Nebuhaler or nebulizer for high dose bronchodilator therapy in chronic bronchitis: a comparison

One hundred years of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasing health problem and one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but knowledge about its pathogenesis has increased substantially in recent years. The disease results from interaction between individual risk factors (like enzymatic deficiencies) and environmental exposures to noxious agents, like cigarette smoking, occupational dusts, air pollution and infections in childhood. The main mechanisms that may contribute to airflow limitation in COPD are fixed narrowing of small airways, emphysema and luminal obstruction with mucus secretions. COPD is characterised by a chronic inflammatory process in the pulmonary tissue, with a pattern different from bronchial asthma, associated with extrapulmonary effects and is considered now a complex, systemic disease. Optimal therapeutic targeting of COPD depends on a clear understanding of the precise mechanisms of these complex processes and on early and correct evaluation of disease severity. A combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches is used to treat COPD. Bronchodilators are the mainstay of COPD treatment and can be combined with inhaled corticosteroids for greater efficacy and fewer side effects. The use of LTOT for hypoxemic patients has resulted in increased survival, and expanded drug therapy options have effectively improved dyspnoea and quality of life. Recent studies have documented the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation. In addition, non-invasive mechanical ventilation offers new alternatives for patients with acute or chronic failure.

Does the mode of inhalation affect the bronchodilator response in patients with severe COPD?

Spacing devices improve lung deposition of aerosols from metered dose inhalers (MDI) but it is sometimes difficult for dyspnoeic patients to perform maximal breaths with breath-holds needed to inhale the aerosols from them. Our aim was to determine whether the response to bronchodilators (BD) depended on the method of inhalation. We studied 20 patients with moderately severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with a mean age of 68 years and a mean of forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) of 41% predicted. In a randomized, cross-over fashion they inhaled terbutaline 1.5 mg (six puffs) followed by ipratropium 120 microg (six puffs) via MDI and nebuhaler with either two inspirations to total lung capacity and a 10-sec breath-hold per puff or with six tidal breaths per puff. Before and after BDs we measured FEV1, forced vital capacity (FVC), airways resistance using interrupter method (Rint) and 6-min walking distance (6MWD). Subsequently, we re-tested nine of these patients with the two methods of inhalation, before and after conventional doses (terbutaline 500 microg+ipratropium 40 microg), then after terbutaline 1 mg and ipratropium 80 microg and finally after nebulized terbutaline 5 mg and ipratropium 500 microg to sec whether there was a dose-dependent difference in effect between the two methods. Spirometry, slow vital capacity (SVC). inspiratory capacity and shuttle walking tests were monitored. In the original 20 patients there were highly significant improvements in all parameters after inhalers, with no significant difference between methods of inhalation. Median improvements after BDs were: FEV1 0.221 and 0.191, FVC 0.501 and 0.381 and 6MWD 40 m and 44 m, for maximal breaths and tidal breathing, respectively. For nine patients, tidal and maximal breaths produced similar effects on lung function and exercise tolerance at both doses of BDs. Nebulized BDs only improved shuttle distances slightly when compared with either method of inhalation from MDI and spacer but had no additional effect on lung function. In conclusion, in patients with moderately severe COPD, BDs given by metered dose inhaler via nebuhaler have similar effects whether given by six easy tidal breaths or the more difficult two maximal breaths with breath-hold. This holds true at small or larger doses of BD. Either method of inhaling six puffs of the BDs can be used as an effective alternative to nebulized aerosol.

The role of domiciliary nebulizers in managing patients with severe COPD

The difficulty of assessing nebulizer responses in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been demonstrated before. This study aims to re-examine both the role of domiciliary nebulizers in COPD and also bronchodilator (BD) assessment in individuals. In a double-blind, randomized, cross-over trial, 19 stable patients with severe COPD were given the following medication 6-hourly for 2-week periods: (1) nebulized salbutamol 2.5 mg with ipratropium 0.5 mg and placebo inhalers (MDI) with spacer; (2) placebo nebules and inhaled salbutamol 400 microg with ipratropium 80 microg via MDI with spacer; (3) inhaled salbutamol 400 microg with ipratropium 80 microg via MDI with spacer (but no placebo nebulized drugs). Both nebulized and MDI drugs produced highly significant improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), specific airways conductance, 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and residual volume. There were no significant differences between BD responses obtained after active nebulized and active MDI BDs. From the diary cards, 2 weeks of active nebulized BDs produced a slightly higher median peak expiratory flow (PEF) than active MDI BDs (236 and 219 l m(-1), respectively, P=0.01) and slightly less extra inhaler use (0.8 and 1.1 puffs, respectively, P<0.05) but no significant difference in dyspnoea or quality of life (QOL) scores. There were significant correlations between domiciliary PEF and acute BD-induced changes in FVC and 6MWD, and also between domiciliary dyspnoea scores and acute changes in both total lung capacity and 6MWD. In conclusion, nebulized medication conferred little clinical advantage over the regular use of inhalers with spacers in this group of patients with severe COPD. However, acute changes in total lung capacity, FVC and 6MWD may be useful predictors of the longer-term effects of nebulized BDs in individual patients.

Short-acting beta 2 agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic condition characterised by progressive airflow limitation that is at most partially reversible. Despite the lack of reversibility patients often report symptomatic improvement with short-acting beta 2 bronchodilator medications. They are used on either an "as required" or a "regular plus as required basis" and they may be used in conjunction with other bronchodilator medicines such as ipratropium and methylxanthines. These medicines are used in the management of both stable and acute exacerbations of COPD. This review examined the effect of short-acting beta 2 bronchodilators given by inhalation in stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effect and assess the adverse effects of inhaled short-acting beta 2 agonist bronchodilators compared with placebo in stable COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. RCTs were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group database (CENTRAL). In addition, the reference lists of review articles and RCTs retrieved in full were searched for other potentially relevant citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only trials with adult patients with stable COPD, as defined by internationally accepted guidelines (ATS, ERS or BTS) were included in this review. All trials had a minimum duration of 7 days of regular treatment with short-acting beta 2 bronchodilators given by inhalation and compared with placebo. Data from trials where beta 2 agonists were used alone or in combination with other medicines (e.g. ipratropium bromide) were used only if there was a direct comparison between beta 2 bronchodilator alone and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes were analysed as continuous or dichotomous outcomes, using standard statistical techniques. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and for dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio was calculated with 95% confidence intervals by Peto's methods. Funnel plots were used to test for publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in this review. Most had small sample sizes and some of the sutides used very short-acting outdated compounds. All the studies used a cross-over design and were of high quality. Spirometry done at the end of study period was measured after administration of treatment (post-bronchodilator) which showed both FEV1 (0.150 L/min, 95%CI: 0. 02-0.28) and FVC (0.310 L, 95%CI: 0.00-0.62) to improve significanly but slightly when compared to placebo. A few studies measured FRC, airway resistance or conductance at the end of the study period. In all cases these measurements were done several hours after treatment, and no significant differences (p>0.05 in all cases) were found between the bronchodilator and placebo groups. Walking test Large increases in 6MW distance was observed in two studies, however one study did not show any positive improvements. There was a large increase in the 12MW distance as shown by one study. Due to the small number of studies reporting this outcome no significant differences were found in the walking distance between the bronchodilator and placebo groups. Peak Flow Rate Both morning (36. 04 L/min; 95%CI: 0.80-71.27) and evening (36.68 L/min; 95%CI: 2. 47-70.89) PEFR were significantly higher during active treatment than during placebo. Symptoms Breatlessness was measured on various scales therefore data that were presented in a suitable form were combined using standardized means for inclusion in the analysis. A significant improvement (-0.33; 95%CI: -0.58 to -0.07 with p=0.01) in the breathlessness score was observed during treatment with beta-2 agonist when compared to placebo. Cough was reported to improve significantly (data not usable) during treatment with beta2 agonist in one study but not in two others. A non-significant decrease in sputum production was reported by Wilson 1980, however four other studies reported no

Comparative study of budesonide as a nebulized suspension vs pressurized metered-dose inhaler in adult asthmatics

The study objective was to compare the effect of budesonide administered as a nebulized suspension as compared to a spray with a spacer in adult asthmatics. In a double-blind, double-dummy crossover study, 26 adult patients with moderately severe unstable asthma were randomized to three 4-week treatment periods with budesonide 0.8 mg b.i.d. administered by a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with spacer (Nebuhaler) and budesonide 1 mg and 4 mg b.i.d. administered by a Pari Inhalier Boy jet nebulizer. The nebulizer was activated only during inspiration. The total mass output was similar from the two devices but their fraction of small particles differed by a factor of 2 in favour of pMDI. Effect was evaluated from daily home measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF), need of beta 2-agonist and symptom scores. Plasma cortisol and budesonide levels were measured in a subgroup of 10 patients. A consistent trend showed the nebulizer treatment to be at least as efficient as the pMDI plus spacer treatment. In actual fact, the apparent order of effect was: 4 mg nebulized suspension treatment > or = 1 mg nebulized suspension treatment > or = 0.8 mg pMDI with spacer treatment. Plasma budesonide and plasma cortisol also exhibited dose-related levels independent of device. The adverse effects reported appeared to be related to the dose rather than delivery device. Accordingly, the effect was related to total mass output, rather than to the small particle fraction of the budesonide aerosol. These results attest to the efficiency of jet-nebulized budesonide suspension, and indicate nebulized budesonide to be equipotent to standard budesonide therapy delivered by pMDI with Nebuhaler, provided nebulization is synchronized with inspiration and no loss of aerosol occurs during expiration.