Evaluation effects of nebulized gentamicin in exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease

Status of inhalable antimicrobial agents for lung infection: progress and prospects

Introduction: Available parenteral and oral administration of antimicrobial agents (AMAs) in respiratory infections often show less penetration into the lung parenchyma. Due to inappropriate dose availability, the rate of antibiotic resistance is increasing gradually. Inhaled antibiotics intensely improve the availability of drugs at the site of respiratory infections. This targeted delivery minimizes systemic exposure and associated toxicity.Area covers: This review was performed by searching in the scientific database like PubMed and several trusted government sites like fda.gov, cdc.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, etc. For better understanding, AMAs are classified in different stages of approval. Mechanism and characterization of pulmonary drug deposition section helps to understand the effective delivery of AMAs to the respiratory tract. There is a need for proper adoption of delivery devices for inhalable AMAs. Thus, delivery devices are extensively explained. Inspiratory flow has a remarkable impact on the delivery device that has been explained in detail.Expert opinion: Pulmonary delivery restricts the bulk administration of drugs in comparison with other routes. Therefore, novel AMAs with higher bactericidal activity at lower concentrations need to be synthesized. Extensive research is indeed in developing innovative delivery devices that would able to deliver higher doses of AMAs through the pulmonary route.

Clinical response to 2 protocols of aerosolized gentamicin in 46 dogs with Bordetella bronchiseptica infection (2012-2018)

Background

Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) infection commonly causes respiratory disease in dogs. Gentamicin delivered by aerosol maximizes local drug delivery without systemic absorption but clinical response to protocols remains undetermined.

Objectives

To compare the clinical response to 2 protocols of aerosolized delivery of gentamicin in bordetellosis.

Animals

Forty‐six dogs with Bb infection confirmed by culture or quantitative polymerase chain reaction on bronchoalveolar lavage.

Methods

Retrospective study. Administration of aerosolized gentamicin for ≥10 minutes q12h for ≥3 weeks using 4 mg/kg diluted with saline (group 1) or undiluted 5% solution (group 2). Clinical response firstly assessed after 3‐4 weeks and treatment pursued by 3‐weeks increments if cure not reached. Cure defined as absence of cough persisting at least a week after treatment interruption.

Results

Demographic data were similar between both groups. Clinical cure at 3‐4 weeks was more frequently observed with the use of undiluted solution (19/33 vs 3/13 dogs, P = .03) in association with a shorter median duration of treatment (4 vs 6 weeks, P = .01). Dogs from group 2 having less than 1000 cells/μL in lavage were also more likely to be cured at 3‐4 weeks than dogs with more than 1000 cells/μL [9/9 vs 10/19, P = .006] and median duration of treatment in that subgroup of animals was reduced (3 vs 5 weeks, P = .02).

Conclusion and Clinical Importance

Aerosolized delivery of gentamicin seems effective for inducing clinical cure in Bb infection. Clinical response appears better using undiluted 5% solution, particularly in the subgroup of dogs having less than 1000 cells/μL in lavage.

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

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

Antibiotics for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their effects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and other electronically available databases up to 26 September 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo and providing follow-up of at least seven days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised as a single group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation, and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. When authors of primary studies did not report outcomes or study details, we contacted them to request missing data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (ORs) for rare events (mortality and adverse events), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 2663 participants (11 with outpatients, seven with inpatients, and one with ICU patients).For outpatients (with mild to moderate exacerbations), evidence of low quality suggests that currently available antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.94; I² = 31%; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 295 to 212 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 165 to 277). Studies providing older antibiotics not in use anymore yielded an RR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 31%). Evidence of low quality from one trial in outpatients suggested no effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). One trial reported no effects of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups.Evidence of moderate quality does not show that currently used antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure among inpatients with severe exacerbations (i.e. for inpatients excluding ICU patients) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12; I² = 50%), but trial results remain uncertain. In turn, the effect was statistically significant when trials included older antibiotics no longer in clinical use (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00; I² = 39%). Evidence of moderate quality from two trials including inpatients shows no beneficial effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.55). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in antibiotic and placebo groups.The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; moderate-quality evidence; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 565 to 107 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 45 to 254). Results of this trial show a statistically significant effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72; moderate-quality evidence) and on length of hospital stay (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36; low-quality evidence).Evidence of moderate quality gathered from trials conducted in all settings shows no statistically significant effect on overall incidence of adverse events (Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63; moderate-quality evidence) nor on diarrhoea (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.07; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Researchers have found that antibiotics have some effect on inpatients and outpatients, but these effects are small, and they are inconsistent for some outcomes (treatment failure) and absent for other outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay). Analyses show a strong beneficial effect of antibiotics among ICU patients. Few data are available on the effects of antibiotics on health-related quality of life or on other patient-reported symptoms, and data show no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from antibiotics, while sparing antibiotics for patients who are unlikely to experience benefit and for whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs, and multi-resistance) should be avoided.

Inhaled Antimicrobials for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Practical Aspects

Positive experience with inhaled antibiotics in pulmonary infections of patients with cystic fibrosis has paved the way for their utilization in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infections. A successful antibiotic delivery depends upon the size of the generated particle and the elimination of drug impaction in the large airways and the ventilator circuit. Generated droplet size is mainly affected by the type of the nebulizer employed. Currently, jet, ultrasonic, and vibrating mesh nebulizers are marketed; the latter can deliver optimal antibiotic particle size. Promising novel drug-device combinations are able to release drug concentrations of 25- to 300-fold the minimum inhibitory concentration of the targeted pathogens into the pulmonary alveoli. The most important practical steps of nebulization include pre-assessment and preparation of the patient (suctioning, sedation, possible bronchodilation, adjustment of necessary ventilator settings); adherence to the procedure (drug preparation, avoidance of unnecessary tubing connections, interruption of heated humidification, removal of heat-moisture exchanger); inspection of the procedure (check for residual in drug chamber, change of expiratory filter, return sedation, and ventilator settings to previous status); and surveillance of the patient for adverse events (close monitoring of the patient and particularly of peak airway pressure and bronchoconstriction). Practical aspects of nebulization are very important to ensure optimal drug delivery and safe procedure for the patient. Therefore, the development of an operational checklist is a priority for every department adopting this modality.