22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of peak inspiratory flow rate via the Breezhaler®, Ellipta® and HandiHaler® dry powder inhalers in patients with moderate to very severe COPD: a randomized cross-over trial

      research-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

          Background

          The chronic and progressive nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires self-administration of inhaled medication. Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are increasingly being used for inhalation therapy in COPD. Important considerations when selecting DPIs include inhalation effort required and flow rates achieved by patients. Here, we present the comparison of the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) values achieved by COPD patients, with moderate to very severe airflow limitation, through the Breezhaler®, the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. The effects of disease severity, age and gender on PIF rate were also evaluated.

          Methods

          This randomized, open-label, multicenter, cross-over, Phase IV study recruited patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease 2014 strategy), aged ≥40 years and having a smoking history of ≥10 pack years. No active drug or placebo was administered during the study. The inhalation profiles were recorded using inhalers fitted with a pressure tap and transducer at the wall of the mouthpiece. For each patient, the inhalation with the highest PIF value, out of three replicate inhalations per device, was selected for analysis. A paired t-test was performed to compare mean PIFs between each combination of devices.

          Results

          In total, 97 COPD patients were enrolled and completed the study . The highest mean PIF value (L/min ± SE) was observed with the Breezhaler® (108 ± 23), followed by the Ellipta® (78 ± 15) and the HandiHaler® (49 ± 9) inhalers and the lowest mean pressure drop values were recorded with the Breezhaler® inhaler, followed by the Ellipta® inhaler and the HandiHaler® inhaler, in the overall patient population. A similar trend was consistently observed in patients across all subgroups of COPD severity, within all age groups and for both genders.

          Conclusions

          Patients with COPD were able to inhale with the least inspiratory effort and generate the highest mean PIF value through the Breezhaler® inhaler when compared with the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. These results were similar irrespective of patients’ COPD severity, age or gender.

          Trial registration

          The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015. 

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-018-0662-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • 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: found
            Is Open Access

            Inhalation drug delivery devices: technology update

            The pulmonary route of administration has proven to be effective in local and systemic delivery of miscellaneous drugs and biopharmaceuticals to treat pulmonary and non-pulmonary diseases. A successful pulmonary administration requires a harmonic interaction between the drug formulation, the inhaler device, and the patient. However, the biggest single problem that accounts for the lack of desired effect or adverse outcomes is the incorrect use of the device due to lack of training in how to use the device or how to coordinate actuation and aerosol inhalation. This review summarizes the structural and mechanical features of aerosol delivery devices with respect to mechanisms of aerosol generation, their use with different formulations, and their advantages and limitations. A technological update of the current state-of-the-art designs proposed to overcome current challenges of existing devices is also provided.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pulmonary drug delivery. Part II: the role of inhalant delivery devices and drug formulations in therapeutic effectiveness of aerosolized medications.

              Research in the area of pulmonary drug delivery has gathered momentum in the last several years, with increased interest in using the lung as a means of delivering drugs systemically. Advances in device technology have led to the development of more efficient delivery systems capable of delivering larger doses and finer particles into the lung. As more efficient pulmonary delivery devices and sophisticated formulations become available, physicians and health professionals will have a choice of a wide variety of device and formulation combinations that will target specific cells or regions of the lung, avoid the lung's clearance mechanisms and be retained within the lung for longer periods. It is now recognized that it is not enough just to have inhalation therapy available for prescribing; physicians and other healthcare providers need a basic understanding of aerosol science, inhaled formulations, delivery devices, and bioequivalence of products to prescribe these therapies optimally.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +1 201 787 3697 , pablo.altman@novartis.com
                lwehbe@gmail.com
                juergen.dederichs@novartis.com
                tadhg.guerin@novartis.com
                brian.ament@novartis.com
                miguel.cardenas_moronta@novartis.com
                andrea_valeria.pino@novartis.com
                pankaj.goyal@novartis.com
                Journal
                BMC Pulm Med
                BMC Pulm Med
                BMC Pulmonary Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2466
                14 June 2018
                14 June 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 100
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0439 2056, GRID grid.418424.f, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, ; East Hanover, NJ USA
                [2 ]Instituto Ave Pulmo, Fundación Enfisema, Mar del Plata, Argentina
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1515 9979, GRID grid.419481.1, Novartis Pharma AG, ; Basel, Switzerland
                [4 ]Novartis Ireland Limited, Dublin, Ireland
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0439 2056, GRID grid.418424.f, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, ; San Carlos, California USA
                [6 ]Novartis Argentina S.A, Buenos Aires, Argentina
                Article
                662
                10.1186/s12890-018-0662-0
                6001060
                29898702
                e970e780-b783-407e-a133-c0ef557fc14a
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 January 2018
                : 25 May 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Novartis Pharma AG
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Respiratory medicine
                peak inspiratory flow,inspiratory effort,dry powder inhalers,pressure drop,breezhaler®

                Comments

                Comment on this article