ARIA pharmacy 2018 "Allergic rhinitis care pathways for community pharmacy": AIRWAYS ICPs initiative (European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG CONNECT and DG Santé) POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis) GARD Demonstration project.

Pharmacists are trusted health care professionals. Many patients use over-the-counter (OTC) medications and are seen by pharmacists who are the initial point of contact for allergic rhinitis management in most countries. The role of pharmacists in integrated care pathways (ICPs) for allergic diseases is important. This paper builds on existing studies and provides tools intended to help pharmacists provide optimal advice/interventions/strategies to patients with rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)-pharmacy ICP includes a diagnostic questionnaire specifically focusing attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease, a systematic Diagnosis Guide (including differential diagnoses), and a simple flowchart with proposed treatment for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. Key prompts for referral within the ICP are included. The use of technology is critical to enhance the management of allergic rhinitis. However, the ARIA-pharmacy ICP should be adapted to local healthcare environments/situations as regional (national) differences exist in pharmacy care.

Inhaler technique mastery and maintenance in healthcare professionals trained on different devices.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are required to assess and train patients in the correct use of inhalers but are often unable to demonstrate correct technique themselves. We sought to assess the level of training required for HCPs to master and maintain device mastery when using two different dry powder inhalers (DPIs). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, un-blinded, crossover study in undergraduate HCPs who undertook a six-step training procedure (intuitive use, patient information leaflet, instructional video, individual tuition from expert, then two repeats of individual tuition) for the use of Turbuhaler® (an established device) and Spiromax® (a newer device, reportedly easier to use). Device mastery (absence of errors) was evaluated by expert assessors at each training step. Maintenance of mastery was assessed 4 ± 1 week (visit 2) and 8 ± 2 weeks (visit 3) after initial training (visit 1). RESULTS: Of 516 eligible participants, 113 (22%) demonstrated device mastery prior to training on Spiromax® compared with 20 (4%) on Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). The median number of training steps required to achieve mastery was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) for Spiromax® and 3 (IQR 2-4) for Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). A higher number of participants maintained mastery with Spiromax® compared with Turbuhaler®, at visits 2 and 3 (64% vs 41% and 79% vs 65%, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the nature and extent of training required to achieve and maintain mastery for Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices. The implications on clinical practice, device education delivery, and patient outcomes require further evaluation.

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. METHODS: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80-1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09-0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25-3.54]). CONCLUSIONS: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2013-004630-14 (registration date 23 January 2014); NCT02570425 .

Effect of Theophylline as Adjunct to Inhaled Corticosteroids on Exacerbations in Patients With COPD: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major global health issue and theophylline is used extensively. Preclinical investigations have demonstrated that low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/L) of theophylline enhance antiinflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TWICS (theophylline with inhaled corticosteroids) trial was a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients with COPD between February 6, 2014, and August 31, 2016. Final follow-up ended on August 31, 2017. Participants had a ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) of less than 0.7 with at least 2 exacerbations (treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both) in the previous year and were using an inhaled corticosteroid. This study included 1578 participants in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline (200 mg once or twice per day) to provide plasma concentrations of 1 to 5 mg/L (determined by ideal body weight and smoking status) (n = 791) or placebo (n = 787). Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of participant-reported moderate or severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both over the 1-year treatment period. Results: Of the 1567 participants analyzed, mean (SD) age was 68.4 (8.4) years and 54% (843) were men. Data for evaluation of the primary outcome were available for 1536 participants (98%) (772 in the theophylline group; 764 in the placebo group). In total, there were 3430 exacerbations: 1727 in the theophylline group (mean, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.10-2.38] exacerbations per year) vs 1703 in the placebo group (mean, 2.23 [95% CI, 2.09-2.37] exacerbations per year); unadjusted mean difference, 0.01 (95% CI, -0.19 to 0.21) and adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08). Serious adverse events in the theophylline and placebo groups included cardiac, 2.4% vs 3.4%; gastrointestinal, 2.7% vs 1.3%; and adverse reactions such as nausea (10.9% vs 7.9%) and headaches (9.0% vs 7.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with COPD at high risk of exacerbation treated with inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of low-dose theophylline, compared with placebo, did not reduce the number COPD exacerbations over a 1-year period. The findings do not support the use of low-dose theophylline as adjunctive therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for the prevention of COPD exacerbations. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN27066620.

Study of the Emitted Dose After Two Separate Inhalations at Different Inhalation Flow Rates and Volumes and an Assessment of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Indacaterol Onbrez Breezhaler® 150 and 300 µg.

Onbrez Breezhaler® is a low-resistance capsule-based device that was developed to deliver indacaterol maleate. The study was designed to investigate the effects of both maximum flow rate (MIF) and inhalation volume (Vin) on the dose emission of indacaterol 150 and 300 µg dose strengths after one and two inhalations using dose unit sampling apparatus (DUSA) as well as to study the aerodynamic characteristics of indacaterol Breezhaler® using the Andersen cascade impactor (ACI) at a different set of MIF and Vin. Indacaterol 150 and 300 µg contain equal amounts of lactose per carrier. However, 150 µg has the smallest carrier size. The particle size distribution (PSD) of indacaterol DPI formulations 150 and 300 µg showed that the density of fine particles increased with the increase of the primary pressure. For both strengths (150 µg and 300 µg), ED1 increased and ED2 decreased when the inhalation flow rate and inhaled volume increased. The reduction in ED1 and subsequent increase in ED2 was such that when the Vin is greater than 1 L, then 60 L/min could be regarded as the minimum MIF. The Breezhaler was effective in producing respirable particles with an MMAD ≤5 µm irrespective of the inhalation flow rate, but the mass fraction of particles with an aerodynamic diameter <3 µm is more pronounced between 60 and 90 L/min. The dose emission of indacaterol was comparable for both dose strengths 150 and 300 µg. These in vitro results suggest that a minimum MIF of 60 L/min is required during routine use of Onbrez Breezhaler®, and confirm the good practice to make two separate inhalations from the same dose.

MACVIA clinical decision algorithm in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on several factors, including age, prominent symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost. Allergen exposure and the resulting symptoms vary, and treatment adjustment is required. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might be beneficial for the assessment of disease control. CDSSs should be based on the best evidence and algorithms to aid patients and health care professionals to jointly determine treatment and its step-up or step-down strategy depending on AR control. Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif en Languedoc-Roussillon (MACVIA-LR [fighting chronic diseases for active and healthy ageing]), one of the reference sites of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, has initiated an allergy sentinel network (the MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network). A CDSS is currently being developed to optimize AR control. An algorithm developed by consensus is presented in this article. This algorithm should be confirmed by appropriate trials.

In vitro aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivered from different inhalation methods in mechanical ventilation.

Aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are mostly determined by inserting cascade impactor in the circuit. Impactor might have some effect on airflow within IMV. Hence, the aim of the present study was to develop and evaluate new in vitro aerodynamic characterization methodology without affecting airflow in IMV. Breathing simulator was set in standard adult IMV circuit with inspiratory and expiratory pressures of 20 and 5 cm H2O, 1:3 inspiratory-expiratory ratio, 15 breaths min-1, and tidal volume of 500 ml. Two ml of salbutamol solution containing 10,000 µg was nebulized using three different vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) and Sidestream jet nebulizer (JET). Sixteen-metered doses, containing 100 µg salbutamol each, were delivered using three different spacers. Each device was placed in inspiration limb of Y-piece of ventilator tubing. Aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivered were measured using cooled Andersen cascade impactor, with mixing inlet connected to it. VMNs used had significantly more total mass in the impactor (p < .001) and fine particle dose (p < .001) compared to JET. Spacers used had higher total mass in the impactor percent (p < .001) and fine particle fraction compared to nebulizers. The in vitro IMV methodology setting suggested here showed encouraging results in comparison of different aerosol delivery systems in intubated patient.

Characteristics of patients making serious inhaler errors with a dry powder inhaler and association with asthma-related events in a primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: Correct inhaler technique is central to effective delivery of asthma therapy. The study aim was to identify factors associated with serious inhaler technique errors and their prevalence among primary care patients with asthma using the Diskus dry powder inhaler (DPI). METHODS: This was a historical, multinational, cross-sectional study (2011-2013) using the iHARP database, an international initiative that includes patient- and healthcare provider-reported questionnaires from eight countries. Patients with asthma were observed for serious inhaler errors by trained healthcare providers as predefined by the iHARP steering committee. Multivariable logistic regression, stepwise reduced, was used to identify clinical characteristics and asthma-related outcomes associated with ≥1 serious errors. RESULTS: Of 3681 patients with asthma, 623 (17%) were using a Diskus (mean [SD] age, 51 [14]; 61% women). A total of 341 (55%) patients made ≥1 serious errors. The most common errors were the failure to exhale before inhalation, insufficient breath-hold at the end of inhalation, and inhalation that was not forceful from the start. Factors significantly associated with ≥1 serious errors included asthma-related hospitalization the previous year (odds ratio [OR] 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.40); obesity (OR 1.75; 1.17-2.63); poor asthma control the previous 4 weeks (OR 1.57; 1.04-2.36); female sex (OR 1.51; 1.08-2.10); and no inhaler technique review during the previous year (OR 1.45; 1.04-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with evidence of poor asthma control should be targeted for a review of their inhaler technique even when using a device thought to have a low error rate.

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12-0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013).

Evaluation of asthma control, parents' quality of life and preference between AeroChamber Plus and AeroChamber Plus Flow-Vu spacers in young children with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: The AeroChamber Plus (AC) valved holding chamber has been enhanced to include the Flow-Vu (FV) inspiratory flow indicator that provides visual inhalation feedback during use. We have investigated if FV alters asthma control and whether parents accept it. METHODS: At visit 1, children with asthma, age 1-5 years, used an AC with their pressurised metered dose inhaler and 2 weeks later (visit 2) they were randomised to use either AC or FV. Subjects returned 6 (visit 3) and 12 (visit 4) weeks later. The Asthma Control (ACQ) and Paediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life (PACQLQ) questionnaires were scored at each visit, and their peak inhalation flow (PIF) when they used their spacer was measured. RESULTS: Forty participants in each group completed the study. There was no difference in the ACQ scores from visits 2 to 4 between the two groups. The improvements in the PACQLQ scores were greater in the FV group (p = 0.029). The mean difference (95% confidence interval) for the change from visits 2 to 4 between FV and AC groups was 0.05 (-0.33, 0.43) and 0.39 (0.035, 0.737) for the ACQ and PACQLQ, respectively. Most parents preferred the FV (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the PIF rates at each visit and between the two spacers. CONCLUSIONS: There was no change in asthma control of the young children but that of their parents improved. Parents preferred the FV and this could be related to their improved perception of their children's asthma control by better PACQLQ scores.

Inhalation characteristics of asthma patients, COPD patients and healthy volunteers with the Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices: a randomised, cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Spiromax® is a novel dry-powder inhaler containing formulations of budesonide plus formoterol (BF). The device is intended to provide dose equivalence with enhanced user-friendliness compared to BF Turbuhaler® in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study was performed to compare inhalation parameters with empty versions of the two devices, and to investigate the effects of enhanced training designed to encourage faster inhalation. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, cross-over study included children with asthma (n = 23), adolescents with asthma (n = 27), adults with asthma (n = 50), adults with COPD (n = 50) and healthy adult volunteers (n = 50). Inhalation manoeuvres were recorded with each device after training with the patient information leaflet (PIL) and after enhanced training using an In-Check Dial device. RESULTS: After PIL training, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), maximum change in pressure (∆P) and the inhalation volume (IV) were significantly higher with Spiromax than with the Turbuhaler device (p values were at least <0.05 in all patient groups). After enhanced training, numerically or significantly higher values for PIF, ∆P, IV and acceleration remained with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler, except for ∆P in COPD patients. After PIL training, one adult asthma patient and one COPD patient inhaled <30 L/min through the Spiromax compared to one adult asthma patient and five COPD patients with the Turbuhaler. All patients achieved PIF values of at least 30 L/min after enhanced training. CONCLUSIONS: The two inhalers have similar resistance so inhalation flows and pressure changes would be expected to be similar. The higher flow-related values noted for Spiromax versus Turbuhaler after PIL training suggest that Spiromax might have human factor advantages in real-world use. After enhanced training, the flow-related differences between devices persisted; increased flow rates were achieved with both devices, and all patients achieved the minimal flow required for adequate drug delivery. Enhanced training could be useful, especially in COPD patients.

Optimizing the inhalation flow and technique through metered dose inhalers of asthmatic adults and children attending a community pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: Despite training, many patients continue to misuse their metered dose inhaler (MDI). Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained to evaluate two different methods to help patients use a slow inhalation flow when they use their MDI. METHODS: Asthmatic children (n = 17) and adults (n = 39) prescribed an MDI had their inhaler technique assessed. Those who achieved the recommended inhalation flow rate (IFR) of <90 l/min through their MDI formed the reference group (named (control--CT)). Others that had a poor inhaler technique with an IFR ≥ 90 l/min were randomized into either the verbal counseling (VC) group, who received verbal training on the correct MDI use with emphasis on using a slow IFR or into the 2ToneTrainer (2TT) group, who received the VC and a 2Tone Trainer to take home and use. 2TT is a training aid with audible feedback when the required slow inhalation flow is used. The participants were assessed on two occasions, 0 (baseline) and 6 weeks later. RESULTS: For the asthmatic adults, the median IFR at visit 1 was 68, 200, and 240 l/min for the CT, VC, and 2TT groups, respectively. Whereas on visit 2, the median IFR was 88, 48.5 (p < .001), and 65 (p < .001) l/min for the CT, VC, and 2TT groups, respectively. Improvements in asthma quality of life were achieved in VC and 2TT groups. The asthmatic children showed a similar trend. CONCLUSIONS: Training by VC and a training aid helps patients use a slow IFR with an MDI and improves asthma-related quality of life.

Dry Powder Inhalers: From Bench to Bedside.

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are now widely prescribed and preferred by the majority of patients. These devices have many advantages over the traditional pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) but they do have disadvantages. The characteristics of the dose emitted from a DPI are affected by the inhalation manoeuvre used by a patient. Each patient is different and the severity of their lung disease varies from mild to very severe. This affects how they use an inhaler and so determines the type of dose they inhale. An understanding of the pharmaceutical science related to DPIs is important to appreciate the relevance of how patients inhale through these devices. Also, each type of DPI has its unique dose preparation routine, and thus it is essential to follow these recommended steps because errors at this stage may result in no dose being inhaled. All issues related to the inhalation manoeuvre and dose preparation are addressed in this chapter. The importance of the inhalation technique is highlighted with a realization of inhale technique training and checking. During routine patient management, devices should not be switched nor doses increased unless the patient has demonstrated that they can and do use their DPI.

Advancing Digital Solutions to Overcome Longstanding Barriers in Asthma and COPD Management.

Maintenance therapy delivered via inhaler is central to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. Poor adherence to inhaled medication and errors in inhalation technique have long represented major barriers to the optimal management of these chronic conditions. Technological innovations may provide a means of overcoming these barriers. This narrative review examines ongoing advances in digital technologies relevant to asthma and COPD with the potential to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Digital inhaler devices linked to mobile apps can help bring about changes in patients' behaviors and attitudes towards disease management, particularly when they build in elements of interactivity and gamification. They can also support ongoing technique education, empowering patients and helping providers maximize the value of consultations and develop effective action plans informed by insights into the patient's inhaler use patterns and their respiratory health. When combined with innovative techniques such as machine learning, digital devices have the potential to predict exacerbations and prompt pre-emptive intervention. Finally, digital devices may support an advanced precision medicine approach to respiratory disease management and help support shared decision-making. Further work is needed to increase uptake of digital devices and integrate their use into care pathways before their full potential in personalized asthma and COPD management can be realized.

Urinary pharmacokinetic methodology to determine the relative lung bioavailability of inhaled beclometasone dipropionate.

AIM: Urinary pharmacokinetic methods have been identified to determine the relative lung and systemic bioavailability after an inhalation. We have extended this methodology to inhaled beclometasone dipropionate (BDP). METHOD: Ethics Committee approval was obtained and all subjects gave consent. Twelve healthy volunteers received randomized doses, separated by >7 days, of 2000 µg BDP solution with (OralC) and without (Oral) 5 g oral charcoal, 10,100 µg inhalations from a Qvar(®) Easibreathe metered dose inhaler (pMDI) with (QvarC) and without (Qvar) oral charcoal and eight 250 µg inhalations from a Clenil(®) pMDI (Clenil). Subjects provided urine samples at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 and 24 h post study dose. Urinary concentrations of BDP and its metabolites, beclometasone-17-monopropionate (17-BMP) and beclometasone (BOH) were measured. RESULTS: No BDP, 17-BMP or BOH were detected in any samples post OralC dosing. Post oral dosing no BDP was detected in all urine samples and no 17-BMP or BOH was excreted in the first 30 min. Significantly more (P < 0.001) BDP, 17-BMP and BOH were excreted in the first 30 min and the cumulative 24 h urinary excretions post Qvar and Clenil compared with Oral. The mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of the 30 min urinary excretions for Qvar compared with Clenil was 231.4 (209.6, 255.7) %. CONCLUSION: The urinary pharmacokinetic methodology to determine the relative lung and systemic bioavailability post inhalation, using 30 min and cumulative 24 h post inhalation samples, applies to BDP. The ratio between Qvar and Clenil is consistent with related clinical and lung deposition studies.

Clarifying the dilemmas about inhalation techniques for dry powder inhalers: integrating science with clinical practice.

This review integrates pharmaceutical science with routine clinical practice to explain why inhalation manoeuvres through a dry powder inhaler (DPI) should start with a gentle exhalation, away from the inhaler. Place the inhaler in the mouth and ensure the lips form a tight seal. This should be followed by an immediate forceful inhalation that is as fast as possible and continued for as long as the patient can comfortably achieve. Although this is universally accepted, there has been a lot of attention on inhalation flow as an indicator of adequate inspiratory effort. This has led to the wrong assumption that inhalation flows through each DPI should be the same, and that low flows through some DPIs suggest that dose delivery is impaired. Most miss the concept that inhalation flow together with the resistance of the DPI combine to create a turbulent energy which de-aggregates the formulation and provides an effective emitted dose. A low flow through a DPI with high resistance generates the same turbulent energy as fast flow with low resistance. Therefore, depending on the device, different inhalation flows are compatible with potentially effective use. Flow measurements should be a guide to train patients to inhale faster. The focus of inhaler technique training should be the use of the above generic inhalation manoeuvre.

Investigating the Accuracy of the Digihaler, a New Electronic Multidose Dry-Powder Inhaler, in Measuring Inhalation Parameters.

Background: The Digihaler® is a Food and Drug Administration-approved, digital multidose dry powder inhaler with an integrated electronic module that provides patients and health care professionals with feedback on inhalation parameters, including usage, adherence, and technique. This study compared inhalation parameters measured using the Digihaler with readings made simultaneously using an inhalation profile recorder (IPR). Methods: This single-visit, open-label study enrolled children (4-17 years) and adults (18-55 years) with asthma, and adults (≥55 years) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Participants made three separate inhalations using an empty Digihaler device, each measured simultaneously by the Digihaler and IPR. Inhalation profiles were downloaded from the devices at the end of the study. Inhalation parameters measured included peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaled volume (inhV). The profile with the highest PIF and corresponding IPR profile were analyzed. Results: Overall, 150 participants were enrolled; inhalation data were available for 148 (50 children and 49 adults with asthma, and 49 with COPD). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 39.1 (24.5) years; 51% of participants were male. Overall mean (SD) PIFs as measured by the Digihaler and IPR were 70.62 (17.73) L/min and 72.55 (19.42) L/min, respectively, with a mean percentage difference of -1.75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.64 to 0.15). Mean percentage differences between the Digihaler and IPR measurements of PIF ranged from -2.97% among adults with COPD to 0.16% among children with asthma. Overall mean (SD) inhV for the Digihaler and IPR were 1.57 (0.69) L and 1.67 (0.73) L, respectively, with a mean percentage difference of -6.11 (95% CI: -8.08 to -4.13). There was a strong correlation between PIF and inhV measurements taken by the Digihaler and those taken by the IPR (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.96). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the ability of the Digihaler to provide accurate measurement of inhalation parameters when used by patients.

A Predictive Machine Learning Tool for Asthma Exacerbations: Results from a 12-Week, Open-Label Study Using an Electronic Multi-Dose Dry Powder Inhaler with Integrated Sensors.

Purpose: Machine learning models informed by sensor data inputs have the potential to provide individualized predictions of asthma deterioration. This study aimed to determine if data from an integrated digital inhaler could be used to develop a machine learning model capable of predicting impending exacerbations. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with poorly controlled asthma were enrolled in a 12-week, open-label study using ProAir® Digihaler®, an electronic multi-dose dry powder inhaler (eMDPI) with integrated sensors, as reliever medication (albuterol, 90 µg/dose; 1-2 inhalations every 4 hours, as needed). Throughout the study, the eMDPI recorded inhaler use, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), inhalation volume, inhalation duration, and time to PIF. A model predictive of impending exacerbations was generated by applying machine learning techniques to data downloaded from the inhalers, together with clinical and demographic information. The generated model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC AUC) analysis. Results: Of 360 patients included in the predictive analysis, 64 experienced a total of 78 exacerbations. Increased albuterol use preceded exacerbations; the mean number of inhalations in the 24-hours preceding an exacerbation was 7.3 (standard deviation 17.3). The machine learning model, using gradient-boosting trees with data from the eMDPI and baseline patient characteristics, predicted an impending exacerbation over the following 5 days with an ROC AUC of 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.90). The feature of the model with the highest weight was the mean number of daily inhalations during the 4 days prior to the day the prediction was made. Conclusion: A machine learning model to predict impending asthma exacerbations using data from the eMDPI was successfully developed. This approach may support a shift from reactive care to proactive, preventative, and personalized management of chronic respiratory diseases.

Relative bioavailability of terbutaline to the lung following inhalation, using urinary excretion.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to determine the relative lung and systemic bioavailability of terbutaline. METHODS: On separate days healthy volunteers received 500 µg terbutaline study doses either inhaled from a metered dose inhaler or swallowed as a solution with and without oral charcoal. Urine samples were provided at timed intervals post dosing. RESULTS: Mean (SD) urinary terbutaline 0.5 h post inhalation, in 12 volunteers, with (IC) and without (I) oral charcoal and oral (O) dosing was 7.4 (2.2), 6.5 (2.1) and 0.2 (0.2) µg. I and IC were similar and both significantly greater than O (P<0.001). Urinary 24 h terbutaline post I was similar to IC + O. The method was linear and reproducible, similar to that of the urinary salbutamol method. CONCLUSIONS: The urinary salbutamol pharmacokinetic method post inhalation applies to terbutaline. Terbutaline study doses can replace routine salbutamol during these studies when patients are studied.

Asthma control in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist fixed combinations. A real-life study comparing dry powder inhalers and a pressurized metered dose inhaler extrafine formulation.

BACKGROUND: Although patients have more problems using metered dose inhalers, clinical comparisons suggest they provide similar control to dry powder inhalers. Using real-life situations this study was designed to evaluate asthma control in outpatients with moderate to severe persistent asthma and to compare efficacy of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA). METHODS: This real-life study had a cross-sectional design. Patients using fixed combinations of ICS and LABA had their asthma control and spirometry assessed during regular visits. RESULTS: 111 patients were analyzed: 53 (47.7%) received maintenance therapy of extrafine beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP/F) pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), 25 (22.5%) fluticasone-salmeterol (FP/S) dry powder inhaler (DPI), and 33 (29.7%) budesonide-formoterol (BUD/F) DPI. Severity of asthma at time of diagnosis, assessed by the treating physician, was comparable among groups. Asthma control was achieved by 45.9% of patients; 38.7% were partially controlled and 15.3% were uncontrolled. In the extrafine BDF/F group, asthma control total score, daytime symptom score and rescue medication use score were significantly better than those using fixed DPI combinations (5.8±6.2 vs. 8.5±6.8; 1.4±1.8 vs. 2.3±2.1; 1.8±2.2 vs. 2.6±2.2; p=0.0160; p=0.012 and p=0.025, respectively) and the mean daily ICS dose were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: pMDI extrafine BDP/F combination demonstrated better asthma control compared to DPIs formulated with larger particles. This could be due to the improved lung deposition of the dose or less reliance on the optimal inhalation technique or both.