9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS: The First Nebulized Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Approved to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective: To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of the first nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), glycopyrrolate (GLY)/eFlow closed system (CS) nebulizer, approved for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Data Sources: A PubMed search was conducted (January 2000 to July 2018) using the following terms/phrases: nebulized glycopyrrolate, inhalation devices in COPD, long-acting muscarinic antagonists COPD , and COPD survey. Retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional references. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Primary and review articles on GLY/eFlow CS and other treatment options for patients with COPD were selected. Data Synthesis: Guidelines recommend the use of LAMAs, alone or in combination with long-acting β 2-agonists, as maintenance therapy for the majority of patients with COPD. With the range of different devices and bronchodilators now available, treatment can be tailored based on individual needs. The eFlow CS nebulizer delivers GLY rapidly over a 2- to 3-minute period and provides bronchodilation within 30 minutes, lasting 12 hours. Phase 2 dose-finding and phase 3 studies demonstrated sustained statistically significant and clinically important improvements in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes with GLY/eFlow CS. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: GLY/eFlow CS provides a novel, portable, efficient, and rapid drug delivery system. Conclusions: The recently approved GLY/eFlow CS drug-device combination provides a viable treatment option for patients with COPD, particularly those with conditions that may impair proper use of traditional handheld inhalers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

          What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies.

          A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patient-use aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available. The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel. Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID.

            The SGRQ is a disease-specific measure of health status for use in COPD. A number of methods have been used for estimating its minimum clinically important difference (MCID). These include both expert and patient preference-based estimates. Anchor-based methods have also been used. The calculated MCID from those studies was consistently around 4 units, regardless of assessment method. By contrast, the MCID calculated using distribution-based methods varied across studies and permitted no consistent estimate. All measurements of clinical significance contain sample and measurement error. They also require value judgements, if not about the calculation of the MCID itself then about the anchors used to estimate it. Under these circumstances, greater weight should be placed upon the overall body of evidence for an MCID, rather than one single method. For that reason, estimates of MCID should be used as indicative values. Methods of analysing clinical trial results should reflect this, and use appropriate statistical tests for comparison with the MCID. Treatments for COPD that produced an improvement in SGRQ of the order of 4 units in clinical trials have subsequently found wide acceptance once in clinical practice, so it seems reasonable to expect any new treatment proposed for COPD to produce an advantage over placebo that is not significantly inferior to a 4-unit difference.
              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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Pharmacother
                Ann Pharmacother
                AOP
                spaop
                The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1060-0280
                1542-6270
                01 September 2018
                March 2019
                : 53
                : 3
                : 285-293
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Duke Clinical Research Institute and Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Roy A. Pleasants II, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, 508 Fulton St, Durham, NC 27705, USA. Email: roy.pleasants@ 123456duke.edu
                Article
                10.1177_1060028018798753
                10.1177/1060028018798753
                6357169
                30175596
                4eea19fc-7495-436c-badd-46e0aa1d8976
                © The Author(s) 2018

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ;
                Categories
                Review Articles-New Drug Approval

                chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,inhalers,bronchodilators,pharmaceutical care,drug development and approval,anticholinergics

                Comments

                Comment on this article