the importance of inhaler devices in the treatment of copd

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a socio-economic burden and requires regular and ongoing treatment. Inhalation therapy is recommended at all stages of the disease and allows the delivery of active molecules directly to the target site of action, whilst minimising adverse side-effects. Inhalers therefore play a crucial role in the effective management of patients with COPD and their choice is as important as that of the drug. The three most important factors that influence inhaled drug deposition within the airways are the patient's inhalation flow, the aerosol velocity, and the inhaled drug particle size. These ultimately impact on the amount of drug reaching the target site and therefore the functional and clinical responses of the patient. Furthermore, patients' training and education in the use of inhalers have been shown to be directly related to the efficacy of the therapy. However, in daily clinical practice, too little consideration is given to the features of the different inhalers and to the ability of patients to properly handle the device, and precise recommendations are greatly needed to help healthcare professionals to advise and prescribe the most 'appropriate' inhaled drug/device product. The present review aims to provide the latest evidence on the importance of the inhaler device in the management of patients with COPD

Why We Should Target Small Airways Disease in Our Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Editorial support was provided by Cindy Macpherson, PhD, of MediTech Media, UK,and was funded by Boehringer IngelheimPeer reviewedPublisher PD

An innovative corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist breath-triggered inhaler : facilitating lung delivery of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate for the treatment of asthma

OS Usmani and/or his department has received research grants, unrestricted educational grants, and/or fees for lectures and advisory board meetings from Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Edmond Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Napp, Mundipharma International, Prosonix, Sandoz, Takeda, Zentiva. N Roche reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer and personal feed from Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, Trudell, Zambon. J Marshall and H Danagher report being an employee of Mundibiopharma Ltd., at the time of writing. D Price is a board member with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma Ltd., Napp, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma Ltd., Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Threvance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd.) from AKL Research and Development Ltd., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma Ltd., Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service, Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Munipharma Ltd., Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Circassia, Mundipharma Ltd., Napp, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation program, and Health Technology Assessment.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD-A Systematic Scoping Review

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients

MyAirCoach: The use of home-monitoring and mHealth systems to predict deterioration in asthma control and the occurrence of asthma exacerbations; Study protocol of an observational study

© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. Introduction Asthma is a variable lung condition whereby patients experience periods of controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms. Patients who experience prolonged periods of uncontrolled asthma have a higher incidence of exacerbations and increased morbidity and mortality rates. The ability to determine and to predict levels of asthma control and the occurrence of exacerbations is crucial in asthma management. Therefore, we aimed to determine to what extent physiological, behavioural and environmental data, obtained by mobile healthcare (mHealth) and home-monitoring sensors, as well as patient characteristics, can be used to predict episodes of uncontrolled asthma and the onset of asthma exacerbations. Methods and analysis In an 1-year observational study, patients will be provided with mHealth and home-monitoring systems to record daily measurements for the first-month (phase I) and weekly measurements during a follow-up period of 11 months (phase II). Our study population consists of 150 patients, aged ≥18 years, with a clinician's diagnosis of asthma, currently on controller medication, with uncontrolled asthma and/or minimally one exacerbation in the past 12 months. They will be enrolled over three participating centres, including Leiden, London and Manchester. Our main outcomes are the association between physiological, behavioural and environmental data and (1) the loss of asthma control and (2) the occurrence of asthma exacerbations. Ethics This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands and by the NHS ethics service in the UK. Trial registration number NCT02774772

Risk of pneumonia in obstructive lung disease : A real-life study comparing extra-fine and fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids

The study received institutional support from Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. Teva did not contribute either in part or in whole, to the collection, analysis, or interpretation of study data, manuscript writing, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Domiciliary fractional exhaled nitric oxide and spirometry in monitoring asthma control and exacerbations

Background: Domiciliary measurements of airflow obstruction and inflammation may assist healthcare teams and patients in determining asthma control and facilitate self-management. Objective: To evaluate parameters derived from domiciliary spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) in monitoring asthma exacerbations and control. Methods: Patients with asthma were provided with hand-held spirometry and FENO devices in addition to their usual asthma care. Patients were instructed to perform twice-daily measurements for 1 month. Daily symptoms and medication change were reported through a mobile health system. The Asthma Control Questionnaire was completed at the end of the monitoring period. Results: One hundred patients had spirometry, of which 60 were given additional FENO devices. Compliance rates for twice-daily measurements were poor (median [interquartile range], 43% [25%-62%] for spirometry; 30% [3%-48%] for FENO); at least 15% of patients took little or no spirometry measurements and 40% rarely measured FENO. The coefficient of variation (CV) values in FEV1 and FENO were higher, and the mean % personal best FEV1 lower in those who had major exacerbations compared with those without (P < .05). FENO CV and FEV1 CV were associated with asthma exacerbation during the monitoring period (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.79 and 0.74, respectively). Higher FENO CV also predicted poorer asthma control (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.71) at the end of the monitoring period. Conclusions: Compliance with domiciliary spirometry and FENO varied widely among patients even in the setting of a research study. However, despite significant missing data, FENO and FEV1 were associated with asthma exacerbations and control, making these measurements potentially clinically valuable if used