Asthma delivery devices: age-appropriate use

Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of a standardized training model for improving patients' ability to use inhalers

Objective

Training contributes to the effectiveness of aerosol inhalation therapy. However, qualitative and quantitative evaluation of effective training methods is rarely reported. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a standardized training model by pharmacists based on verbal instruction and physical demonstration in improving patients' ability to use inhalers using qualitative and quantitative methods. Risk or protective factors affecting correct inhaler use were also explored.

Methods

431 Outpatients with asthma or COPD were recruited and randomly divided into a standardized training group (n = 280) and a usual training group (control group, n = 151). A framework of qualitative (e.g., multi-criteria analysis) and quantitative comparisons [percentage of correct use (CU%), percentage of complete error (CE%), and percentage of partial error (PE%)] was established to evaluate the two training models. In addition, the changes of key factors (age, education level, adherence, device type, etc.) influencing patients' ability to use inhalers of two models were observed.

Results

The multi-criteria analysis showed that the standardized training model had comprehensive advantages in qualitative indicators. The average correct use percentage (CU%) of the standardized training group was significantly higher than that of the usual training group (77.6% vs. 35.5%). A stratified analysis further demonstrated that the ORs (95%CI) in the usual training group of age and educational level was 2.263 (1.165-4.398) and 0.556 (0.379-0.815), while in the standardized training group, age and educational level were not the key factors influencing the ability to use inhaler devices (P > 0.05). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that standardized training was a protective factor for inhalation ability.

Conclusion

These findings indicate that the framework of qualitative and quantitative comparisons could be used to evaluate training models, and the standardized training model by pharmacists can significantly improve patients' ability to use inhalers correctly and address the influence of older age and lower education because of its methodological advantages. Further studies with more extended follow-up are needed to validate the role of the standardized training model by pharmacists in the correct use of inhalers.

Clinical trial registration

chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2100043592 (23-02-2021).

Characterization of Medication Velocity and Size Distribution from Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhalers by Phase Doppler Anemometry

BACKGROUND

Particle size and velocity are two of the most significant factors that impact the deposition of pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) sprays in the mouth cavity. pMDIs are prominently used around the world in the treatment of patients suffering from a variety of lung diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since their introduction in the field, and as a result of their effectiveness and simplicity of usage, pMDIs are considered to be the most widely prescribed medical aerosol delivery system.

METHODS

In the current study, particle velocity and size distribution were measured at three different locations along the centerline of a pMDI spray using Phase Doppler Anemometry. pMDIs from four different pharmaceutical companies were tested, each using salbutamol sulfate as the medication.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Measurements along at the pMDI centerline (at 0, 75, and 100 mm downstream of the inhaler mouthpiece) showed that the spray velocities were bimodal in time for all four pMDI brands. The first peak occurred as the spray was leaving the mouthpiece, while the second peak (at the same location, 0 mm) occurred at around 60, 95, 95, and 115 milliseconds later, respectively, for the four tested inhalers, with a drop in the velocity between the two peaks. Three probability density functions (PDFs) were tested, and the Rosin-Rammler PDF best fit the empirical data, as determined using a chi-squared test. These results suggest that there is a difference in the mean particle velocities at the centerline for the tested pMDIs and the diameter of released particles varied statistically for each brand.

Performance Comparisons of Jet and Mesh Nebulizers Using Different Interfaces in Simulated Spontaneously Breathing Adults and Children

BACKGROUND

Different types of nebulizers and interfaces are used for the treatment of adults and children with pulmonary diseases. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficiency of a mesh nebulizer (MN) with a proprietary adapter and a jet nebulizer (JN) under different configurations in adult and pediatric models of spontaneous breathing. We hypothesize that delivery efficiency of JN and MN will differ depending on the interface used during aerosol therapy in simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric models. While we expect that aerosol delivery with JN will be less efficient than MN, we also hypothesize that lung deposition obtained with the adult lung model will be more than that with the pediatric lung model in all conditions tested in this study.

METHODS

A lung model using a teaching manikin connected to a sinusoidal pump via a collecting filter at the level of the bronchi simulating a spontaneously breathing adult (Vt 500 mL, RR 15 bpm, I:E ratio 1:2) or pediatric patient (Vt 150 mL, RR 25 bpm, I:E ratio 1:2). Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/3 mL) was aerosolized with JN (Mistymax 10, Airlife) or MN (Aerogen Solo(®), Aerogen) with the Adapter (Aerogen Solo(®) Adapter, Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) using mouthpiece, aerosol mask, and valved-mask in adults and the dragon mask, aerosol mask, and valved-mask in pediatrics (n=3). The Adapter, specifically designed for MN, was attached to all the interfaces used in this study with supplemental oxygen of 2 lpm, and in addition, the MP was tested with no additional flow in the adult model. The JN was driven with 10 lpm based on the manufacturer's label. Drug was eluted from the filter and analyzed via spectrophotometry. Descriptive statistics, dependent t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used for data analysis. Significant level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

In adults, delivery efficiency of JN with the valved mask was significantly greater than that with the aerosol mask (p=0.01). Aerosol delivery of JN with the mouthpiece was not statistically significant from the valved mask (p=0.123) and the aerosol mask (p=0.193). Drug delivery with MN with mouthpiece (15.42±1.4%) and valved-mask (15.15±1.1%) was greater than the open aerosol mask (7.54±0.39%; p=0.0001) in the adult lung model. With no flow mouthpiece delivery increased>2 fold (34.9±3.1%; p=.0001) compared to use of 2 lpm of flow. Using the JN with the pediatric model deposition with valved-mask (5.3±0.8%), dragon mask (4.7±0.9%), and aerosol mask (4.1±0.3%) were similar (p>0.05); while drug delivery with MN via valved-mask (11.1±0.7%) was greater than the dragon mask (6.44±0.3%; p=0.002) and aerosol mask (4.6±0.4%; p=0.002), and the dragon mask was more efficient than the open aerosol mask (p=0.009) CONCLUSION: The type of nebulizer and interface used for aerosol therapy affects delivery efficiency in these simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric models. Drug delivery was greatest with the valved-mouthpiece and mask with JN and MN, while the standard aerosol mask was least efficient in these simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric lung models. Delivery efficiency of JN was less than MN in all conditions tested in this study except in the aerosol mask. Lung deposition obtained with the adult lung model was more than that with the pediatric lung model.

Guidelines for aerosol devices in infants, children and adults: which to choose, why and how to achieve effective aerosol therapy

Multiple types of aerosol devices are commonly used for the administration of medical aerosol therapy to patients with pulmonary diseases. All of these devices have been shown to be effective in trials where they are used correctly. However, failure to operate any of these devices properly has been associated with poor clinical response and limited patient adherence to therapy. Therefore, the selection of the best aerosol device for the individual patient is very important for optimizing the results of medical aerosol therapy. This article presents the rationale for selecting the most appropriate aerosol device to administer inhaled drugs in specific patient populations, with emphasis on patient-, drug-, device- and environment-related factors and with a comparison between the available devices. The following recommendations for the selection of the 'best' aerosol device for each patient population are intended to help clinicians gain a clear understanding of the specific issues and challenges so that they can optimize aerosol drug delivery and its therapeutic outcomes in patients.