Peak Inspiratory Flow as a Predictive Therapeutic Biomarker in COPD

Longitudinal Changes in Maximal Forced Inspiratory Flow and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COPD

BACKGROUND

COPD primarily impairs expiratory flow due to progressive airflow obstruction and reduced lung elasticity. Increasing evidence underlines the importance of inspiratory flow as a biomarker for selecting inhaler devices and providing ancillary aerodynamic information.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do the longitudinal changes in maximum forced inspiratory flow (FIFmax) influence acute exacerbations and lung function decline in patients with COPD?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This longitudinal study evaluated FIFmax in patients with COPD over a 7-year period from 2004 to 2020. Eligible patients were categorized into two groups based on FIFmax trajectory: the increased FIFmax group and the decreased FIFmax group. The study assessed the annual rate of acute exacerbations and the annual decline rate of FEV1. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on treatment status, with a focus on inhaled therapy and inhaler device usage.

RESULTS

Among the eligible 956 patients with COPD, 56.5% belonged to the increased FIFmax group. After propensity score matching, the increased FIFmax group experienced lower rates of severe exacerbations (0.16 per year vs 0.25 per year, P = .017) and a slower decline in FEV1 (0 [interquartile range, -51 to 71] mL/y vs -43 [interquartile range, -119 to 6] mL/y; P < .001) compared with the decreased FIFmax group. These associations were particularly prominent in patients using specific inhaler therapies such as dry powder inhalers.

INTERPRETATION

This study showed that the longitudinal changes in FIFmax are associated with clinical outcomes in patients with COPD. Patients with increased FIFmax experienced a lower rate of severe exacerbations and a slower decline in lung function. These findings suggest the potential benefits of optimizing inspiratory flow in COPD management, although further studies are needed to confirm these observations due to potential confounding factors.

Changes in Peak Inspiratory Flow After Acute Bronchodilation: An Observational Study of Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction: Identifying factors influencing peak inspiratory flow (PIF) is essential for aerosol drug delivery in stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. While a minimum PIF for dry powder inhalers (DPIs) is established, acute bronchodilator (BD) effects on PIF remain unknown. Materials and Methods: An inspiratory flow meter (In-Check™ DIAL) was used to measure PIF in stable patients during a 24-week observational cross-sectional study. Additionally, bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) was determined using the In-Check DIAL device and spirometry. Patients received four puffs of albuterol, and pre- and post-BD PIF, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and forced vital capacity were measured. Sixty-three patients completed acute BDR data collection from July 31, 2019, to November 9, 2021. Primary endpoints were pre- and post-BD spirometry and PIF. Statistical analyses included PIF correlations with FEV1. BD change was assessed according to inhaler resistance and sex (subgroup analysis). Results: Median patient age was 64.8 years, 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 57.1% were female. The median increase in absolute PIF (In-Check DIAL) was 5.0 L/min, and the % PIF change was 8.9%. With albuterol, 57.1% experienced a PIF BD change >5.0%, whereas 49.2% experienced a change >10.0%. Similarly, 55.6% experienced an FEV1 BD change >5.0% and 28.6% had a >10.0% FEV1 BD change with albuterol. PIF was weakly correlated with FEV1 BD change (absolute; % PIF; r = 0.28 [p = 0.02]; r = 0.21 [p = 0.11]). Pre- and post-BD median PIF were 75.5 and 83.5 L/min for low-to-medium-resistance DPI and 45.0 and 52.0 L/min for high-resistance, respectively. The median increases in pre- and post-BD PIF were 9.0 L/min in males and 4.5 L/min in females. In contrast to when using the In-Check DIAL device, we observed no consistent bronchodilatory effects on PIF measured by spirometry. Conclusions: Using the In-Check DIAL device, ∼50% of patients experienced >10% PIF increase after acute BD, potentially enhancing medication lung deposition. Further research is required to understand PIF's impact on medication delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04168775.

Clinical Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients with Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow

Introduction

Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may derive inadequate benefit from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) because of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow (sPIF).

Objectives

To assess the clinical burden of COPD by characterizing the clinical characteristics of participants with sPIF against medium-low resistance DPIs versus those with optimal PIF (oPIF) from two phase 3 clinical trials.

Methods

Baseline data were collected from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (NCT03095456; NCT02518139) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. oPIF (60 L/min) against the medium-low resistance DPIs was used as the threshold for defining the PIF subgroups (<60 L/min (sPIF) vs ≥60 L/min (oPIF)).

Results

Most participants included in this analysis were White (92%) and male (63%); the mean (range) age was 65 (43-87) years. Participants with sPIF had significantly greater dyspnea than those with oPIF as measured using the modified Medical Research Council scoring (mean (95% CI): 2.1 (2.0-2.2) vs 1.6 (1.4-1.7); P  < 0.001) and baseline dyspnea index (mean (95% CI): 5.1 (4.9-5.4) vs 6.1 (5.8-6.3); P  < 0.001). Based on COPD Assessment Test scores, participants with sPIF had a higher COPD symptom burden than those with oPIF (mean (95% CI): 21.5 (19.7-23.3) vs 19.5 (18.6-20.4); P = 0.05).

Conclusion

In these trials, participants with COPD who had sPIF against the medium-low resistance DPIs had more dyspnea and worse health status than those with oPIF. These results demonstrate that sPIF is associated with a higher clinical burden as measured by patient-reported outcomes.

Consideration and Assessment of Patient Factors When Selecting an Inhaled Delivery System in COPD

Because guidelines and strategies for pharmacologic treatment of COPD focus on specific classes of inhaled medications, there is an unmet need for information to guide health care professionals for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system that matches the unique characteristics of individual patients. This article provides guidance for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system based on three "key" patient factors: cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and peak inspiratory flow. In addition, information is provided about specific tests to assess these patient factors. Cognitive impairment with an estimated prevalence of 25% among patients with COPD adversely affects patients' ability to correctly use a handheld device. To our knowledge, the prevalence of impaired manual dexterity/strength has not been reported in those with COPD. However, 79% of patients with COPD have reported one or more physical impediments that could influence their ability to manipulate an inhaler device. The measurement of peak inspiratory flow against the simulated resistance (PIFr) of a dry powder inhaler establishes whether the patient has the inhalation ability for creating optimal turbulent energy within the device. A suboptimal PIFr for low to medium-high resistance dry powder inhalers has been reported in 19% to 84% of stable outpatients with COPD. Health care professionals should consider cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and PIFr in their patients with COPD when prescribing inhaled pharmacotherapy. Impairments in these patient factors are common among those with COPD and can affect the individual's competency and effectiveness of using inhaled medications delivered by handheld devices.

Personalizing Selection of Inhaled Delivery Systems in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

It can be challenging for healthcare professionals (HCPs) to prescribe inhaled therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because of the multiple individual and combinations of inhaled medications available in numerous delivery systems. Guidance on the selection of an inhaled delivery system has received limited attention compared with the emphasis on prescribing the class of the inhaled molecule(s). Although numerous recommendations and algorithms have been proposed to guide the selection of an inhaled delivery system for patients with COPD, no specific approach has been endorsed in COPD guidelines/strategies or by professional organizations. To provide recommendations for an inhaler selection strategy at initial and follow-up appointments, we examined the impact of patient errors using handheld inhalers on clinical outcomes and performed a focused narrative review to consider patient factors (continuity of the inhaled delivery system, cognitive function, manual function/dexterity, and peak inspiratory flow) when selecting an inhaled delivery system. On the basis of these findings, five questions are proposed for HCPs to consider in the initial selection of an inhaler delivery system and three questions to consider at follow-up. We propose that HCPs consider the inhaled medication delivery system as a unit and to match appropriate medication(s) with the unique features of the delivery system to individual patient factors. Assessment of inhaler technique and adherence together with patient outcomes/satisfaction at each visit is essential to determine whether the inhaled medication delivery system is providing benefits. Continued and repeated education on device features and correct technique is warranted to optimize efficacy.

From the infant to the geriatric patient-Strategies for inhalation therapy in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Inhalation therapy represents the standard of care in children, adolescents as well as in young, middle-aged and geriatric adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, there are only few recommendations for the choice of inhalation devices, which consider both, age-specific limitations in young and geriatric patients. Transition concepts are lacking. In this narrative review, the available device technologies and the evidence for age-specific problems are discussed. Pressurized metered-dose inhalers may be favoured in patients who fulfill all cognitive, coordinative and manual power requirements. Breath-actuated metered-dose inhalers, soft-mist inhalers or the use of add-on devices such as spacers, face masks and valved holding chambers may be suitable for patients with mild to moderate impairments of these variables. In these cases, available resources of personal assistance by educated family members or caregivers should be used to allow metered-dose inhaler therapy. Dry powder inhalers may be reserved for patients with a sufficient peak inspiratory flow and good cognitive and manual abilities. Nebulizers may be indicated in persons who are either unwilling or unable to use handheld inhaler devices. After initiation of a specific inhalation therapy, close monitoring is essential to reduce handling mistakes. An algorithm is developed that considers age and relevant comorbidities to support the decision-making process for the choice of an inhaler device.

Recent advances predict a bright future for nebulizers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the improvement in device technology and delivery methods of inhaled medications, along with development of novel compounds and recognition of the importance of personalized approach in the management of chronic airway diseases, nebulizers have not only maintained their place in the treatment hierarchy of airway disease but have also proven a vital platform for the development of new classes of drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

This short review explores recent advances in nebulized drug delivery in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other chronic airway diseases, emphasizing the progress in nebulizer technology, physiologic advantages of nebulized drug delivery and the high versatility of currently available and developing nebulizer-delivered pharmacotherapies.

SUMMARY

Versatility and efficiency of nebulizers allows for a broad spectrum of existing and novel therapies to be clinically studied, facilitating the progress in phenotype-targeted pharmacotherapies in the management of chronic airway diseases.

Stepwise management of COPD: What is next after bronchodilation?

Inhaled bronchodilator therapy with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) in combination is currently the mainstay of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Treatment guidelines recommend the addition of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to LABA/LAMA only in patients with a history of frequent/severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophil counts, or in those with concomitant asthma. Despite this, real-world data suggest that clinicians are not adhering to this guidance and that ICS are frequently overused. This is possibly due to the incorrect assumption that when LABA/LAMA therapy is not sufficient, adding an ICS to the treatment regimen is the logical next step. In this narrative review, we describe global and country-specific guideline recommendations from Germany, Spain, and Japan and compare these with real-world data on LABA/LAMA and ICS use in clinical practice. We also provide a clinical guide to the use of add-on therapies with LABA/LAMA for different patient phenotypes, including (1) patients still symptomatic (but not exacerbating) despite LABA/LAMA treatment; (2) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who have high blood eosinophil counts; and (3) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who do not have high blood eosinophils or concomitant asthma.

A Systematic Review of Published Algorithms for Selecting an Inhaled Delivery System in COPD

RATIONALE

Medication for treatment of COPD is available in many different delivery systems; however, national and international guidelines do not provide recommendations on how to select the optimal system for an individual patient.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of published algorithms for inhaler selection in out-patients with COPD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were search for articles on inhaler selection published between January 1, 1990 and March 10, 2021. The results were reviewed for articles containing an algorithm for inhaler selection. The quality of publications containing an algorithm was assessed using the JBI SUMARI text and opinion critical appraisal checklist. Individual steps recommended in the algorithms and the order in which they were considered were extracted independently by the two authors using the JBI text and opinion data extraction tool. Textual syntheses and a table of factors included were used to appraise and compare algorithms.

RESULTS

The search identified 1016 publications. After removing duplicate studies (n = 409), 607 abstracts were examined. Nine different algorithms or hierarchical recommendations for device selection were identified. All nine publications were considered of good quality. Most algorithms contain only a few decision steps. There were significant differences between the algorithms. None of the algorithms have been validated. Three domains for factors included in the algorithms were identified: patient factors, device attributes, and HCP factors. Patient factors were considered most frequently (19 times) compared with device attributes (10 times) and HCP factors (7 times). Five specific attribute/factors with at least three rankings in different algorithms, were identified as key factors for device selection.

CONCLUSION

Although the algorithms generally provide step-by-step approaches based on a literature review and/or the experiences of the different authors, none were developed using item generation/reduction methodology nor included input from patients with COPD. There were considerable differences between the algorithms; however, the review identified key factors that should be considered by HCPs when selecting therapy. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021244475).