Does device matter for inhaled therapies in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? A comparative trial of two devices.

OBJECTIVE: COPD patients have challenges for effective use of inhalers due to advanced age, fixed airflow obstruction and comorbid medical conditions. Published clinical trials investigate drug efficacy but rarely consider the inhaler device. This trial investigates device efficacy, comparing clinical outcomes for the same medication via two different devices. Our intention was to communicate the results and to critically appraise the study protocol to inform planning of future device comparison research. Subjects with spirometry confirming at least moderate COPD were randomly assigned to inhaler sequence; starting with Accuhaler or metered dose inhaler and spacer (MDI/s). After baseline testing, subjects were assigned to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (SFC) 500/50 mcg twice daily via the first device for 6 weeks' duration, then changed to the alternate device for the following 6 weeks. Subjects were reassessed in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQL), exercise endurance and lung function after each exposure period. RESULTS: The recruitment target was not achieved due to unanticipated developments within the pharmaceutical industry, potentially compromising the study's power. Study outcomes did not differ significantly according to the allocated inhaler device even after adjusting for baseline lung function or inhaler technique. Recommendations for future device comparison protocols are offered. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials ACTRN12618000075280, date of registration: 18.01.2018. Retrospectively registered.

Lung-volume controlled computerised tomography in real-life acute severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE: It is not known how airway structure is altered during real-life acute asthma exacerbations. The aim of this study was to examine changes in airway structure during acute asthma exacerbations and at convalescence by using lung-volume controlled high resolution computerised tomography (HRCT). METHODS: Eight subjects with acute asthma exacerbation admitted to hospital were recruited. HRCT was performed within 72 h of admission (n = 8) and repeated after 8 weeks of convalescence (n = 7). Individual airways were carefully matched on acute and convalescent CT data sets for comparisons of airway parameters. A novel methodology was employed for standardisation of lung volumes to permit valid comparisons of lung imaging. Measurements of bronchial cross sectional airway area (Aa) and bronchial luminal area (Ai) for each matched airway were obtained using a validated program. RESULTS: The airway wall thickness was analysed as wall area (WA) calculated as a percentage: WA% = WA/Aa × 100. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing was used to compare acute and convalescent asthma and Spearman's correlation to examine associations. Airway lumen (Ai) areas were similar in both acute and stable asthma phases (6.6 ± 3.1 mm(2) versus 7.2 ± 3.8 mm(2) p = 0.8). However, the airway wall was significantly thickened during acute asthma exacerbations compared to convalescence (62 ± 4% versus 55 ± 7%; p = 0.01). There was no correlation between airway structure dimensions and lung function measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate an increase in airway wall thickness during real-life acute asthma exacerbation. However, narrowing of the airway lumen area was variable and will require larger studies able to detect small differences. These results suggest that airway wall thickening linked to mucosal inflammation is likely to characterise acute asthma in vivo but that changes in the airway lumen accompanying bronchoconstriction may be more heterogeneous.