Efficacy of Various Mitigation Devices in Reducing Fugitive Emissions from Nebulizers

Dos and don'ts to optimize transnasal aerosol drug delivery in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Transnasal aerosol drug delivery has become widely accepted for treating acutely ill infants, children, and adults. More recently aerosol administration to wider populations receiving high and low-flow nasal oxygen has become common practice.

AREAS COVERED

Skepticism of insufficient aerosol delivery to the lungs has been tempered by multiple in vitro explorations of variables to optimize delivery efficiency. Additionally, clinical studies demonstrated comparable clinical responses to orally inhaled aerosols. This paper provides essential clinical guidance on how to improve transnasal aerosol delivery based on device-, settings-, and drug-related optimization to serve as a resource for educational initiatives and quality enhancement endeavors at healthcare institutions.

EXPERT OPINION

Transnasal aerosol delivery is proliferating worldwide, but indiscriminate use of excessive-high flows, poor selection and placement of aerosol devices and circuits can greatly reduce aerosol delivery and efficacy, potentially compromising treatment to acute and critically ill patients. Attention to these details can improve inhaled dose by an order of magnitude, making the difference between effective treatment and the progression to more invasive ventilatory support, with greater inherent risk and cost. These revelations have prompted specific recommendations for optimal delivery, driving advancements in aerosol generators, formulations, and future device designs to administer aerosols and maximize treatment effectiveness.

Guidance on Mitigating the Risk of Transmitting Respiratory Infections During Nebulization by the COPD Foundation Nebulizer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers are used commonly for inhaled drug delivery. Because they deliver medication through aerosol generation, clarification is needed on what constitutes safe aerosol delivery in infectious respiratory disease settings. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of understanding the safety and potential risks of aerosol-generating procedures. However, evidence supporting the increased risk of disease transmission with nebulized treatments is inconclusive, and inconsistent guidelines and differing opinions have left uncertainty regarding their use. Many clinicians opt for alternative devices, but this practice could impact outcomes negatively, especially for patients who may not derive full treatment benefit from handheld inhalers. Therefore, it is prudent to develop strategies that can be used during nebulized treatment to minimize the emission of fugitive aerosols, these comprising bioaerosols exhaled by infected individuals and medical aerosols generated by the device that also may be contaminated. This is particularly relevant for patient care in the context of a highly transmissible virus.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How can potential risks of infections during nebulization be mitigated?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The COPD Foundation Nebulizer Consortium (CNC) was formed in 2020 to address uncertainties surrounding administration of nebulized medication. The CNC is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of patient advocates, pulmonary physicians, critical care physicians, respiratory therapists, clinical scientists, and pharmacists from research centers, medical centers, professional societies, industry, and government agencies. The CNC developed this expert guidance to inform the safe use of nebulized therapies for patients and providers and to answer key questions surrounding medication delivery with nebulizers during pandemics or when exposure to common respiratory pathogens is anticipated.

RESULTS

CNC members reviewed literature and guidelines regarding nebulization and developed two sets of guidance statements: one for the health care setting and one for the home environment.

INTERPRETATION

Future studies need to explore the risk of disease transmission with fugitive aerosols associated with different nebulizer types in real patient care situations and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

The Laboratory Characterization of Fugitive Aerosol Emissions From a Standard Jet Nebulizer With and Without a Filtered Mouthpiece

Background and objective The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during nebulization is unclear. In this study, we aimed to address this issue. Methods Fugitive emissions of aerosolized saline during nebulization were observed using a standard jet nebulizer fitted with unfiltered and filtered mouthpieces connected via a mannequin to a breathing simulator. Fugitive emissions were observed by using a laser sheet and captured on high-definition video, and they were measured by using optical particle counters positioned where a potential caregiver may be administering nebulization and three other locations in the sagittal plane at various distances downstream of the mannequin. Results The use of a standard unfiltered mouthpiece resulted in significant emission of fugitive aerosols ahead of and above the mannequin (spread over 2 m in front). A mouthpiece with a filter-adaptor effectively suppressed the emissions, with only minor leakage from the nebulizer cup. Particle count measurements supported the visual observations, providing total particle count levels and aerosol concentration levels at the measurement locations. The levels decayed slowly with downstream distance. Conclusions The visualization described above captured the dispersion of emitted aerosols in the plane of the laser sheet, aligned with the sagittal plane. The particle count measurements provided temporal and spatial distributions of the aerosol concentration levels over the time and locations considered. However, the exhaled air and aerosolized droplets spread three-dimensionally in front of and above the mannequin. The results visually highlight the effectiveness of using a filtered mouthpiece in suppressing the fugitive aerosols and identify an approach for limiting the occupational exposure of healthcare workers to these emissions while administering nebulized therapies.

There Is a Risk of Spread During a Nebulization Session in a Patient with COVID-19

Introduction: A hypothetical risk of SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission through nebulization was suggested based on a potential environmental contamination by the fugitive aerosol emitted in the environment during the procedure. The aim of this study was to verify this risk from the fugitive aerosol emitted by COVID-19 patients during one nebulization session. Methods: In this cohort study, COVID-19 patients treated with nebulization were recruited at their admission to the hospital. Patients had to perform a nebulization session while a BioSampler® and a pump were used to vacuum the fugitive aerosol and collect it for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Results: Ten consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were recruited. The median viral load was 6.5 × 106 copies/mL. Two out of the 10 samples from the fugitive aerosol collected were positive to SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: The risk of fugitive aerosol contamination with SARS-CoV-2 during nebulization has now been verified.

Steps toward nebulization in-use studies to understand the stability of new biological entities

The need for novel biological drugs against respiratory diseases has been highlighted during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of inhalation presents challenges to drug product stability, which is especially true for delivery using nebulizers (jet versus mesh technologies). The late-stage process of drug development in the pharmaceutical industry requires the investigation of in-use stability. In-use studies generate data that are guided by the requirements of regulatory authorities for inclusion in the clinical trial application dossier. In this review, I introduce the initial aspects of in-use stability studies during the development of an aerosol formulation to deliver biologics with a nebulizer. Lessons learned from this experience can guide future development and planning for formulation, analytics, material compatibility, nebulization process, and clinical trial preparations.

A Bench Comparison of the Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Devices on Work of Breathing

BACKGROUND

Oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of devices has also increased. We conducted this study to answer the following questions: Do HFNC devices differ from the original device for work of breathing (WOB) and generated PEEP?

METHODS

Seven devices were tested on ASL 5000 lung model. Compliance was set to 40 mL/cm H₂O and resistance to 10 cm H₂O/L/s. The devices were connected to a manikin head via a nasal cannula with F_IO2 set at 0.21. The measurements were performed at baseline (manikin head free of nasal cannula) and then with the cannula and the device attached with oxygen flow set at 20, 40, and 60 L/min. WOB and PEEP were assessed at 3 simulated inspiratory efforts (-5, -10, -15 cm H₂O muscular pressure) and at 2 breathing frequencies (20 and 30 breaths/min). Data were expressed as median (first-third quartiles) and compared with nonparametric tests to the Optiflow device taken as reference.

RESULTS

Baseline WOB and PEEP were comparable between devices. Over all the conditions tested, WOB was 4.2 (1.0-9.4) J/min with the reference device, and the relative variations from it were 0, -3 (2-4), 1 (0-1), -2 (1-2), -1 (1-2), and -1 (1-2)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). PEEP was 0.9 (0.3-1.5) cm H₂O with Optiflow, and the relative differences were -28 (22-33), -41 (38-46), -30 (26-36), -31 (28-34), -37 (32-42), and -24 (21-34)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test).

CONCLUSIONS

WOB was marginally higher and PEEP marginally lower with devices as compared to the reference device.

Aerosol-Generating Procedures and Virus Transmission

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many respiratory therapies were classified as aerosol-generating procedures. This categorization resulted in a broad range of clinical concerns and a shortage of essential medical resources for some patients. In the past 2 years, many studies have assessed the transmission risk posed by various respiratory care procedures. These studies are discussed in this narrative review, with recommendations for mitigating transmission risk based on the current evidence.

Mitigating Fugitive Aerosols During Aerosol Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted clinical interest in recent years. However, both HFNC and nebulization are categorized as aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). In vitro studies raised concerns that AGPs had high transmission risk. Very few in vivo studies examined fugitive aerosols with nebulization via HFNC, and effective methods to mitigate aerosol dispersion are unknown.

METHODS

Two HFNC devices (Airvo 2 and Vapotherm) with or without a vibrating mesh nebulizer were compared; HFNC alone, surgical mask over HFNC interface, and HFNC with face tent scavenger were used in a random order for 9 healthy volunteers. Fugitive aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 μm were continuously measured by particle sizers placed at 1 and 3 ft from participants. On a different day, 6 of the 9 participants received 6 additional nebulizer treatments via vibrating mesh nebulizer or small-volume nebulizer (SVN) with a face mask or a mouthpiece with/without an expiratory filter. In vitro simulation was employed to quantify inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 and Vapotherm.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, neither HFNC device generated higher aerosol concentrations. Compared to HFNC alone, vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 generated higher 0.3-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05), but vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm did not. Concentrations of 1.0-3.0 μm particles with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 were similar with vibrating mesh nebulizer and a mouthpiece/face mask but less than SVN with a mouthpiece/face mask (all P < .05). Placing a surgical mask over HFNC during nebulization reduced 0.5-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05) to levels similar to the use of a nebulizer with mouthpiece and expiratory filter. In vitro the inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 was ≥ 6 times higher than vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm.

CONCLUSIONS

During aerosol delivery via HFNC, Airvo 2 generated higher inhaled dose and consequently higher fugitive aerosols than Vapotherm. Simple measures, such as placing a surgical mask over nasal cannula during nebulization via HFNC, could effectively reduce fugitive aerosol concentrations.