7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of nebulized glycopyrrolate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the upcoming years, the proportion of elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will increase, according to the progressively aging population and the increased efficacy of the pharmacological treatments, especially considering the management of chronic comorbidities. The issue to prescribe an appropriate inhalation therapy to COPD patients with significant handling or coordination difficulties represents a common clinical experience; in the latter case, the choice of an inadequate inhalation device may jeopardize the adherence to the treatment and eventually lead to its ineffectiveness. Treatment options that do not require particular timing for coordination between activation and/or inhalation or require high flow thresholds to be activated should represent the best treatment option for these patients. Nebulized bronchodilators, usually used only in acute conditions such as COPD exacerbations, could fulfill this gap, enabling an adequate drug administration during tidal breathing and without the need for patients’ cooperation. However, so far, only short-acting muscarinic antagonists have been available for nebulization. Recently, a nebulized formulation of the inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrrolate, delivered by means of a novel proprietary vibrating mesh nebulizer closed system (SUN-101/eFlow ®), has progressed to Phase III trials and is currently in late-stage development as an option for maintenance treatment in COPD. The present critical review describes the current knowledge about the novel nebulizer technology, the efficacy, safety, and critical role of nebulized glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD. To this end, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library have been searched for relevant papers. According to the available results, the efficacy and tolerability profile of nebulized glycopyrrolate may represent a valuable and dynamic treatment option for the chronic pharmacological management of patients with COPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD.

          Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators to alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but do not specify whether a long-acting anticholinergic drug or a β(2)-agonist is the preferred agent. We investigated whether the anticholinergic drug tiotropium is superior to the β(2)-agonist salmeterol in preventing exacerbations of COPD. In a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, we compared the effect of treatment with 18 μg of tiotropium once daily with that of 50 μg of salmeterol twice daily on the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the preceding year. A total of 7376 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with tiotropium (3707 patients) or salmeterol (3669 patients). Tiotropium, as compared with salmeterol, increased the time to the first exacerbation (187 days vs. 145 days), with a 17% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.90; P<0.001). Tiotropium also increased the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P<0.001), reduced the annual number of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.64 vs. 0.72; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.002), and reduced the annual number of severe exacerbations (0.09 vs. 0.13; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.82; P<0.001). Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events and of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of treatment was similar in the two study groups. There were 64 deaths (1.7%) in the tiotropium group and 78 (2.1%) in the salmeterol group. These results show that, in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, tiotropium is more effective than salmeterol in preventing exacerbations. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00563381.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology.

            The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for beta-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, beta2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested beta2-agonists) proved to have useable data. None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Inhaler competence in asthma: common errors, barriers to use and recommended solutions.

              Whilst the inhaled route is the first line administration method in the management of asthma, it is well documented that patients can have problems adopting the correct inhaler technique and thus receiving adequate medication. This applies equally to metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers and leads to poor disease control and increased healthcare costs. Reviews have highlighted these problems and the recent European Consensus Statement developed a call to action to seek solutions. This review takes forward the challenge of inhaler competence by highlighting the issues and suggesting potential solutions to these problems. The opportunity for technological innovation and educational interventions to reduce errors is highlighted, as well as the specific challenges faced by children. This review is intended as a policy document, as most issues faced by patients have not changed for half a century, and this situation should not be allowed to continue any longer. Future direction with respect to research, policy needs and practice, together with education requirements in inhaler technique are described. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Dove Medical Press
                1177-8881
                2017
                15 November 2017
                : 11
                : 3257-3271
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), University of Milan, Division of Respiratory Diseases, “L. Sacco” Hospital, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Health Bioscience, University of Milan – Respiratory Unit, Policlinico di San Donato, IRCCS – San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Pierachille Santus, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), University of Milan, Division of Respiratory Diseases, “L. Sacco” Hospital, Via G.B. Grassi 74, 20157 Milan, Italy, Tel +39 2 3904 2801, Fax +39 2 3904 2473, Email pierachille.santus@ 123456unimi.it
                Article
                dddt-11-3257
                10.2147/DDDT.S135377
                5695264
                © 2017 Santus et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article