Inhaler devices for patients with COPD

Modeling of pulmonary deposition of agents of open and fixed dose triple combination therapies through two different low-resistance inhalers in COPD: a pilot study

Introduction

Inhalation therapy is a cornerstone of treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Inhaler devices might influence the effectiveness of inhalation therapy. We aimed to model and compare the deposition of acting agents of an open and a fixed dose combination (FDC) triple therapy and examine their repeatability.

Methods

We recruited control subjects (Controls, n = 17) and patients with stable COPD (S-COPD, n = 13) and those during an acute exacerbation (AE-COPD, n = 12). Standard spirometry was followed by through-device inhalation maneuvers using a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) and a soft mist inhaler (SMI) to calculate deposition of fixed dose and open triple combination therapies by numerical modeling. Through-device inspiratory vital capacity (IVC_d) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF_d), as well as inhalation time (t_in) and breath hold time (tbh) were used to calculate pulmonary (PD) and extrathoracic deposition (ETD) values. Deposition was calculated from two different inhalation maneuvers.

Results

There was no difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) between patients (S-COPD: 42 ± 5% vs. AE-COPD: 35 ± 5% predicted). Spiriva^® Respimat^® showed significantly higher PD and lower ETD values in all COPD patients and Controls compared with the two pMDIs. For Foster^® pMDI and Trimbow^® pMDI similar PD were observed in Controls, while ETD between Controls and AE-COPD patients did significantly differ. There was no difference between COPD groups regarding the repeatability of calculated deposition values. Ranking the different inhalers by differences between the two deposition values calculated from separate maneuvers, Respimat^® produced the smallest inter-measurement differences for PD.

Discussion

Our study is the first to model and compare PD using pMDIs and an SMI as triple combination in COPD. In conclusion, switching from FDC to open triple therapy in cases when adherence to devices is maintanined may contribute to better therapeutic effectiveness in individual cases using low resistance inhalers.

Pilot Study to Investigate the Benefits of the InnoSpire Go Mesh Nebulizer Compared to Jet Nebulizers in the Treatment of Stable COPD

Background: Nebulizers are widely used for the delivery of aerosols to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer has been designed to improve upon the ease of use and convenience of existing nebulizers for the treatment of COPD. Methods: This was a pilot, single-center, randomized, open-label crossover study conducted over 2 months to investigate the use of the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer compared to the patient's own compressor driven jet nebulizer in ambulatory patients with stable COPD. Patient preference was assessed at the end of the study; quality of life, symptom scores, treatment time, and satisfaction were assessed at multiple points during the study. Results: Data for 17 patients were eligible for analysis, patients had a mean age of 64.6 years, and 64.7% were graded 3 on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale. All patients preferred the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer over their own compressor driven jet nebulizer (p < 0.001). Nebulization of study drugs using the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer was associated with statistically significant increases in health-related quality of life over baseline (Dyspnea p = 0.003, Emotion p = 0.043, Mastery p = 0.011). A mixed model analysis of Borg dyspnea scores before and after exercise showed significantly (p = 0.043) lower scores for the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer compared with the compressor driven nebulizers. Patient satisfaction was statistically significantly higher for each of 10 questions covering ease of use, confidence, burden of use, satisfaction, and how well the device fit into their lifestyle. Treatment time was significantly shorter with the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Patients preferred and were more satisfied with the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer. Nebulization of study drugs using the InnoSpire Go mesh nebulizer resulted in improved quality of life compared with baseline, and treatments were delivered in a shorter period than the compressor driven jet nebulizers. Clinical Trial Registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03933462.

A Systematic Review of Published Algorithms for Selecting an Inhaled Delivery System in COPD

RATIONALE

Medication for treatment of COPD is available in many different delivery systems; however, national and international guidelines do not provide recommendations on how to select the optimal system for an individual patient.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of published algorithms for inhaler selection in out-patients with COPD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were search for articles on inhaler selection published between January 1, 1990 and March 10, 2021. The results were reviewed for articles containing an algorithm for inhaler selection. The quality of publications containing an algorithm was assessed using the JBI SUMARI text and opinion critical appraisal checklist. Individual steps recommended in the algorithms and the order in which they were considered were extracted independently by the two authors using the JBI text and opinion data extraction tool. Textual syntheses and a table of factors included were used to appraise and compare algorithms.

RESULTS

The search identified 1016 publications. After removing duplicate studies (n = 409), 607 abstracts were examined. Nine different algorithms or hierarchical recommendations for device selection were identified. All nine publications were considered of good quality. Most algorithms contain only a few decision steps. There were significant differences between the algorithms. None of the algorithms have been validated. Three domains for factors included in the algorithms were identified: patient factors, device attributes, and HCP factors. Patient factors were considered most frequently (19 times) compared with device attributes (10 times) and HCP factors (7 times). Five specific attribute/factors with at least three rankings in different algorithms, were identified as key factors for device selection.

CONCLUSION

Although the algorithms generally provide step-by-step approaches based on a literature review and/or the experiences of the different authors, none were developed using item generation/reduction methodology nor included input from patients with COPD. There were considerable differences between the algorithms; however, the review identified key factors that should be considered by HCPs when selecting therapy. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021244475).

Comparison of Dry-Powder Inhaler and Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler Formulations of Extrafine Beclomethasone Dipropionate/Formoterol Fumarate/Glycopyrronium in Patients with COPD: The TRI-D Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Three 52-week studies in COPD have assessed the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler extrafine formulation triple therapy combining beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). BDP/FF/G is now being developed for delivery via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (DPI; NEXThaler). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of BDP/FF/G DPI vs pMDI for lung function.

Methods

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-way cross-over study in patients with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) 30–80% predicted. Patients received BDP/FF/G 100/6/10µg via DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF 100/6µg via pMDI, all two inhalations twice daily for four weeks, with treatments separated by two-week washout. The two co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two BDP/FF/G formulations for FEV₁ area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post-dose (AUC_0-12h) normalized by time and trough FEV₁ at 24 hours, both on Day 28. EudraCT 2017–004405-41.

Results

Of 449 patients screened, 366 were randomized, with 342 (93.4%) completing all three treatment periods. The primary objectives were met, with changes from baseline in FEV₁ AUC_0–12h and trough FEV₁ on Day 28 similar for the two BDP/FF/G formulations, and the confidence intervals for the difference lying entirely within the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion (–50mL): –20 (–35, –6) mL and 3 (–15, 20) mL for AUC_0–12h and trough FEV₁, respectively. BDP/FF/G pMDI and DPI were statistically superior to BDP/FF for these endpoints (p<0.001). A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (15.5%, 18.7% and 15.4% with BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF, respectively); the majority were mild or moderate, with few related to treatment.

Conclusion

Extrafine BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in patients with COPD, supporting the DPI formulation as a valid alternative.

In Vitro Effect of Different Airflow Rates on the Aerosol Properties of Nebulized Glycopyrrolate in the eFlow® Closed System and Tiotropium Delivered in the HandiHaler®

INTRODUCTION

Personalized therapy for patients with COPD requires appropriate choice of drug and delivery device. Inhalers and nebulizers vary in their drug delivery characteristics, particularly the need for passive or active patient inhalation for appropriate drug dispersal and delivery. In this in vitro analysis, we assessed the aerosol performance and drug delivery of two long-acting muscarinic antagonists, glycopyrrolate (GLY; 25 µg solution; 1 ml) and tiotropium (TIO; 18 µg powder) through their respective delivery systems: the eFlow® Closed System (CS) vibrating membrane nebulizer and the HandiHaler® dry-powder inhaler (DPI).

METHODS

The aerosol performances of the eFlow® CS nebulizer and the HandiHaler® were determined using the Next Generation cascade Impactor. The delivered dose of GLY and TIO was determined using different breathing patterns, which varied in tidal volume and peak inspiratory flow rate, respectively, to simulate breathing conditions ranging from normal to severe obstruction.

RESULTS

Aerodynamic particle analysis showed generally similar mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD, range, 3.6-4.6 µm) and fine particle fraction (FPF, range, 48.2%-63.7%) with GLY delivered using the eFlow® CS nebulizer under all breathing patterns tested. TIO, delivered via the HandiHaler®, showed variations in MMAD (range, 3.8-5.8 µm) and FPF (range, 16.1%-32.4%) under different inspiratory flow rates. The majority of GLY was deposited in stages 2-5 of the impactor, which corresponds with particle sizes in the respirable range (< 5 µm), whereas a large proportion of TIO was deposited in the throat/mouthpiece pre-separator, irrespective of test conditions. The median residual dose of GLY with eFlow® CS was notably lower compared to that of TIO with HandiHaler® (2.4%-4.4% vs. 40%-67%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These simulation results highlight the different deposition patterns generated by a DPI device and a vibrating membrane nebulizer, which may help inform device selection and treatment decision in COPD management.

Predictive anatomical factors of lung aerosol deposition in obese individuals. Would modified mallampati score be relevant? Clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a highly prevalent condition worldwide that aggravates symptoms of already existing conditions such as asthma and COPD. The limited effectiveness of inhaled medications in these individuals may be related to anatomic characteristics of their upper airways, mainly due to compressive factors.

METHODS

Controlled clinical trial with obese and nonobese individuals. The following variables were evaluated: anthropometric characteristics, Lung and airway deposition of radiolabeled aerosol (pulmonary scintigraphy), upper airways anatomy (CT scans), and modified Mallampati score.

RESULTS

29 subjects (17 nonobese and 12 obese) participated. Obese volunteers presented 30% lower aerosol lung deposition compared to nonobese. Moreover, obese subjects Mallampati classification of 4 presented an aerosol lung deposition two times lower than nonobese subjects (p = 0.021). The cross-sectional area of the retropalatal region and retroglossal region were lower in obese patients (p < 0.05), but no correlation to aerosol lung deposition was observed. BMI was associated with 32% of the variance of lung deposition (p < 0.001; β -0.28; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.11).

CONCLUSION

High BMI correlated to reduced percentage lung deposition. Also, modified Mallampati class 4 was even more detrimental to aerosol delivery into the lungs. Obese subjects have narrower upper airways, compared to nonobese, but this is not reflected in higher radiolabeled aerosol impaction into their oropharynx and does not predict the percentage of lung deposition in this group.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03031093 (clinicaltrials.org).

Is there room for further innovation in inhaled therapy for airways disease?

Inhaled medication is the cornerstone in the treatment of patients across a spectrum of respiratory diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The benefits of inhaled therapy have long been recognised but the most important innovations have occurred over the past 60 years, beginning with the invention of the pressurised metered dose inhaler. However, despite over 230 different device and drug combinations currently being available, disease control is far from perfect. Here we look at how innovation in inhaler design may improve treatments for respiratory diseases and how new formulations may lead to treatments for diseases beyond the lungs. We look at the three main areas where innovation in inhaled therapy is most likely to occur: 1) device engineering and design; 2) chemistry and formulations; and 3) digital technology associated with inhalers. Inhaler design has improved significantly but considerable challenges still remain in order to continually innovate and improve targeted drug delivery to the lungs. Healthcare professionals want see innovations that motivate their patients to achieve their goal of improving their health, through better adherence to treatment. Patients want devices that are easy to use and to see that their efforts are rewarded by improvements in their condition.

KEY POINTS

The dictionary definition of innovation is the introduction of new things, ideas or ways of doing something. We show how this definition can be applied to inhaled therapy.We take a look at the past to see what drove innovation in inhaler design and how this has led to the current devices.We look at the current drivers of innovation in engineering, chemistry and digital technology and predict how this may translate to new devices.Can innovation help the healthcare professional manage their patients better?What does the patient expect from innovation in their device?

EDUCATIONAL AIMS

To understand the importance of inhaled medication in the treatment of lung diseases.To understand how innovation has helped advance some of the devices patients use today from basic and inefficient designs.To understand the obstacles that prevent patients from receiving optimal treatment from their inhalers.To understand how innovation in inhaler design can lead to improved treatment for patients and widen the range of diseases that can be treated via the inhaled route.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the ELLIPTA and HandiHaler Dry Powder Inhalers in Patients With COPD: Inhaler-Specific Attributes and Overall Patient Preference

This randomised, open-label, cross-over, placebo-containing inhaler study assessed patient preference indicators for ELLIPTA and HandiHaler dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD (NCT02786927; GSK identifier: 204983). The primary objective of this study was to assess patient preference between ELLIPTA and HandiHaler based on the number of steps needed to use the inhaler. Eligible patients ≥40 years of age with COPD were randomised 1:1 to receive their current COPD medication plus a placebo-containing ELLIPTA or HandiHaler inhaler once daily for 7 ± 2 days (treatment period 1); this was followed by a 7 ± 2-day placebo treatment with the alternative inhaler. A 5-item questionnaire assessed inhaler-related patient preferences. A total of 212 patients (mean age, 65.1 years) were enrolled at 22 US sites; 73% had a COPD duration ≥5 years. Median (range) exposure was 8 ( 5 , 13 ) days for ELLIPTA and 8 ( 1 , 16) days for HandiHaler. Significantly more patients preferred ELLIPTA to HandiHaler in terms of the number of steps to use and all secondary attributes (size, comfort of the mouthpiece, remaining doses, and ease of use of the two inhalers; all p < 0.001). Similar results were observed irrespective of the order of inhaler use. Eighteen patients (8%) reported at least one AE and two (<1%) patients reported four non-fatal SAEs; none were related to the study treatment. Patient attitude toward a particular inhaler and their experiences in using it can affect adherence to therapy, which can in turn strongly influence effectiveness of inhaled medications. This study uses a robust methodology to assess patient preference.

Dose selection for glycopyrrolate/eFlow® phase III clinical studies: results from GOLDEN (Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease via Electronic Nebulizer) phase II dose-finding studies

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Glycopyrrolate/eFlow® is an investigational drug-device combination of the LAMA glycopyrrolate administered by an eFlow® Closed System (eFlow® CS) nebulizer. The GOLDEN 2 (NCT01706536) and GOLDEN 6 (NCT02038829) Phase II, multicenter studies were conducted to inform dose selection for the GOLDEN Phase III clinical trials. Bronchodilator responses and safety assessments supported dose selection.

METHODS

Subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized into 28-day parallel-group (GOLDEN 2) or 7-day crossover (GOLDEN 6) studies and received placebo, glycopyrrolate (3, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 or 100 μg twice daily [BID]) or aclidinium bromide 400 μg BID. The primary endpoint of both studies was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Safety assessments included the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment-emergent serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to TEAE. Lung function data collected in both studies were pooled.

RESULTS

The combined GOLDEN 2 (n = 282) and GOLDEN 6 (n = 96) studies included 378 subjects. On Days 7 and 28 there were dose-ordered, statistically significant and clinically important lung function improvements in glycopyrrolate treatment groups. Specifically, on Day 7, glycopyrrolate produced >0.100 L placebo-adjusted changes from baseline in trough FEV1 (12.5 μg BID: 0.122 L; 25 μg BID: 0.123 L; 50 μg BID: 0.137 L) and FEV1 AUC0-12 (12.5 μg BID: 0.145 L; 25 μg BID: 0.178 L; 50 μg BID: 0.180 L). The improvements in lung function for the glycopyrrolate 25 and 50 μg BID doses were comparable to those with aclidinium bromide 400 μg BID (FEV1: 0.149 L; FEV1 AUC0-12: 0.172 L). Acceptable safety profiles were observed across all groups in both studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety findings supported selection of glycopyrrolate 25 and 50 μg BID doses for the Phase III GOLDEN studies and provided preliminary evidence for the use of nebulized glycopyrrolate as a maintenance therapy for 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.

Safety of inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents in COPD

Evidence-based guidelines recommend inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMAs) as first-line maintenance therapy for symptomatic patients with COPD. Several LAMAs are now available for use either as monotherapy or in combination with other COPD medications, including long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The efficacy and long-term safety of these medications have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials and real-life studies. This review evaluates the evidence available on the safety of existing LAMAs alone or in combination with LABAs and ICS in patients with COPD.

The use of COPD maintenance therapy following spirometry in General Practice

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown that the use of pulmonary medication is widespread and often initiated without initial spirometry. Early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by spirometry in General Practice is essential for an early and correct implementation of medical treatment.

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of regular therapy following diagnostic spirometry for COPD in General Practice from February 2008 to February 2009.

METHOD

Spirometry data and results were linked through Statistics Denmark with information from the Register of Medicinal Product Statistics using the unique personal identification code. Data were analysed to evaluate the impact of screening on use of regular COPD therapy. Primary outcome was initiation of regular therapy following COPD diagnosis with spirometry.

RESULTS

In a population of 3,376 individuals at risk, 1,458 underwent spirometric assessment with 631 being diagnosed with COPD; 110 of those received regular therapy before assessment with this figure increasing to 161 after spirometry. Of 827 participants not receiving a COPD diagnosis, 36 received regular therapy prior to assessment and 42 received regular therapy after spirometry despite no established COPD diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant chance of receiving regular therapy after being diagnosed with COPD. However, a large proportion of subjects diagnosed with COPD did not receive regular therapy following diagnosis. Efforts should be made to ensure correct diagnosis and correct medical treatment according to guidelines in individuals with COPD.

Effect of Disease Severity in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Inhaler-Specific Inhalation Profiles Through the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler

BACKGROUND

Two studies were undertaken to characterize the maximal effort inhalation profiles of healthy subjects and patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through a moderate-resistance dry powder inhaler (DPI). Correlations between inhaler-specific inhalation characteristics and inhaler-independent lung function parameters were investigated.

METHODS

Healthy subjects (n = 15), patients with mild, moderate, or severe asthma (n = 45), and patients with mild, moderate, severe, or very-severe COPD (n = 60) were included in the studies. Inhalation pressure drop versus time profiles were recorded using an instrumented ELLIPTA® DPI or bespoke resistor component with equivalent resistivity. Inhaler-independent lung function assessments included pharyngometry, spirometry, plethysmography, and diffusion.

RESULTS

For the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles, the mean maximal effort peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFRs) varied across the subgroups from 65.8-110.6 L/min (range: 41.6-142.9). Peak pressure drop, PIFR, inhaled volume, and average inhalation flow rate (primary endpoints) did not differ markedly between healthy subjects and patients with asthma or mild COPD. Moderate, severe, and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated lower mean peak pressure drops, PIFRs and inhaled volumes, which tended to decrease with increasing COPD severity. Severe and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated shorter mean inhalation times compared with all other participants. Inhaler-independent lung function parameters were consistent with disease severity, and statistically significant (p < 0.05) strong correlations (R > 0.7) with components of the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles were observed in the COPD cohort; correlations in the asthma cohort tended to be weaker.

CONCLUSIONS

All participants achieved a maximal effort PIFR ≥ 41.6 L/min through the moderate resistance of the ELLIPTA inhaler. Patients with asthma achieved similar inhalation profiles to healthy subjects, but increasing COPD severity tended to reduce a patient's inhalation capability. Correlation analyses suggest that some lung function parameters may be a useful indicator of ability to inhale efficiently through a moderate-resistance DPI, such as the ELLIPTA inhaler.

Tiotropium Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler: a review of its use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The long-acting anticholinergic agent tiotropium bromide (Spiriva(®)) is available as a solution for inhalation via Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler in the EU and various other countries for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler there is improved lung deposition of drug (allowing a reduced dosage compared with tiotropium HandiHaler(®)), the delivered drug dose is independent of inspiratory effort and the prolonged duration of the aerosol cloud should make the co-ordination of actuation and inhalation easier. In patients with COPD, tiotropium Respimat(®) improved lung function, COPD exacerbations, health-related quality of life and dyspnoea and was at least as effective as tiotropium HandiHaler(®). Tiotropium Respimat(®) was generally well tolerated in patients with COPD, with anticholinergic adverse events among the most commonly reported adverse events. In the TIOSPIR trial, tiotropium Respimat(®) was noninferior to tiotropium HandiHaler(®) in terms of all-cause mortality, and the risk of cardiovascular mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events did not significantly differ between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, tiotropium Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler is a useful option for the treatment of patients with COPD.

Tailoring of corticosteroids in COPD management

This literature review updates the reader on the new studies regarding steroid therapy over the last year in stable COPD and in exacerbations. In stable COPD, we critique the 2011 update and 2013 revision of the GOLD guidelines, discuss why combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (ICS/LABA) is preferable over LABA alone and review the literature for intraclass differences, finding that the evidence does not clearly support superiority of any particular ICS/LABA. We also address other comparisons against ICS/LABA, including triple therapy. We briefly review which type of inhaler should be chosen. For exacerbations, we report the REDUCE trial findings favouring a 5-day course of systemic steroids, and other trials addressing which steroid and route to use, including in an intensive care setting. Lastly, the future lies in new anti-inflammatories and re-phenotyping the heterogeneous amalgamation of COPD. A Spanish guideline recommends distinguishing steroid-responsive eosinophilic exacerbators from other phenotypes.