Aerosol drug-delivery and short-term clinical outcomes of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM OF WORK: Suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is highly prevalent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients owing to the mismatch of their own PIFR with the corresponding inhaler-device resistance. This study aimed to evaluate aerosol drug-delivery and short-term clinical outcomes of suboptimal PIFR in COPD subjects. METHODS: Twenty optimal and suboptimal COPD subjects were crossed over in this prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label study. They were tested for urinary salbutamol amount (USAL30) and spirometric response 30 min poststudy dose (200 µg salbutamol) through Aerolizer® and Handihaler® after assessment of their own PIFR through In-Check™ Dial G16. Urine samples were extracted through solid-phase extraction and assayed through a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. RESULTS: Mean USAL30 was significantly higher in the optimal group than in the suboptimal group (P = .001). There was no significant difference in ΔFEV1% predicted and ΔFVC% predicted between optimal and suboptimal groups, with higher values in optimal Aerolizer® and Handihaler® than in suboptimal groups. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal PIFR was associated with a significantly lower drug delivery in COPD subjects at hospital discharge, and a slightly lower pulmonary function response 30 min postbronchodilation if compared with optimal PIFR.

Determinants of incorrect inhaler technique in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

AIMS: There is a lack of an overview of determinants of incorrect inhaler technique among chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) subjects. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and possible determinants of incorrect inhaler technique in COPD subjects with common inhalers. METHODS: A cross over study was conducted in 180 COPD subjects. Baseline assessment of inhaler technique was evaluated in 10 placebo inhalers including: [pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI), Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Discus, Breezhaler, Ellipta, Easyhaler, Diskhaler and Respimat] without receiving any instructions. Subjects were then crossed over to other inhalers in random order. Inhaler technique was assessed. The proper technique of inhalers was demonstrated and the number of counselling attempts needed to achieve a correct technique was recorded. Patient past-experience, demographics/clinical variables were recorded. RESULTS: Incorrect inhaler techniques were highly prevalent among COPD subjects, ranging from 80% of participants demonstrated incorrect use, a minimum of 1 error, with Ellipta, to 100% with Respimat/Diskhaler (P < .001). Past-experience (OR = 14.639 at P < .001) and inhaler-type (OR = 10.397 at P < .001, 4.267 at P =. 007, 2.664 at P =. 057, 8.666 at P =. 001, 10.250 at P < .001, 0.613 at P =. 212 and 0.265 at P< .001 for pMDI, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Discus, Breezhaler and Ellipta, respectively) were the strongest determinants of incorrect technique followed by gender (OR = 0.310 at P < .001), age category (OR = 0.307 at P < .001) and GOLD group (OR = 2.289 at P =. 005). CONCLUSION: Incorrect inhaler techniques are highly prevalent among COPD subjects. Lack of past-experience, certain inhaler types, female gender, older age and lower GOLD group are the most significant determinants of incorrect technique.

Real-life assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient performance with different inhalers.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate handling of six common inhalers and to determine correlations between correct inhaler technique and patient demographics/ clinical variables. METHODS: A total of 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients were crossed-over to handle their past-experienced inhalers among (pMDI, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Breezhaler, Turbohaler, and Diskus) randomly, without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction (baseline assessment). Inhaler technique was assessed using previously defined checklists. The correct use of the inhaler was then demonstrated and the patient was evaluated for inhaler use again. Demonstration was repeated until a correct technique was achieved. Number of counselling attempts needed to a complete right handling, patient demographics and clinical variables were recorded. RESULTS: The mean percentage of total correct steps showed that pMDI is significantly lower than all other inhalers (76.01 ± 12.61 vs 84.18 ± 10.87, 84.60 ± 12.10, 85.91 ± 9.82, 90.63 ± 9.29 and 91 ± 10.22 for Diskus, Turbohaler, Aerolizer, Handihaler and Breezhaler, respectively, at P < .001). Breezhaler showed the lowest percentage of participants with at least 1 critical error (20%) however, pMDI showed the highest percentage (85.19%) at P < .05. Breezhaler showed that the highest percentage of participants achieved a complete right handling after 1st counselling attempt, however, pMDI was the only inhaler included in a 3rd and 4th counselling attempts (5.93% and 0.74%, respectively). Weak and very weak correlations were found between total correct steps and demographics/clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: pMDI is not preferable for handling by COPD patients. DPIs vary in ease of use, so that inhaler therapy must be individualised on basis of patient handling assessment with repeated counselling.

The impact of changing patient interfaces on delivering aerosol with titrated oxygen in the high flow system.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the widespread oxygen-culture as more is better in prehospital and hospital settings, the use of titrated oxygen-flow within a high-flow system can be beneficial especially when combined with aerosol-delivery and also save the patient from unnecessary-hyperoxia. METHODS: Forty-five COPD patients were included in this study where they allocated in three-groups (nasal-delivery, oral-delivery, and oronasal-delivery groups). All patients were received their inhaled-salbutamol dose using Aerogen Solo nebuliser by one of the three interfaces, eg, nasal-cannula, mouthpiece, and facemask in two conditions; with oxygen-flow and without any oxygen-flow. Pulmonary and systemic salbutamol deposition was estimated by collecting two urine-samples from the patient; 30 min post-inhalation and cumulatively 24 hr post-inhalation. The quantity of salbutamol in these collected samples was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Lung function measurement was performed pre-bronchodilator inhalation and 30 min post-bronchodilator to estimate the change in pulmonary functions post-inhalation regarding all tested interfaces. RESULTS: COPD patients showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted 30 min post-inhalation of 5.7% (1.4) with mouthpiece interface when combined with oxygen at P < .002. While with the same condition using oxygen, valved-facemask showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted in 24 hr post inhalation samples but the difference is only significantly compared with nasal cannula (P < .006). Moreover, without oxygen delivery, mouthpiece and valved facemask showed approximately the same salbutamol percentage excreted in 30 min post-inhalation samples, higher than that delivered by nasal cannula (P < .001). Of note, salbutamol delivery is significantly increased with oxygen flow for all interfaces (P < .05) except with nasal cannula. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal cannula is a more comfortable and tolerable interface despite the lower fraction of the delivered drug compared with other tested interfaces. The use of oxygen-flow with aerosol delivery within a high flow system positively affects the delivered drug fraction and the pulmonary deposition of the drug.