The importance of inhaler devices in the treatment of COPD

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.

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.

Aerosol particle size influences the extent, distribution, and site of inhaled drug deposition within the airways. We hypothesized that targeting albuterol to regional airways by altering aerosol particle size could optimize inhaled bronchodilator delivery. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 12 subjects with asthma (FEV1, 76.8 +/- 11.4% predicted) inhaled technetium-99m-labeled monodisperse albuterol aerosols (30-microg dose) of 1.5-, 3-, and 6-microm mass median aerodynamic diameter, at slow (30-60 L/min) and fast (> 60 L/min) inspiratory flows. Lung and extrathoracic radioaerosol deposition were quantified using planar gamma-scintigraphy. Pulmonary function and tolerability measurements were simultaneously assessed. Clinical efficacy was also compared with unlabeled monodisperse albuterol (15-microg dose) and 200 microg metered-dose inhaler (MDI) albuterol. Smaller particles achieved greater total lung deposition (1.5 microm [56%], 3 microm [50%], and 6 microm [46%]), farther distal airways penetration (0.79, 0.60, and 0.36, respective penetration index), and more peripheral lung deposition (25, 17, and 10%, respectively). However, larger particles (30-microg dose) were more efficacious and achieved greater bronchodilation than 200 microg MDI albuterol (deltaFEV1 [ml]: 6 microm [551], 3 microm [457], 1.5 microm [347], MDI [494]). Small particles were exhaled more (1.5 microm [22%], 3 microm [8%], 6 microm [2%]), whereas greater oropharyngeal deposition occurred with large particles (15, 31, and 43%, respectively). Faster inspiratory flows decreased total lung deposition and increased oropharyngeal deposition for the larger particles, with less bronchodilation. A shift in aerosol distribution to the proximal airways was observed for all particles. Regional targeting of inhaled beta2-agonist to the proximal airways is more important than distal alveolar deposition for bronchodilation. Altering intrapulmonary deposition through aerosol particle size can appreciably enhance inhaled drug therapy and may have implications for developing future inhaled treatments.