Commercial valved spacers versus home-made spacers for delivering bronchodilator therapy in pediatric acute asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Although valved spacers are the preferred method for administering metered-dose inhaler bronchodilators such as albuterol in pediatric acute asthma, their high cost and their lack of availability have limited their use, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Because of this, it is a common practice to use home-made spacers, although a formal analysis evaluating their cost-effectiveness is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of home-made spacers compared to commercial valved spacers for delivering bronchodilator therapy in pediatric acute asthma. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used to estimate health outcomes and costs of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients treated for acute asthma. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC). The main outcome of the model was avoidance of hospital admission. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that compared to commercial valved spacers, administering bronchodilators with home-made spacers results in lower overall treatment costs (US$126.75 vs. US$128.59 average cost per patient) without a significant difference in the probability of hospitalization avoided (0.8500 vs. 0.8500). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with commercial valved spacers, the use of home-made spacers for administering bronchodilator therapy is more cost-effective because it yields a similar probability of hospital admission at lower overall treatment costs.

Metered-dose inhalers vs nebulization for the delivery of albuterol in pediatric asthma exacerbations: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a middle-income country.

OBJECTIVES: Although the benefits of albuterol delivered via metered-dose inhalers with a spacer (MDI+S) have been increasingly recognized, the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S compared to nebulization (NEB) is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC). The main outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospital admission. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to NEB, using MDI+S for the delivery of albuterol was associated with lower total costs (US$96.68 vs US$121.41 average cost per patient) and a higher probability of hospital admission avoided (0.9219 vs 0.8900), thus leading to dominance. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with NEB, the use of MDI+S for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations is the preferred strategy because it is associated with a lower probability of hospital admission at lower total treatment costs.

Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England.

OBJECTIVES: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) contain propellants which are potent greenhouse gases. Many agencies propose a switch to alternative, low global warming potential (GWP) inhalers, such as dry powder inhalers (DPIs). We aimed to analyse the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and drug costs of making this switch. SETTING: We studied National Health Service prescription data from England in 2017 and collated carbon footprint data on inhalers commonly used in England. DESIGN: Inhalers were separated into different categories according to their mechanisms of action (eg, short-acting beta-agonist). Within each category we identified low and high GWP inhalers and calculated the cost and carbon impact of changing to low GWP inhalers. We modelled scenarios for swapping proportionally according to the current market share of each equivalent DPI (model 1) and switching to the lowest cost pharmaceutically equivalent DPI (model 2). We also reviewed available data on the carbon footprint of inhalers from scientific publications, independently certified reports and patents to provide more accurate carbon footprint information on different types of inhalers. RESULTS: If MDIs using HFA propellant are replaced with the cheapest equivalent DPI, then for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs decrease by £8.2M annually. However if the brands of DPIs stay the same as 2017 prescribing patterns, for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs increase by £12.7M annually. Most potential savings are due to less expensive long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) inhalers. Some reliever inhalers (eg, Ventolin) have a carbon footprint over 25 kg CO2e per inhaler, while others use far less 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA134a) (eg, Salamol) with a carbon footprint of <10 kg CO2e per inhaler. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane (HFA227ea) LABA/ICS inhalers (eg, Flutiform) have a carbon footprint over 36 kg CO2e, compared with an equivalent HFA134a combination inhaler (eg, Fostair) at <20 kg CO2e. For every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, 58 kt CO2e could be saved annually in England. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to DPIs would result in large carbon savings and can be achieved alongside reduced drug costs by using less expensive brands. Substantial carbon savings can be made by using small volume HFA134a MDIs, in preference to large volume HFA134a MDIs, or those containing HFA227ea as a propellant.

Does Changing Inhaler Device Impact Real-Life Asthma Outcomes? Clinical and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler usability and deposition differ between devices. Change of device may therefore have an impact on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize clinical and economic asthma outcomes surrounding the change from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for fixed-dose combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß agonist (FDC ICS/LABA) treatment. METHODS: Three retrospective cohort substudies using 2010 to 2015 data from the Korean Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service database were performed. Patients with asthma who received an FDC ICS/LABA pMDI for the first time after initially being on FDC ICS/LABA DPI were included. The following outcomes were assessed: (1) persistence of change to pMDI over 6 months, (2) clinical outcomes during the year after the change compared with the baseline year; and (3) noninferiority comparison of costs and effectiveness between patients changing to a pMDI and matched patients who continued their DPI. RESULTS: Patients who change inhalers seem to represent a more severe subpopulation. Fifty-eight percent of patients (95% CI, 56-60) persisted with the change. After the change in therapy, an increased proportion of patients (58.3%) remained free from severe exacerbations compared with the year before (47.4%; P < .001). Patients who changed to pMDIs had significantly less severe exacerbations, acute respiratory events, and lower short-acting ß agonist inhaler average daily dose, but higher average ICS daily dose (all P < .05), compared with matched patients remaining on a DPI. Total costs were similar between patients who changed to pMDI therapy compared with those remaining on a DPI. CONCLUSION: Changing from a DPI to a pMDI for FDC ICS/LABA asthma treatment can be as effective and cost-effective as remaining on a DPI.

A Cost Analysis of Salbutamol Administration by Metered-Dose Inhalers with Spacers versus Nebulization for Patients with Wheeze in the Pediatric Emergency Department: Evidence from Observational Data in Nova Scotia.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence demonstrating the advantages of metered-dose inhalers with spacers (MDI-s), nebulization (NEB) remains the primary method of asthma treatment in some pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). There is a perception that delivering salbutamol by MDI-s is more costly than by NEB. This research evaluates the relative costs of MDI-s and NEB using local, hospital-specific, patient-level data. METHODS: Regression models estimated associations between the salbutamol inhalation method and costs, length of stay (LOS) in the PED and hospital, and the probability of admission. Our population was a random sample of 822 patients presenting with wheeze to the PED in 2008/2009. Control variables included age, sex, triage acuity, time of PED visit, other medications, and vitals. Costs were calculated using the prices and quantities of medical resources used per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used. RESULTS: Treatment with MDI-s versus NEB was associated with an absolute decrease in hospitalization of 4.4% (p<0.05) and a 25-hour (p<0.001) reduction in average inpatient stay, after controlling for triage acuity and patient characteristics. This resulted in savings of $24/patient in the PED and $180/patient overall (p<0.001). Inpatient care accounted for more than 90% of total patient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest economic gains associated with MDI-s for salbutamol inhalation in PEDs. Sensitivity analyses show that this conclusion is not affected by changes in model parameters that may differ by jurisdiction. Since most facilities already collect the data used for this study, our methods could be adopted for a cross-jurisdictional account of the cost effectiveness of MDI-s.

Use of a Shared Canister Protocol for the Delivery of Metered-Dose Inhalers in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients often need bronchodilators administered via a metered-dose inhaler (MDI). Unfortunately, there are no data examining the impact of shared canister delivery of MDI therapy in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: A prospective trial was conducted with subjects assigned to shared canister MDI therapy or single-patient canister MDI therapy. Outcomes assessed were occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-associated events, and MDI costs. RESULTS: Among 486 screened patients, 353 were included for analysis of which 201 (56.9%) received shared canister MDI therapy and 152 (43.1%) received single-patient canister therapy. VAP (7.0% vs 4.6%, P = .35), hospital mortality (21.9% vs 20.4%, P = .73), and ventilator days (median [interquartile range] 3.1 [0.9-7.5] d vs 2.7 [1.2-7.1] d, P = .62) were similar between the shared canister and single-patient canister groups. We did not observe clinically important differences for ventilator-associated events between study groups in our logistic regression analysis (P = .07). There was a savings of $217/subject in the shared canister group due to the use of 299 fewer MDIs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that shared canister MDI therapy compared with single-patient MDI use was associated with a significant cost savings and similar rates of VAP, hospital mortality, and length of stay but a greater prevalence of ventilator-associated events. This finding suggests that shared canister delivery of MDIs may be a cost-effective practice in mechanically ventilated patients. Based on our findings, further studies examining the overall safety of shared canister use in mechanically ventilated patients seem warranted before recommending their routine use. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01935388.).

Switching treatments in COPD: implications for costs and treatment adherence.

Inhaled therapy is key to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New drugs and inhalers have recently been launched or will soon become available, and the expiry of patent protection covering several currently used inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids will be accompanied by the development of bioequivalent, generic inhaled drugs. Consequently, a broader availability of branded and generic compounds will increase prescription opportunities. Given the time course of COPD, patients are likely to switch drugs and inhalers in daily practice. Switching from one device to another, if not accompanied by appropriate training for the patient, can be associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased use of health care resources. In fact, while it seems reasonable to prescribe generic inhaled drugs to reduce costs, inadequate use of inhaler devices, which is often associated with a poor patient-physician or patient-pharmacist relationship, is one of the most common reasons for failure to achieve COPD treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to quantify, as in asthma, the impact of inappropriate switching of inhalers in patients with COPD and show the outcomes related to the effect of using the same device for delivering inhaled medications.

[Critical evaluation of inhalation spacer devices available in France]. / Évaluation critique des chambres d'inhalation commercialisées en France.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the spacer devices sold in France and to provide a critical evaluation in the light of the published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We contacted the pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and distributors of each spacer in order to obtain their technical parameters and the results of any in vitro or in vivo studies. A review of the literature via PubMed completed the first set of data. We were interested in the quantity of fine particles (less than 5 µm diameter) obtained with a cascade impactor at paediatric flow rates, for all inhaled drugs available in France. RESULTS: Eleven spacer devices were available in 2013 in France (Ablespacer®, Aerochamber Plus®, Babyhaler®, VHC Arrow®, L'Espace®, Funhaler®, Inhaler®, Itinhaler®, OptiChamber Diamond®, Tipshaler® and Vortex®), but three are no longer manufactured (Babyhaler®, Funhaler® and Inhaler®). All were small volume spacers, sold with facial masks of several different sizes. Four were antistatic (Aerochamber Plus®, Intinhaler®, OptiChamber Diamond® and Vortex®). Only salbutamol was tested with all the devices. Inhaled corticosteroids were tested with some and combinations were studied only with Ablespacer®, Aerochamber Plus®, Itinhaler®, and Vortex®. The results were difficult to interpret because the studies were conducted with very different protocols. The only clinical studies were conducted with Aerochamber Plus®, L'Espace® and Vortex®. CONCLUSION: There was a great disparity between commercialized spacer devices in terms of the available data describing their in vitro performance.

Critical analysis of common canister programs: a review of cross-functional considerations and health system economics.

Respiratory inhalers constitute a large percentage of hospital pharmacy expenditures. Metered-dose inhaler (MDI) canisters usually contain enough medication to last 2 to 4 weeks, while the average hospital stay for acute hospitalizations of respiratory illnesses is only 4-5 days. Hospital pharmacies are often unable to operationalize relabeling of inhalers at discharge to meet regulatory requirements. This dilemma produces drug wastage. The common canister (CC) approach is a method some hospitals implemented in an effort to minimize the costs associated with this issue. The CC program uses a shared inhaler, an individual one-way valve holding chamber, and a cleaning protocol. This approach has been the subject of considerable controversy. Proponents of the CC approach reported considerable cost savings to their institutions. Opponents of the CC approach are not convinced the benefits outweigh even a minimal risk of cross-contamination since adherence to protocols for hand washing and disinfection of the MDI device cannot be guaranteed to be 100% (pathogens from contaminated devices can enter the respiratory tract through inhalation). Other cost containment strategies, such as unit dose nebulizers, may be useful to realize similar reductions in pharmacy drug costs while minimizing the risks of nosocomial infections and their associated medical costs. The CC strategy may be appropriate for some hospital pharmacies that face budget constraints, but a full evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential costs should guide those who make hospital policy decisions.

In vitro evaluation of nonconventional accessory devices for pressurized metered-dose inhalers.

BACKGROUND: The selection of accessory devices for pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) by health care professionals is typically cost driven without consideration of how the device modifies clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nonconventional accessory devices and the open-mouth technique with and without ideal coordination of actuation and inhalation to identify and understand the considerations for recommending potential inexpensive devices. METHODS: In vitro performance parameters of the beclomethasone dipropionate pMDI were evaluated with several devices (AeroChamber, toilet paper roll, paper towel roll, rolled paper, plastic bottle spacer, bottle-holding chamber, and nebulizer reservoir tubing). RESULTS: Compared with the pMDI alone, all the accessory devices evaluated have significantly lower drug exposure and throat deposition and higher respirable fractions, with the paper towel roll having the greatest effect of the devices evaluated (exposure decreased from a mean [SD] of 76.1 [4.8] µg to 49.2 [2.0] µg, throat deposition decreased from 32.0 [3.2] µg to 0.8 [0.3] µg, and respirable fraction increased from 49.8% [3.2%] to 96.4% [0.4%]). Introduction of a delay between actuation and inhalation resulted in greater variability in performance metrics for the devices evaluated, and the bottle-holding chamber and paper towel roll were most effective in mitigating the effect of the delay. The open-mouth technique was found to decrease throat deposition and respirable mass compared with the pMDI alone. CONCLUSION: In addition to cost, the amount of drug that deposits in the throat and the lungs and the effect of asynchronous actuation and inhalation can vary with the selection of an accessory device, which may affect the therapeutic benefits of the pMDI selected.

Use of breath-actuated inhalers in patients with asthma and COPD - an advance in inhalational therapy: a systematic review.

The pressurized metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers are the most widely used devices for inhalation therapy in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; each of these devices have certain advantages and disadvantages that impact their use. Motivation from the virtues of these devices led to the development of breath-actuated or breath-activated metered dose inhalers. A history of the breath-actuated inhalers, the development and technical aspects, studies about the usability, inhalation technique and patient preference, lung deposition and impact on lung function are presented in this review article. This review presents the use of breath-actuated inhalers in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in children and elderly; and a brief economic evaluation aims to put the clinical efficacy and ease-of-use of the breath-actuated inhaler into perspective by understanding the long-term cost benefits associated with this device.

Budget impact analysis of a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The economic burden of asthma on the UK National Health Service (NHS) is the largest among allergic diseases. Current asthma guidelines recommend adding a long acting ß2-agonist (LABA) to a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in patients who are on ICS monotherapy and have uncontrolled asthma. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL), available in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) device, is the most commonly prescribed ICS/LABA combination. An additional fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) in pMDI is now available. In a 12-week non-inferiority study, FP/FORM demonstrated comparable efficacy to FP/SAL. The present analysis estimates the annual budget impact for the UK NHS using FP/FORM as an alternative to FP/SAL. METHODS: Current pMDI prescribing data were from a real-world UK patient database (Cegedim Strategic Data). Annual costs to the NHS for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring were estimated for FP/FORM and FP/SAL and used to assess the potential budget impact for the NHS for the use of FP/FORM instead of FP/SAL. Varying rates of uptake, adherence, adverse event-related costs, and resource use associated with switching treatment were assessed in scenario analyses. RESULTS: Assuming similar levels of ICS use with both regimens, annual drug acquisition costs per person were lower with FP/FORM (£412) than with FP/SAL (£509). The difference in acquisition costs and otherwise comparable input costs between the treatments, results in potential annual savings of £15,110,279 to the NHS, assuming uptake of FP/FORM over FP/SAL in 50% of existing patients. The introduction of FP/FORM results in cost savings for the NHS in all of the assessed scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable efficacy and lower acquisition costs of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL make it a cost-saving option for the UK NHS for the treatment of asthma patients requiring combination maintenance therapy using a pMDI.

Evaluating the length of stay and value of time in a pediatric emergency department with two models by comparing two different albuterol delivery systems.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is one of the most common childhood illnesses and accounts for a substantial amount of pediatric emergency department visits. Historically, acute exacerbations are treated with a beta agonist via nebulizer therapy (NEB). However, with the advent of the spacer, the medication can be delivered via a metered dose inhaler (MDI+S) with the same efficacy for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations. To date, no study has been done to evaluate emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) and opportunity cost between nebulized vs MDI+S. The objective of this study was to compare ED LOS and associated opportunity cost among children who present with a mild asthma exacerbation according to the delivery mode of albuterol: MDI+S vs NEB. METHODS: A structured, retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Medical records were reviewed from children aged 1-18 years treated at an urban pediatric ED from July 2007 to June 2008 with a discharge diagnosis International Classification of Disease-9 of asthma. Length of stay was defined: time from initial triage until the time of the guardian signature on the discharge instructions. An operational definition was used to define a mild asthma exacerbation; those patients requiring only one standard weight based albuterol treatment. Emergency department throughput time points, demographic data, treatment course, and delivery method of albuterol were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred and four patients were analyzed: 94 in the MDI+S group and 209 in the NEB group. Mean age in years for the MDI+S group was 9.57 vs 5.07 for the NEB group (p<0.001). The percentage of patients that received oral corticosteroids was 39.4% in the MDI+S group vs 61.7% in the NEB group (p<0.001). There was no difference between groups in: race, insurance status, gender, or chest radiographs. The mean ED LOS for patients in the MDI+S group was 170 minutes compared to 205 minutes in the NEB group. On average, there was a 25.1 minute time savings per patient in ED treatment time (p<0.001; 95% CI=3.8-31.7). Significant predictors of outcome for treatment time were chest radiograph, steroids, and treatment mode. Opportunity cost analysis estimated a potential cost savings of $213,532 annually using MDI+S vs NEB. CONCLUSION: In mild asthma exacerbations, administering albuterol via MDI+S decreases ED treatment time when compared to administering nebulized albuterol. A metered dose inhaler with spacer utilization may enhance opportunity cost savings and decrease the left without being seen population with improved throughput. LIMITATIONS: The key limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the proxy non-standard definition of mild asthma exacerbation, and the opportunity cost calculation, which may over-estimate the value of ED time saved based on ED volume.

Inhaler device selection: special considerations in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: Special considerations in the selection of medication inhaler devices for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the ambulatory care setting are reviewed. SUMMARY: Substantial deficiencies in inhaler device technique and medication adherence are evident in patients with COPD, leading to suboptimal health outcomes. As the prevalence of COPD rises with age, elderly patients pose special challenges with regard to inhaler device selection. In elderly patients with sufficient cognitive function, manual dexterity, and hand strength, the most influential factors in inhaler selection are cost reimbursement, device availability, device convenience, and patient preference. Cost reimbursement may be a deciding factor in device selection, as nearly all elderly patients are Medicare beneficiaries. Nebulizers provide a cost-effective alternative to pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) devices. DPI device availability is limited to "controller" medications, while pMDI devices and nebulizers provide complete symptomatic coverage. Multiple-dose DPIs offer the convenience of rapid medication administration, ease of handling, and integral dose counters. Given the availability and expenses of medication devices, ambulatory patients may prefer combining the convenience of a hand-held inhaler (i.e., pMDI) as a rescue medication during the active hours of midday with the cost savings of a nebulized controller medication in the morning and at night. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with sufficient cognitive function, manual dexterity, and hand strength, the most important factors in inhaler device selection are cost reimbursement issues, device availability, device convenience, and patient preference. Pharmacist knowledge of appropriate inhaler technique, competent patient education and demonstration, and follow-up assessment are instrumental in optimizing device competency and medication adherence.

Cost-effectiveness of metered-dose inhalers for asthma exacerbations in the pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incremental cost and effects (averted admission) of using a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) against wet nebulization to deliver bronchodilators for the treatment of mild to moderately severe asthma in pediatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We measured the incremental cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the hospital, by creating a model using outcome characteristics from a Cochrane systematic review comparing the efficacy of using MDIs versus nebulizers for the delivery of albuterol to children presenting to the ED with asthma. Cost data were obtained from hospitals and regional authorities. We determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Using MDIs in the ED instead of wet nebulization may result in net savings of Can$154.95 per patient. Our model revealed that using MDIs in the ED is a dominant strategy, one that is more effective and less costly than wet nebulization. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that 98% of the 10 000 iterations resulted in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses around the costs revealed that MDI would remain a dominant strategy (90% of 10 000 iterations) even if the net cost of delivering bronchodilators by MDI was Can$70 more expensive than that of nebulized bronchodilators. CONCLUSIONS: Use of MDIs with spacers in place of wet nebulizers to deliver albuterol to treat children with mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations in the ED could yield significant cost savings for hospitals and, by extension, to both the health care system and families of children with asthma.

Efficacy and cost comparisons of bronchodilatator administration between metered dose inhalers with disposable spacers and nebulizers for acute asthma treatment.

BACKGROUND: Despite demonstration of equivalent efficacy of beta agonist delivery using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer vs. nebulizer in asthma patients, use of a nebulizer remains standard practice. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that beta agonist delivery with a MDI/disposable spacer combination is an effective and low-cost alternative to nebulizer delivery for acute asthma in an inner-city population. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 60 acute asthma adult patients in two inner-city emergency departments. Subjects (n = 60) received albuterol with either a MDI/spacer combination or nebulizer. The spacer group (n = 29) received albuterol by MDI/spacer followed by placebo nebulization. The nebulizer group (n = 29) received placebo by MDI/spacer followed by albuterol nebulization. Peak flows, symptom scores, and need for rescue bronchodilatator were monitored. Median values were compared with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. RESULTS: Patients in the two randomized groups had similar baseline characteristics. The severity of asthma exacerbation, median peak flows, and symptom scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The median (interquartile range) improvement in peak flow was 120 (75-180) L/min vs. 120 (80-155) L/min in the spacer and nebulizer groups, respectively (p = 0.56). The median improvement in the symptom score was 7 (5-9) vs. 7 (4-9) in the spacer and nebulizer groups, respectively (p = 0.78). The median cost of treatment per patient was $10.11 ($10.03-$10.28) vs. $18.26 ($9.88-$22.45) in the spacer and nebulizer groups, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of superiority of nebulizer to MDI/spacer beta agonist delivery for emergency management of acute asthma in the inner-city adult population. MDI/spacer may be a more economical alternative to nebulizer delivery.