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.

Impact of Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure Device Use on Post-Discharge Hospitalizations: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Patients with COPD or Chronic Bronchitis Using the Aerobika® and Acapella® Devices

Purpose

Managing and preventing disease exacerbations are key goals of COPD care. Oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices have been shown to improve clinical outcomes when added to COPD standard of care. This retrospective database study compared real-world resource use and disease exacerbation among patients with COPD or chronic bronchitis prescribed either of two commonly used OPEP devices.

Patients and methods

Patients using the Aerobika^® (Trudell Medical International, London, ON, Canada) or Acapella^® (Smiths Medical, Wampsville, New York, USA) OPEP device for COPD or chronic bronchitis were identified from hospital claims linked to medical and prescription claims between September 2013 and April 2018; the index date was the first hospital visit with an OPEP device. Severe disease exacerbation, defined as an inpatient visit with a COPD or chronic bronchitis diagnosis, and all-cause healthcare resource utilization over 30 days and 12 months post-discharge were compared in propensity score (PS)-matched Aerobika device and Acapella device users.

Results

In total, 619 Aerobika device and 1857 Acapella device users remained after PS matching. After discharge from the index visit, Aerobika device users were less likely to have ≥1 severe exacerbation within 30 days (12.0% vs 17.4%, p=0.01) and/or 12 months (39.6% vs 45.3%, p=0.01) and had fewer 12-month severe exacerbations (mean, 0.7 vs 0.9 per patient per year, p=0.01), with significantly longer time to first severe exacerbation than Acapella users (log-rank p=0.01). Aerobika device users were also less likely to have ≥1 all-cause inpatient visit within 30 days (13.9% vs 20.3%, p<0.001) and 12 months (44.9% vs 51.8%, p=0.003) than Acapella users.

Conclusion

Patients receiving the Aerobika OPEP device, compared to the Acapella device, had lower rates of subsequent severe disease exacerbation and all-cause inpatient admission. This suggests that Aerobika OPEP device may be a beneficial add-on to usual care and that OPEP devices may vary in clinical effectiveness.

A Real-World Evidence Study Assessing the Impact of Adding the Aerobika Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure Device to Standard of Care Upon Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Post-Operative Patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this real-world study was to measure the benefit of the Aerobika oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) device when added to standard of care (defined as incentive spirometry [IS]) for post-operative patients.

METHODS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized for cardiac, thoracic or upper abdominal surgery between 1 September 2013 and 30 April 2017 were identified from IQVIA's Hospital Charge Detail Master (CDM) database; the index date was the date of the first hospitalization for surgery. The control cohort (IS) included patients who had ≥ 1 CDM record within 12 months prior to the index date and ≥ 1 record after discharge, evidence of IS use during index hospitalization and no evidence of use of a PEP or OPEP device at any time during the study period. The Aerobika OPEP cohort was selected in a similar manner, except that patients were required to have evidence of Aerobika OPEP use during the index hospitalization. Aerobika OPEP patients were 1:1 matched to IS patients using propensity score (PS) matching. Hospital readmissions and costs were measured at 30 days post-discharge from the index hospitalization.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 144 patients were included in each cohort. At 30 days post-discharge, compared to the control (IS) cohort there were significantly fewer patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort with ≥ 1 all-cause re-hospitalizations (13.9 vs. 22.9%; p = 0.042). The patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort also had a shorter mean length of stay (± standard deviation) (1.25 ± 4.04 vs. 2.60 ± 8.24 days; p = 0.047) and lower total unadjusted mean all-cause cost per patient ($3670 ± $13,894 vs. $13,775 ± $84,238; p = 0.057). Adjusted analyses suggested that hospitalization costs were 80% lower for the Aerobika OPEP cohort versus the IS cohort (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the addition of the Aerobika OPEP device to standard of care (IS) is beneficial in the post-operative setting.

FUNDING

Trudell Medical International.

In vitro and clinical characterization of the valved holding chamber AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® for administrating tiotropium Respimat® in 1-5-year-old children with persistent asthmatic symptoms

BACKGROUND

When characterizing inhalation products, a comprehensive assessment including in vitro, pharmacokinetic (PK), and clinical data is required. We conducted a characterization of tiotropium Respimat^® when administered with AeroChamber Plus^® Flow-Vu^® anti-static valved holding chamber (test VHC) with face mask in 1-5-year-olds with persistent asthmatic symptoms.

METHODS

In vitro tiotropium dose and particle size distribution delivered into a cascade impactor were evaluated under fixed paediatric and adult flow rates between actuation and samplings. The tiotropium mass likely to reach children's lungs was assessed by tidal breathing simulations and an ADAM-III Child Model. PK exposure to tiotropium in preschool children with persistent asthmatic symptoms (using test VHC) was compared with pooled data from nine Phase 2/3 trials in older children, adolescents, and adults with symptomatic persistent asthma not using test VHC.

RESULTS

At fixed inspiratory flow rates, emitted mass and fine particle dose decreased under lower flow conditions; dose reduction was observed when Respimat^® was administered by test VHC at paediatric flow rates. In <5-year-old children, such a dose reduction is appropriate. In terms of dose per kg/body weight, in vitro-delivered dosing in children was comparable with adults. Transmission and aerosol holding properties of Respimat^® when administered with test VHC were fully sufficient for aerosol delivery to patients. At zero delay, particles <5 μm (most relevant fraction) exhibited a transfer efficacy of ≥60%. The half-time was>10 s, allowing multiple breaths. Standardized tidal inhalation resulted in an emitted mass from the test VHC of approximately one-third of labelled dose, independent of coordination and face mask use, indicating predictable tiotropium administration by test VHC with Respimat^®. Tiotropium exposure in 1-5-year-old patients using the test VHC, when adjusted by height or body surface, was comparable with that in older age groups without VHCs; no overexposure was observed. Adverse events were less frequent with tiotropium (2.5 μg, n = 20 [55.6%]; 5 μg, n = 18 [58.1%]) than placebo (n = 25 [73.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide good initial evidence to suggest that tiotropium Respimat^® may be administered with AeroChamber Plus^® Flow-Vu^® VHC in 1-5-year-old patients with persistent asthmatic symptoms. To confirm the clinical efficacy and safety in these patients, additional trials are required.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

The trial was registered under NCT01634113 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

A review of the in vitro and in vivo valved holding chamber (VHC) literature with a focus on the AeroChamber Plus Flow-Vu Anti-static VHC

Valved holding chambers (VHCs) reduce the need for inhalation-actuation coordination with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), reduce oropharyngeal drug deposition and may improve lung deposition and clinical outcomes compared to pMDIs used alone. While VHCs are thus widely advocated for use in vulnerable patient groups within clinical and regulatory guidelines, there is less consensus as to whether the performance differences between different VHCs have clinical implications. This review evaluates the VHC literature, in particular the data pertaining to large- versus small-volume chambers, aerosol performance with a VHC adjunct versus a pMDI alone, charge dissipative/conducting versus non-conducting VHCs, and facemasks, to ascertain whether potentially meaningful differences between VHCs exist. Inconsistencies in the literature are examined and explained, and relationships between in vitro and in vivo data are discussed. A particular focus of this review is the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® Anti-static VHC, the most recent iteration of the AeroChamber VHC family.

Clinically Relevant In Vitro Testing of Orally Inhaled Products-Bridging the Gap Between the Lab and the Patient

Current pharmacopeial methods for in vitro orally inhaled product (OIP) performance testing were developed primarily to support requirements for drug product registration and quality control. In addition, separate clinical studies are undertaken in order to quantify safety and efficacy in the hands of the patient. However, both laboratory and clinical studies are time-consuming and expensive and generally do not investigate either the effects of misuse or the severity of the respiratory disease being treated. The following modifications to laboratory evaluation methodologies can be incorporated without difficulty to provide a better linkage from in vitro testing to clinical reality: (1) examine all types of OIP with patient-representative breathing profiles which represent normal inhaler operation in accordance with the instructions for use (IFU); (2) evaluate OIP misuse, prioritizing the importance of such testing on the basis of (a) probability of occurrence and (b) consequential impact in terms of drug delivery in accordance with the label claim; and (3) use age-appropriate patient-simulated face and upper airway models for the evaluation of OIPs with a facemask. Although it is not necessarily foreseen that these suggestions would form part of future routine quality control testing of inhalers, they should provide a closer approximation to the clinical setting and therefore be useful in the preparation for in vivo studies and in improving guidance for correct use.