Search

Abstract Background Small airways disease plays a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is a major cause of obstruction; therefore, it is a critical pharmacotherapy target. This study evaluated lung deposition of two inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist single-inhaler triple therapies using in silico functional respiratory imaging (FRI). Deposition was assessed using real-world inhalation profiles simulating everyday use where optimal inhalation may be compromised. Methods Three-dimensional airway models were produced from 20 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Total, central, and regional small airways deposition as a percentage of delivered dose of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) 160/7.2/5 µg per actuation and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UM/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg were evaluated using in silico FRI based on in vitro aerodynamic particle size distributions of each device. Simulations were performed using multiple inhalation profiles of varying durations and flow rates representing patterns suited for a pressurized metered-dose inhaler or dry-powder inhaler (four for BGF, two for FF/UM/VI, with one common profile). For the common profile, deposition for BGF versus FF/UM/VI was compared post-hoc using paired t-tests. Results Across inhalation profiles, mean total lung deposition was consistently higher with BGF (47.0–54.1%) versus FF/UM/VI (20.8–22.7%) and for each treatment component, with greater deposition for BGF also seen in the central large airways. Mean regional small airways deposition was also greater across inhalation profiles with BGF (16.9–23.6%) versus FF/UM/VI (6.8–8.7%) and for each treatment component. For the common profile, total, central, and regional small airways deposition were significantly greater for BGF versus FF/UM/VI (nominal p

Abstract Background Correct inhaler use depends on a complex interplay of factors, including device preparation and generating sufficient inspiratory flow. It is currently unknown which inhalation technique errors can be considered critical in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients on Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy. Objective To investigate the association between inhalation technique errors and health status or exacerbations in patients with COPD. Additionally, the association between the number of errors and COPD outcomes was determined. Methods The PIFotal study is a cross-sectional multi-country observational study in a primary care setting, including 1434 COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years (50.1% female; mean age 69.2 yrs) using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. Inhalation technique was video recorded and scored by two independent researchers using inhaler-specific checklists. Health status was assessed with two questionnaires; the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The number of moderate and severe exacerbations in the past 12 months was recorded. Critical errors were identified based on their association with health status or exacerbations through multi-level prediction models adjusted for identified confounding. Results Errors in inhalation technique steps ‘Breathe in’, ‘Hold breath’, and ‘Breathe out calmly after inhalation’ were significantly associated with poorer CCQ and CAT outcomes and thus deemed critical. None of the errors were significantly associated with moderate exacerbations. Patients with errors ‘Preparation’, ‘Hold inhaler in correct position during inhalation’, and ‘Breathe in’ had significantly more severe exacerbations, and therefore these errors were also deemed critical. 81.3% of patients with COPD made at least one critical error. Specific combinations of errors were associated with worse outcomes. The more inhalation technique errors identified, the poorer the health status and the higher the exacerbation rate. Conclusion In this study, we identified multiple critical inhalation technique errors in COPD patients using DPIs each associated with poorer outcomes. Explorative analysis revealed that specific combinations of errors may be of clinical relevance, especially those related to the inhalation manoeuvre. COPD outcomes worsened with increasing error count. These results warrant further prospective longitudinal studies to establish the effect of correcting these errors on COPD control. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 (31/08/2020)

Background Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.Aims Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).Methods Data from the PIFotal study—a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique—were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.Results The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, ‘pMDI-related’ and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.Conclusion The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, ‘pMDI-related errors’ in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.Trial registration number ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.

Abstract Over 1400 patients using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to deliver COPD maintenance therapies were recruited across Europe and Australia. Their peak inspiratory flow (PIF) was measured, inhaler technique was observed, and adherence to treatment assessed. From relating the findings with patient health status, and thereby identifying critical errors, key clinical recommendations for primary care clinicians were determined, namely – measure PIF before prescribing a DPI to ensure inhalation manoeuvre ability is well-matched with the device. Some patients could benefit from inhalation training whereas others should have their DPI changed for one better suited to their inspiratory ability or alternatively be prescribed an active device (such as a soft mist inhaler or pressurized metered dose inhaler). Observing the inhalation technique was valuable however this misses suboptimal PIF (approaching one fourth of patients with a satisfactory observed manoeuvre had a suboptimal PIF for their DPI). Assess adherence as deliberate non-adherence can point to a mismatch between a patient and their inhaler (deliberate non-adherence was significantly associated with PIFs below the minimum for the DPI). In-person observation of inhalation technique was found to be inferior to video rating based on device-specific checklists. Where video assessments are not possible, observation training for healthcare professionals would therefore be valuable particularly to improve the ability to identify the critical errors associated with health status namely ‘teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece’, ‘breathe in’ and ‘breathing out calmly after inhalation’. However, it is recommended that observation alone should not replace PIF measurement in the DPI selection process. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 .

Abstract The study aimed to determine the associations of Peak Inspiratory Flow (PIF), inhalation technique and adherence with health status and exacerbations in participants with COPD using DPI maintenance therapy. This cross-sectional multi-country observational real-world study included COPD participants aged ≥40 years using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured three times with the In-Check DIAL G16: (1) typical PIF at resistance of participant’s inhaler, (2) maximal PIF at resistance of participant’s inhaler, (3) maximal PIF at low resistance. Suboptimal PIF (sPIF) was defined as PIF lower than required for the device. Participants completed questionnaires on health status (Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), adherence (Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI)) and exacerbations. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings. Complete data were available from 1434 participants (50.1% female, mean age 69.2 years). GOLD stage was available for 801 participants: GOLD stage I (23.6%), II (54.9%), III (17.4%) and IV (4.1%)). Of all participants, 29% had a sPIF, and 16% were shown able to generate an optimal PIF but failed to do so. sPIF was significantly associated with worse health status (0.226 (95% CI 0.107–0.346), worse units on CCQ; p = 0.001). The errors ‘teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece’, ‘breathe in’, and ‘breathe out calmly after inhalation’ were related to health status. Adherence was not associated with health status. After correcting for multiple testing, no significant association was found with moderate or severe exacerbations in the last 12 months. To conclude, sPIF is associated with poorer health status. This study demonstrates the importance of PIF assessment in DPI inhalation therapy. Healthcare professionals should consider selecting appropriate inhalers in cases of sPIF.

ABSTRACTBackground: Treatment guidelines for asthma management are derived almost exclusively from the results of controlled clinical trials undertaken in carefully selected patient populations; meaning that their outcomes may not reflect the true performance of treatments when used in general daily medical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to combine the results of observational studies investigating the fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) fixed-dose combination in real-world asthma patients. Methods: A systemic literature review was completed in March 2019 using the PubMed database. We identified 394 studies. Five studies, which included a total of 4756 patients treated with FP/FORM, were judged eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Results: The estimated severe asthma exacerbation rate was 11.47% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.72%), calculated from the random effect model. A sensitivity analysis excluding 2 studies (one was an outlier, and the exacerbation rate for the studied treatment alone could not be determined in the other) showed a 7.04% rate of severe asthma exacerbations. The estimated relative risk of the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.323 (95% CI, 0.159 to 0.658). The estimated asthma control rate was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.7% to 65.6%). The odds of achieving asthma control significantly increased by FP/FORM compared with pre-study conditions (estimated odds ratio: 2.214 [95% CI, 1.292 to 3.795]; p

Abstract Background Triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting β2-agonists (ICS/LAMA/LABA) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with continued symptoms or exacerbations, despite treatment with LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA. The pulmonary, extrathoracic, and regional lung deposition patterns of a radiolabeled ICS/LAMA/LABA triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF 320/18/9.6 μg), delivered via a single Aerosphere metered dose inhaler (MDI) were previously assessed in healthy volunteers and showed good deposition to the central and peripheral airways (whole lung deposition: 37.7%). Here, we report the findings assessing BGF in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Methods This phase I, single-dose, open-label gamma scintigraphy imaging study (NCT03906045) was conducted in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Patients received two actuations of BGF MDI (160/9/4.8 μg per actuation) radiolabeled with technetium‑99‑pertechnetate, not exceeding 5 MBq per actuation. Immediately following each inhalation, patients performed a breath-hold of up to 10 s, then exhaled into an exhalation filter. Gamma scintigraphy imaging of the anterior and posterior views of the lungs and stomach, and a lateral head and neck view, were performed immediately after exhalation. The primary objective of the study was to assess the pulmonary deposition of BGF. Secondary objectives assessed the deposited dose of radiolabeled BGF in the oropharyngeal and stomach regions, on the actuator, and on the exhalation filter in addition to regional airway deposition patterns in the lungs. Results The mean BGF emitted dose deposited in the lungs was 32.1% (standard deviation [SD] 15.6) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, 35.2% (SD 12.8) in patients with moderate COPD, and 28.7% (SD 18.4) in patients with severe/very severe COPD. Overall, the mean normalized outer/inner ratio was 0.55 (SD 0.19), while the standardized central/peripheral ratio was 2.21 (SD 1.64). Conclusions Radiolabeled BGF 320/18/9.6 μg was efficiently delivered and deposited throughout the entire lung, including large and small airways, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with similar deposition in patients with moderate COPD and patients with severe/very severe COPD. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03906045. Registered 8 April 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03906045

Introduction Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are a gold standard of cystic fibrosis management; however, the majority of research evidence for their efficacy is of low standard; often attributed to the lack of sensitivity from outcome measures (OMs) used historically. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigates these standard OMs (sputum weight, forced expiratory volume in 1 s) and new OMs (electrical impedance tomography (EIT), multiple breath washout (MBW) and impulse oscillometry (IOS)) to determine the most useful measures of ACT.Methods and analysis This is a single-centre RCT with crossover design. Participants perform MBW, IOS and spirometry, and then are randomised to either rest or supervised ACT lasting 30–60 min. MBW, IOS and spirometry are repeated immediately afterwards. EIT and sputum are collected during rest/ACT. On a separate day, the OMs are performed with the other intervention. Primary endpoint is difference in change in OMs before and after ACT/rest. Sample size was calculated with 80% power and significance of 5% for each OM (target n=64).Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was gained from the London–Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (reference 16/LO/0995, project ID 154635). Dissemination will involve scientific conference presentation and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numbers ISRCTN11220163 and NCT02721498.