasive, and quick test that is potentially useful for general practitioners, mobile medical teams, or for ear-nose-and-throat specialists. A threshold of 42 L/min can help doctors in emergency decision making to refer patients to an ear-nose-and-throat specialist to release the upper airway and perform surgery or to choose medical monitoring for patients with emergency inspiratory dyspnoea.

Peak-Inspiratory-Flow-Rate Guided Inhalation Therapy Reduce Severe Exacerbation of COPD

Optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is crucial for inhalation therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, little is known about the impact of PIFR-guided inhalation therapy on the clinical outcomes among patients with varying severities of COPD. A PIFR-guided inhalation therapy, including PIFR assessment and PIFR-guided inhaler education, was introduced in a pay-for-performance COPD management program in National Taiwan University Hospital. Among 383 COPD patients, there was significant reduction in incidence of severe acute exacerbation in the PIFR-guided inhalation therapy (PIFR group) than conventional inhaler education (control group) (11.9 vs. 21.1%, p = 0.019) during one-year follow-up. A multivariable Cox’s proportional-hazards analysis revealed that the PIFR-guided inhalation therapy was a significant, independent factor associated with the reduced risk of severe exacerbation (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval, 0.28–0.84, p = 0.011). Subgroup analysis found PIFR-guided inhalation therapy was more beneficial to patients with older age, short body stature, COPD stage 1&2, group C&D (frequent exacerbation phenotype), and using multiple inhalers. This study showed the PIFR-guided inhalation therapy significantly reduced the incidence of severe acute exacerbation than conventional inhaler education in patients with COPD. Careful PIFR-assessment and education would be crucial in the management of COPD.

Lung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinion

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to describe: 1) lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate; 2) main characteristics of inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to analyze the features and results of inhaler devices in COPD patients. These devices included pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), and a soft mist inhaler (SMI). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as well as search strategies (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2019). In vitro and in vivo studies were included. Two reviewers selected articles, collected and analyzed data independently. Narrative searches complemented the SLR. We discussed the results of the reviews in a nominal group meeting and agreed on various general principles and recommendations.

RESULTS

The SLR included 71 articles, some were of low-moderate quality, and there was great variability regarding populations and outcomes. Lung deposition rates varied across devices: 8%-53% for pMDIs, 7%-69% for DPIs, and 39%-67% for the SMI. The aerosol exit velocity was high with pMDIs (more than 3 m/s), while it is much slower (0.84-0.72 m/s) with the SMI. In general, pMDIs produce large-sized particles (1.22-8 μm), DPIs produce medium-sized particles (1.8-4.8 µm), and 60% of the particles reach an aerodynamic diameter <5 μm with the SMI. All inhalation devices reach central and peripheral lung regions, but the SMI distribution pattern might be better compared with pMDIs. DPIs' intrinsic resistance is higher than that of pMDIs and SMI, which are relatively similar and low. Depending on the DPI, the minimum flow inspiratory rate required was 30 L/min. pMDIs and SMI did not require a high inspiratory flow rate.

CONCLUSION

Lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate are key factors when selecting an inhalation device in COPD patients.

Patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory flows via Easyhaler® dry powder inhaler: a pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Background

To evaluate whether patients of varying ages and lung function with asthma or those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can achieve sufficient inspiratory flows for effective use of the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol-fluticasone propionate and budesonide-formoterol dispensed with the Easyhaler^® (EH) device-metered, multi-dose dry powder inhaler (DPI).

Methods

A pooled analysis of two randomized, multicenter, crossover, open-label studies (NCT01424137; NCT009849061) was conducted to characterize inspiratory flow parameters across the EH, Seretide Diskus (DI) and Symbicort Turbuhaler (TH) inhalers in patients with asthma and/or COPD of varying severity. The primary endpoint was peak inspiratory flow (PIF) rate through the EH.

Results

The intent-to-treat population comprised 397 patients; 383 patients were included in the per-protocol (PP) population. The mean PIF (standard deviation) values through the EH in patients <18 and ≥18 years of age with asthma and in those with COPD, were similar: 61.4 (11.5), 69.7 (13.5), and 61.9 (13.2) L/min, respectively. These flow rates correspond to pressure drops of 5.05 (1.80), 6.52 (2.34) and 5.19 (2.07) kPa, respectively. In total, 380 (99.2%) of patients in the PP population were able to generate a PIF rate through the EH of ≥30 L/min, which is required to enable consistent dose delivery from the DPI; there was a moderate direct association between age and PIF in younger patients with asthma, but this was inverse and less apparent in adult patients with asthma and/or those with COPD. Height and weight were also moderately correlated with PIF. Stronger associations with PIF were observed for some lung function parameters, particularly native PIF and forced inspiratory vital capacity.

Conclusions

Over 99% of patients with asthma and/or COPD were able to inhale through the EH with an adequate PIF rate, irrespective of age, or severity of airway obstruction. This confirms that patients with asthma and/or COPD can achieve inspiratory flows via the EH DPI that are sufficient for its effective use.

Evaluation of Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Stable COPD

Objective: Although the importance of assessing inspiratory flow in the selection of treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is understood, evaluation of this factor is not yet widespread or standardized. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the peak inspiratory flow (PIF) of patients with COPD and to explore the variables associated with a suboptimal PIF. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was carried out at specialized nursing consultations over a period of 6 months. We collected clinical data as well as data on symptoms, treatment adherence, and patient satisfaction with their inhalers via questionnaires. PIF was determined using the In-Check Dial G16^® device (Clement Clarke International, Ltd., Harlow, UK). In each case, the PIF was considered suboptimal when it was off-target for any of the prescribed inhalers. The association with suboptimal PIF was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression and the results were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 122 COPD patients were included in this study, of whom 34 (27.9%) had suboptimal PIF. A total of 229 inhalers were tested, of which 186 (81.2%) were dry powder devices. The multivariate analysis found an association between suboptimal PIF and age (OR = 1.072; 95% CI (1.019, 1.128); p = 0.007) and forced vital capacity (OR = 0.961; 95% CI (0.933, 0.989); p = 0.006). Conclusions: About a third of patients in complex specialized COPD care have suboptimal PIFs, which is related to age and forced vital capacity.

Common errors in inhalation therapy: Impact and solutions

OBJECTIVE

Inhalation therapy is one of the key pillars in the treatment of chronic obstructive diseases, such as asthma and COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); however, wide number of errors occur with high frequency in the inhalation manoeuvres among these patient. This review discuss the main errors made with inhalation devices, factors associated with poor IT (inhalation technique), their consequences and possible solutions.

DATA SOURCES

To do this, we performed a search of any publications available in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2019, using the key words: asthma, COPD, obstructive lung disease, inhalers, misuse and errors.

STUDY SELECTIONS

After a review of the titles and abstracts by the working group, the articles chosen were considered the most relevant in providing evidence of the problems and establishing solutions in the inhalation treatment of asthma and COPD.

RESULTS

There are several publications that associated the errors in the inhalation technique with a poor prognosis both of asthma and COPD. Most authors generally agree in that a poor IT is associated with poor control of the symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to review the IT in all our patients with asthma and COPD due to the high socio-economic impact that it involves; an effort must be made to homogenise the evaluation of IT, so that it helps to transmit a clear message to the patients, as well as to the health professionals on what is and what is not a correct manoeuvre.

What to consider before prescribing inhaled medications: a pragmatic approach for evaluating the current inhaler landscape

Inhaled therapies are the cornerstone of treatment in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and there are a multitude of devices available. There is, however, a distinct lack of evidence-based guidance for healthcare providers on how to choose an appropriate inhaler. This review aims to summarise recent updates on topics related to inhaler choice, and to offer practical considerations for healthcare providers regarding currently marketed devices. The importance of choosing the right inhaler for the right patient is discussed, and the relative merits of dry powder inhalers, pressurised metered dose inhalers, breath-actuated pressurised metered dose inhalers, spacers and soft mist inhalers are considered. Compiling the latest studies in the devices therapy area, this review focuses on the most common types of handling errors, as well as the comparative rates of incorrect inhalation technique between devices. The impact of device-specific handling errors on inhaler performance is also discussed, and the characteristics that can impair optimal drug delivery, such as inhalation flow rate, inhalation volume and particle size, are compared between devices. The impact of patient perceptions, behaviours and problems with inhalation technique is analysed, and the need for appropriate patient education is also highlighted. The continued development of technology in inhaler design and the need to standardise study assessment, endpoints and patient populations are identified as future research needs. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Inappropriate Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate with Dry Powder Inhaler in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is crucial for optimizing dry powder inhaler (DPI) effectiveness for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study provide an insight that there was a substantial proportion of improper PIFRs (not only insufficient but also excessive) among COPD patients using DPIs. We enrolled 138 COPD patients from a medical center in Taiwan and measured PIFRs against different internal resistances of DPIs. Proportion of excessive, optimal, suboptimal, and insufficient PIFRs were 2%, 54%, 41%, 3%, respectively, against medium-high resistance; 2%, 77%, 20%, 1%, respectively, against medium resistance; 27%, 63%, 9%, 1%, respectively, against medium-low resistance; and 42%, 57%, 1%, 0%, respectively, against low resistance (p < 0.01). Although most PIFRs against medium-high (54%), medium (77%), medium-low (63%) and low (57%) resistance were optimal, a substantial proportion of PIFRs against low resistance were excessive (42%, p < 0.01), irrespective of age, body-mass index, dyspnea severity score, and COPD severity. Insufficient PIFRs were infrequent, but suboptimal/insufficient PIFRs were most prevalent in patients older than 75 years than in younger patients (36% vs. 56%, p = 0.036) against medium-high resistance. Regularly monitoring PIFRs against the specific resistance of the DPIs and instructing patients to employ a proper inspiration effort may help to optimize the effects of DPIs.

Peak Inspiratory Flows: Defining Repeatability Limits and a Predictive Equation for Different Inhalers

BACKGROUND

Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) has been proposed as a measure to assess a patient's ability to use dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, robust quality criteria to determine a repeatability limit for measuring PIF are lacking.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What are the repeatability limits for measuring PIF? What is the relationship between PIF measured using the In-Check DIAL device at Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline; PIF_D) and HandiHaler (Boehringer Ingelheim; PIF_HH) resistances?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial (study 0149; see Clinical Trial Registration data) were used to define repeatability limits for PIF. In addition, a model to characterize the relationship between PIF measured with the In-Check DIAL device at PIF_D and PIF_HH was defined using data from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (studies 0128 and 0149).

RESULTS

In study 0128, the mean values (SD) for PIF at zero resistance and PIF_HH were 84.6 (33.4) and 57.3 (26.1) L/min, respectively. In study 0149, the mean values (SD) for PIF_D and PIF_HH were 42.4 (11.2) and 29.0 (8.3) L/min, respectively. At the mean level, the mean difference between measurement attempts for PIF_D and PIF_HH was small, < 5 and < 3 L/min, respectively. The repeatability limit was determined as 10 and 5 L/min for PIF_D and PIF_HH, respectively. Modeling the relationship between PIF_D and PIF_HH, after controlling for significant covariates, demonstrated that a PIF_D value of 60 L/min was approximately equivalent to PIF_HH of 40 L/min.

INTERPRETATIONS

This analysis demonstrated that the two highest values of PIF using the In-Check DIAL device among three inspiratory efforts, met the repeatability limit. Altogether, these data provide guidance for measuring PIF against the simulated resistance of a specific DPI in clinical practice and research studies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT02518139 (study 0128) and NCT03095456 (study 0149); URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Prevalence and predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in COPD patients

The aim of this study was to determine prevalence and possible clinical predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) with different dry powder inhalers. PIFR was measured across all resistance ranges of In-Check Dial® in 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects before hospital discharge. COPD subjects were defined as suboptimal if measured PIFR was suboptimal with any resistance representative of specific inhalers (R1-R5). Demographics and clinical data were collected, including COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scores, Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage spirometry by Spirodoc® and peak flow meter measurements with portable peak inspiratory and expiratory flow meters. All were correlated with In-Check Dial PIFRs. Suboptimal PIFR was 44.44% prevalent in COPD subjects. 55% of the suboptimal cohort was female which represent 57.14% of the total female population in the study. The distribution of suboptimal PIFR included 43.75% with R1, 67.5% with R2, 100% with R3, 13.75% with R4, and 21.25% with R5. In the suboptimal cohort, CAT score was significantly higher and spirometry demonstrated significantly lower lung function results compared to the optimal cohort (p < 0.05). The only parameter to show strong and moderate correlation with In-Check Dial PIFRs was PIFR measured by peak flow meter (p < 0.001). Suboptimal PIFR is common among COPD subjects at hospital discharge. Female gender and peak flow meter PIFR was the only predictor of suboptimal PIFR. Inhaler therapy for COPD patients must be personalized based on simple routine measurement of In-Check Dial PIFRs or peak flow meter PIFR to optimize clinical benefits .

Association between peak inspiratory flow rate and hand grip muscle strength in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Rationale

Ineffective peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) generation in patients using inhalers results in insufficient drug delivery to the lungs and poor clinical outcomes. Low inspiratory muscle strength is associated with suboptimal PIFR.

Objective

To examine in a prospective study the relationship between PIFR and skeletal muscle strength using hand grip strength (HGS) as a surrogate.

Methods

Adult patients admitted with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled. PIFR was measured within 48 hours before discharge. PIFR below 60L/min was considered suboptimal. HGS was measured using a handheld dynamometer. Any readmissions and emergency department visit data were collected. The associations between PIFR, HGS, 30 and 90-day COPD and all-cause readmissions were examined, without and with adjustment for age, race and gender.

Results

Of the 75 enrolled patients, 56% had suboptimal PIFR; they were older (63.9±9.7 vs. 58.2±7.7 years) and had significantly lower HGS (24.2±11.1 vs. 30.9±10.9 Kg) compared to those with optimal PIFR. There were no significant differences between the two PIFR groups by gender, race, history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension or functional scores. Each kilogram increase in HGS was associated with 0.50 (95%CI 0.18–0.89, p = 0.003) L/min increase in PIFR. We did not observe an association between PIFR and 30 or 90-day readmission rates.

Conclusion

We found a significant association between HGS and PIFR in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Whether interventions aimed at increasing skeletal muscle strength also result in improvement in PIFR remains unclear and need further study.

Inhaler Devices in a Geriatric Patient Population: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study on Patient Preferences

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the perception and preference of geriatric patients for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label cross-sectional study with inpatient inhaler-naïve geriatric volunteers (age ≥ 70 years). All 106 participants were interviewed and subjected to a geriatric examination for cognitive, motor and fine motor skills before demonstrating the use of nine inhalers in random order. For each device, patients were asked to test the handling, to assess the device properties and to name the device that they would most or least prefer.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 80.8 years. From a selection of 7 predefined general inhaler attributes, ease of use, discrete handling and inhalation resistance were the most important for the geriatric participants. Across all inhaler devices, the volunteers needed an average of 2.47 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Nexthaler^® (1.75; SD ± 0.903), followed by Spiromax^® (1.96; SD ± 0.965) and Genuair^® (2.05; SD ± 1.027). There was a weak to moderate correlation between the number of attempts required to ensure the correct use of these three inhalers and the patient's cognitive and fine motor skills. Fifty-nine patients (56%) chose the Nexthaler as the inhalation device that they would most prefer (p<0.001 vs other devices). This was followed by Spiromax (n=23; 22%) and Genuair (n=12; 11%). The device that was least favored was the Elpenhaler^® (p<0.001 vs other devices).

CONCLUSION

Patient preference and frequency of inhaler handling-errors may vary between inhaler devices. The Nexthaler was the easiest-to-use and most popular device among inhaler-naïve patients.

Inhaler Devices for Delivery of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD

Inhaled fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have become the cornerstone for the maintenance treatment of symptomatic COPD patients. In this regard, global COPD treatment guidelines have recognized the importance of inhaler devices as integral contributors to the effectiveness of LABA/LAMA FDCs and recommend regular assessment of inhaler device use by the patients in order to improve long-term clinical outcomes. Optimal disease control is also highly dependent upon patient preferences and adherence to inhaler devices. This review objectively examines and compares the major inhaler devices used to deliver different LABA/LAMA FDCs, discusses the inhaler device characteristics that determine drug deposition in the airways, real-life preference for inhaler devices, and handling of inhaler devices that impact the results of the long-term management of COPD. The introduction of new LABA/LAMA FDCs, new inhaler devices, and more clinical studies have created confusion among physicians in choosing the optimal inhaled therapy for COPD patients; in this context, this review attempts to provide an evidence-based framework for informed decision-making with a particular focus on the inhaler devices.Funding. The preparation of this manuscript was funded by Novartis Pharma AG.

Prevalence and factors associated with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rates in COPD

Purpose

Adequate peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is required for drug dispersion with dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Prevalence of PIFR discordance (suboptimal PIFR with prescribed inhalers) and factors influencing device-specific PIFR are unclear in COPD. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIFR discordance and associated clinical factors in a stable COPD population.

Patients and methods

An observational, single-center, cohort study was conducted including 66 outpatients with COPD. PIFR was measured using the In-Check™ Dial with applied resistance of prescribed inhalers. Participants were defined as discordant if measured PIFR was <30 L/min and <60 L/min for high and low–medium resistance devices, respectively, using an inspiratory effort the participant normally used with their prescribed DPI.

Results

The median age of the COPD participants was 69.4 years, 92% were white and 47% were female. A total of 48% were using low–medium resistance DPIs (Diskus^®/Ellipta^®) and 76% used high-resistance DPI (Handihaler^®). A total of 40% of COPD participants were discordant to prescribed inhalers. Female gender was the only factor consistently associated with lower PIFR. Shorter height was associated with reduced PIFR for low–medium resistance (r=0.44; P=0.01), but not high resistance (r=0.20; P=0.16). There was no correlation between PIFR by In-Check™ dial and PIFR measured by standard spirometer.

Conclusion

PIFR is reduced in stable COPD patients, with female gender being the only factor consistently associated with reduced PIFR. Discordance with prescribed inhalers was seen in 40% of COPD patients, suggesting that many COPD patients do not generate adequate inspiratory force to overcome prescribed DPIs resistance in the course of normal use.

Physiological predictors Of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function resultS (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation

Background

Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes.

Aim

The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events.

Patients and methods

A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters.

Results

Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71 [±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV₁ and % predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler^® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV₁ and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer^® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV₁, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus^® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (<0.4).

Conclusion

The study did not provide evidence to support the use of surrogate measurements for PIF through device resistance, which could assist in determining the appropriateness of inhaler device type. Although PIF measurement is feasible in patients at discharge and could be a valuable addition to the standard of care in COPD management, it needs to be measured directly.

Which inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β-agonist combination is better in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, a dry powder inhaler or a pressurized metered-dose inhaler?

Two main types of devices are used to facilitate the administration of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) in combination, dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). There are few reports comparing the effects of the two devices, and it is unknown which should be recommended for asthma patients with given sets of characteristics. In the current study, the beneficial effects and side effects associated with DPIs and pMDIs were compared, and the question of which device should be recommended for asthma patients was investigated. A prospective, randomized, crossover, comparative study in adult outpatients with asthma was conducted using salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50 μg/250 μg, one inhalation of Adoair® 250 Diskus® twice daily or two inhalations of Adoair® 125 Aerosol twice daily, for 8 weeks. Questionnaires, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests and pulmonary function tests were administered after the use of each device for 8 weeks, and the results derived from each device were compared. Sixty-eight subjects were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between quality-of-life scores, FeNO, spirometry test results and forced oscillation results. With regard to patient preferences, 57.4% preferred the Adoair® Aerosol and 35.3% preferred the Adoair® Diskus®, as determined via the comparative evaluation questionnaire. Although DPI prescription accounts for the predominant market share of combined ICS/LABA in Japan, patients preferred a pMDI device to a DPI device. Compared to DPIs, pMDIs may be the preferential choice for patients with asthma.

Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Implications for Dry Powder Inhalers

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States with a significant economic burden related to hospital admissions for exacerbations. One of the primary treatment modalities for COPD is medications delivered through breath-actuated dry powdered inhalers (DPIs). For users to successfully receive inhaled medication, they must inhale with enough flow to overcome the internal resistance of the device, leading to deaggregation of the medication powder. Peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is the maximal flow rate obtained during an inspiratory maneuver. PIFR measurement can be impacted by the internal resistance of the device, which varies with device design. Many devices require a PIFR >60 L/min for adequate medication dispersal, while others appear to have adequate drug deaggregation with a PIFR >30 L/min. Studies have shown PIFRs are reduced among females and decrease with age, without a clear correlation between forced expiratory volume in 1 second and PIFR. PIFR can be reduced at the time of COPD exacerbation. Recent data suggest that reduced PIFR may be associated with worse COPD-related symptom burden, increased odds of COPD-related hospital readmissions, and improved responsiveness to nebulized therapy. This review article aims to examine the physiology and clinical correlations of PIFR, as well as review published studies related to PIFR with DPIs used to treat COPD.