Aerosol delivery and spatiotemporal tissue distribution of hydroxychloroquine in rat lung

Inhalation enables the delivery of drugs directly to the lung, increasing the retention for prolonged exposure and maximizing the therapeutic index. However, the differential regional lung exposure kinetics and systemic pharmacokinetics are not fully known, and their estimation is critical for pulmonary drug delivery. The study evaluates the pharmacokinetics of hydroxychloroquine in different regions of the respiratory tract for multiple routes of administration. We also evaluated the influence of different inhaled formulations on systemic and lung pharmacokinetics by identifying suitable nebulizers followed by early characterization of emitted aerosol physicochemical properties. The salt- and freebase-based formulations required different nebulizers and generated aerosol with different physicochemical properties. An administration of hydroxychloroquine by different routes resulted in varied systemic and lung pharmacokinetics, with oral administration resulting in low tissue concentrations in all regions of the respiratory tract. A nose-only inhalation exposure resulted in higher and sustained lung concentrations of hydroxychloroquine with a lung parenchyma-to-blood ratio of 386 after 1440 min post-exposure. The concentrations of hydroxychloroquine in different regions of the respiratory tract (i.e., nasal epithelium, larynx, trachea, bronchi, and lung parenchyma) varied over time, indicating different retention kinetics. The spatiotemporal distribution of hydroxychloroquine in the lung is different due to the heterogeneity of cell types, varying blood perfusion rate, clearance mechanisms, and deposition of inhaled aerosol along the respiratory tract. In addition to highlighting the varied lung physiology, these results demonstrate the ability of the lung to retain increased levels of inhaled lysosomotropic drugs. Such findings are critical for the development of future inhalation-based therapeutics, aiming to optimize target site exposure, enable precision medicine, and ultimately enhance clinical outcomes.

Individualized aerosol medicine: Integrating device into the patient

Pulmonary drug delivery is complex due to several challenges including disease-, patient-, and clinicians-related factors. Although many inhaled medications are available in aerosol medicine, delivering aerosolized medications to patients requires effective disease management. There is a large gap in the knowledge of clinicians who select and provide instructions for the correct use of aerosol devices. Since improper device selection, incorrect inhaler technique, and poor patient adherence to prescribed medications may result in inadequate disease control, individualized aerosol medicine is essential for effective disease management and control. The components of individualized aerosol medicine include: (1) Selecting the right device, (2) Selecting the right interface, (3) Educating the patient effectively, and (4) Increasing patient adherence to therapy. This paper reviews each of these components and provides recommendations to integrate the device and interface into the patient for better clinical outcomes.

Inhalable exosomes outperform liposomes as mRNA and protein drug carriers to the lung

Respiratory diseases are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, coupled with the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. mRNA lipid nanoparticle (LNP) vaccines have been developed, but their intramuscular delivery limits pulmonary bioavailability. Inhalation of nanoparticle therapeutics offers localized drug delivery that minimizes off targeted adverse effects and has greater patient compliance. However, LNP platforms require extensive reformulation for inhaled delivery. Lung-derived extracellular vesicles (Lung-Exo) offer a biological nanoparticle alternative that is naturally optimized for mRNA translation and delivery to pulmonary cells. We compared the biodistribution of Lung-Exo against commercially standard biological extracellular vesicles (HEK-Exo) and LNPs (Lipo), where Lung-Exo exhibited superior mRNA and protein cargo distribution to and retention in the bronchioles and parenchyma following nebulization administration. This suggests that inhaled Lung-Exo can deliver mRNA and protein drugs with enhanced pulmonary bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy.

[Can mesh nebulizers improve prehospital aerosol therapy? An in vitro study on simulated prehospital emergency patients suffering from respiratory distress]

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers used to treat prehospital emergency patients should provide a high output efficiency to achieve a fast onset of therapeutic drug effects while remaining unaffected by the presence of supplementary oxygen flow or the patient's breathing pattern. On the other hand, nebulizer performance is directly influenced by differences in device design, gas flow and patients' breathing patterns. Several studies from emergency departments were able to demonstrate an improvement in patient outcome when using a mesh nebulizer instead of a jet nebulizer. Data or bench studies regarding prehospital care are non-existent.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate which type of aerosol generator would best address the requirements of a prehospital adult emergency patient suffering from respiratory distress.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated the performance of a jet nebulizer (Cirrus™ 2, Intersurgical®) and two mesh nebulizers (Aerogen Solo® with USB controller, Aerogen Limited and M‑Neb® mobile, NEBU-TEC International med. Produkte Eike Kern GmbH) with the possibility of portable operation in an in vitro model of a spontaneously breathing adult emergency patient. One physiological and three pathological breathing patterns (distressed breathing pattern as well as stable and acute exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were simulated. Nebulizer output and salbutamol lung deposition were measured at different oxygen flow rates using a face mask as the delivery interface.

RESULTS

The mesh nebulizers produced a significantly higher aerosol output when compared to the jet nebulizer. The M‑Neb® mobile was able to significantly exceed the output of the Aerogen Solo®. Oxygen flow had the largest influence on the output of the jet nebulizer but hardly affected the mesh nebulizers. After a nebulization time of 10 min the M‑Neb® mobile also achieved the highest total salbutamol lung deposition (P < 0.001). Aerosol drug deposition was therefore mainly determined by the nebulizer's drug output per unit time. The deposition could not be improved using a spacer but was strongly influenced by the simulated emergency patients' breathing pattern.

CONCLUSION

The use of mesh nebulizers might have the potential to improve the aerosol therapy of prehospital emergency patients. In general, mesh nebulizers seem to be superior to jet nebulizers regarding aerosol output per unit time and total lung deposition. The present data suggest that aerosol output and drug deposition to the collection filter in this simulated setting are closely connected and crucial for total salbutamol deposition, as the deposition could not be improved by adding a spacer. Aerosol drug deposition in simulated emergency patients' lungs is therefore mainly determined by the nebulizer's drug output per unit time. The level of oxygen flow used had the largest influence on the output of the jet nebulizer but hardly affected the output of the tested mesh nebulizers. Mesh nebulizers could therefore enable a demand-adapted oxygen therapy due to their consistent performance despite the presence of oxygen flow. A high respiratory rate was associated with a high drug deposition, which is clinically desirable in the treatment of patients in respiratory distress; however, drug underdosing must also be expected in the treatment of bradypneic patients. Further clinical studies must prove whether our findings also apply to the treatment of real prehospital emergency patients.

Oral inhalation for delivery of proteins and peptides to the lungs

Oral inhalation is the preferred route for delivery of small molecules to the lungs, because high tissue levels can be achieved shortly after application. Biologics are mainly administered by intravenous injection but inhalation might be beneficial for the treatment of lung diseases (e.g. asthma). This review discusses biological and pharmaceutical challenges for delivery of biologics and describes promising candidates. Insufficient stability of the proteins during aerosolization and the biological environment of the lung are the main obstacles for pulmonary delivery of biologics. Novel nebulizers will improve delivery by inducing less shear stress and administration as dry powder appears suitable for delivery of biologics. Other promising strategies include pegylation and development of antibody fragments, while carrier-encapsulated systems currently play no major role in pulmonary delivery of biologics for lung disease. While development of various biologics has been halted or has shown little effects, AIR DNase, alpha1-proteinase inhibitor, recombinant neuraminidase, and heparin are currently being evaluated in phase III trials. Several biologics are being tested for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID)-19, and it is expected that these trials will lead to improvements in pulmonary delivery of biologics.

Fabrication, characterization and optimization of nanostructured lipid carrier formulations using Beclomethasone dipropionate for pulmonary drug delivery via medical nebulizers

Aerosolization is a non-invasive approach in drug delivery for localized and systemic effect. Nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) are new generation versatile carriers, which offer protection from degradation and enhance bioavailability of poorly water soluble drugs. The aim of this study was to develop and optimize NLC formulations in combination with optimized airflow rates (i.e. 60 and 15 L/min) and choice of medical nebulizers including Air jet, Vibrating mesh and Ultrasonic nebulizer for superior aerosolization performance, assessed via a next generation impactor (NGI). Novel composition and combination of NLC formulations (F1 - F15) were prepared via ultrasonication method, employing five solid lipids (glycerol trimyristate (GTM), glycerol trilaurate (GTL), cetyl palmitate (CP), glycerol monostearate (GMS) and stearic acid (SA)); and three liquid lipids (glyceryl tributyrate (GTB), propylene glycol dicaprylate/dicaprate (PGD) and isopropyl palmitate (IPP)) in 1:3 w/w ratios (i.e. combination of one solid and one liquid lipid), with Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) incorporated as the model drug. Out of fifteen BDP-NLC formulations, the physicochemical properties of formulations F7, F8 and F10 exhibited desirable stability (one week at 25 °C), with associated particle size of ~241 nm, and >91% of drug entrapment. Post aerosolization, F10 was observed to deposit notably smaller sized particles (from 198 to 136 nm, 283 to 135 nm and 239 to 157 nm for Air jet, Vibrating mesh and Ultrasonic nebulizers, respectively) in all stages (i.e. from stage 1 to 8) of the NGI, when compared to F7 and F8 formulations. Six week stability studies conducted at 4, 25 and 45 °C, demonstrated F10 formulation stability in terms of particle size, irrespective of temperature conditions. Nebulizer performance study using the NGI for F10 identified the Air jet to be the most efficient nebulizer, depositing lower concentrations of BDP in the earlier stages (1-3) and higher (circa 82 and 85%) in the lateral stages (4-8) using 60 and 15 L/min airflow rates, when compared to the Vibrating mesh and Ultrasonic nebulizers. Moreover, at both airflow rates, the Air jet nebulizer elicited a longer nebulization time of ~42 min, facilitating aerosol inhalation for prophylaxis of asthma with normal tidal breathing. Based on characterization and nebulizer performance employing both 60 and 15 L/min airflow rates, the Air jet nebulizer offered enhanced performance, exhibiting a higher fine particle dose (FPD) (90 and 69 µg), fine particle fraction (FPF) (70 and 54%), respirable fraction (RF) (92 and 69%), and lower mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) (1.15 and 1.62 µm); in addition to demonstrating higher drug deposition in the lateral parts of the NGI, when compared to its counterpart nebulizers. The F10 formulation used with the Air jet nebulizer was identified as being the most suitable combination for delivery of BDP-NLC formulations.

Guidance on nebulization during the current COVID-19 pandemic

Awareness of the risk of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 makes patients hesitant about using inhaled medications that are considered as a potential source of viral transmission and immunosuppression. However, patients with asthma or COPD should continue all prescribed inhaled medications. Apparently, inhalers, including pMDIs, DPIs, or SMIs, have a low risk of contamination although characteristics of drug formulation can precipitate cough, whereas some researchers do not rule out the probability that nebulizer treatments may increase the risk of infection transmission via droplet nuclei and aerosols. Considering that aerosol therapy generates fugitive emissions that are not inhaled by the patient and are released from the device during expiration, several international professional bodies have provided recommendations for drug delivery via inhalers and in particular, nebulizers. Unfortunately, these recommendations are often in conflict with each other and do not clarify whether it is appropriate to use nebulizers during this COVID-19 pandemic. Considering what is available in literature, there are no known infection-related hazards to an uninfected patient and also a patient with COVID-19 that preclude the use of a nebulizer at home, but it fundamental that all patients, regardless of whether or not suffering from COVID-19, always follow some practical advices.

Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-I

The number of cases with novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection is increasing every day in the world, and India contributes a substantial proportion of this burden. Critical care specialists have accepted the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and are frontline warriors in this war. They have worked hard in streamlining workflow isolation of positive patients, clinical management of critically ill patients, and infection prevention practices. With no end in sight for this pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) practitioners, hospital administrators, and policy makers have to join hands to prepare for the surge in critical care bed capacity. In this position article, we offer several suggestions on important interventions to the ICU practitioners for better management of critically ill patients. This position article highlights key interventions for COVID-19 treatment and covers several important issues such as endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy (surgical vs PCT), nebulization, bronchoscopy, and invasive procedures such as central venous catheters, arterial lines, and HD catheters. How to cite this article: Pande RK, Bhalla A, SN Myatra, Yaddanpuddi LN, Gupta S, Sahoo TK, et al. Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-I. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S263-S271.

Maintenance Therapy with Nebulizers in Patients with Stable COPD: Need for Reevaluation

Patients with stable COPD rely heavily on inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids to control symptoms, maximize quality of life, and avoid exacerbations and costly hospitalizations. These drugs are typically delivered by hand-held inhalers or nebulizers. The majority of patients are prescribed inhalers due to their perceived convenience, portability, and lower cost, relative to nebulizers. Unfortunately, poor inhaler technique compromises symptom relief in most of these patients. In contrast to one or two puffs through an inhaler, nebulizers deliver a drug over many breaths, through tidal breathing, and hence are more forgiving to poor inhalation technique. To what extent susceptibility to errors in their use may influence the relative effectiveness of these two types of inhalation device has received little attention in COPD research. In 2005, a systematic review of the literature concluded that nebulizers and inhalers are equally effective in patients who are adequately trained to use their inhalation device. This conclusion was based on two small clinical trials that only examined objective measures of lung function. Since then, additional studies have found that maintenance therapy administered by nebulizers could improve patients' reported feelings of symptom relief, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment, compared to therapy administered by inhalers. Because it has been 15 years since the publication of the systematic review, in this article we summarize the results of studies that compared the effectiveness of inhalers with that of nebulizers in patients with stable COPD and discuss their implications for clinical practice and need for future research.

Practical strategies for a safe and effective delivery of aerosolized medications to patients with COVID-19

The COVID-19, the disease caused by a novel coronavirus and named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread rapidly across the globe. It has caused outbreaks of illness due to person-to-person transmission of the virus mainly via close contacts and droplets produced by an infected person's cough or sneeze. Exhaled droplets from infected patients with COVID-19 can be inhaled into the lungs and leads to respiratory illness such as pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Although aerosol therapy is a mainstay procedure used to treat pulmonary diseases at home and healthcare settings, it has a potential for fugitive emissions during therapy due to the generation of aerosols and droplets as a source of respiratory pathogens. Delivering aerosolized medications to patients with COVID-19 can aggravate the spread of the novel coronavirus. This has been a real concern for caregivers and healthcare professionals who are susceptible to unintended inhalation of fugitive emissions during therapy. Due to a scarcity of information in this area of clinical practice, the purpose of this paper is to explain how to deliver aerosolized medications to mild-, sub-intensive, and intensive-care patients with COVID-19 and how to protect staff from exposure to exhaled droplets during aerosol therapy.

Nebulized heparin and salbutamol versus salbutamol alone in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

Nebulized heparin has been effectively used in the management of many pulmonary diseases. However, its effect on mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin and salbutamol to increase ventilator-free days (VFD) in mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients and the effect of nebulized heparin on respiratory and coagulation functions.

Methods

In this double-blind controlled study, 60 mechanically ventilated adult patients with AECOPD were randomly allocated into two groups; heparin and salbutamol (HS) group and salbutamol only (S) group. In the HS group, patients received nebulized heparin (25,000 IU) and salbutamol (5 mg) every 6 hours. Patients in the S group received nebulized salbutamol only (5 mg). The treatment was continued while patients remained ventilated for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome was VFDs at day 14. PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, number of nebulizations withheld, C-reactive protein (CRP) titer and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were secondary outcomes.

Results

Patients in the Group HS had significantly more VFDs 4.7 ± 3.3 compared with those in the Group S 2.4 ± 2.6, P = 0.007. PaCO2 levels, PaO2/FiO2, the decrease in the CRP level and the increase in the APTT from the baseline showed no evidence of difference in both groups.

Conclusions

The co-administration of nebulized heparin and salbutamol, compared with salbutamol alone, significantly increased (VFDs) among mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients without increasing bleeding risks.

Asma: uso adecuado de dispositivos para inhalación

Inhaled therapy is considered the cornerstone of asthma treatment. However, despite being the ideal form of drug delivery, it is recognized that only 70% of patients have an adequate attachment to their treatment and only 39-67% of physicians can explain the optimal inhaler technique. Inhaled therapy has very specific characteristics. Pulmonary deposit of an inhaled medication through the respiratory tract is more complex than when administered orally and depends on several factors inherent to both the medication and the administration. For successful inhaled therapy, the drug needs to be converted into particles of an appropriate size, which can enter beyond the oropharynx and larynx, and be deposited in the lungs. There are multiple devices for the administration of drugs in the lower respiratory tract, each one with a similar efficacy as long as it is used with the correct technique. The decision of which device should be used is made based on the age of the patient, the ability to coordinate between the inhalation and activation of the device, and the presence of acute symptoms. The choice of the device must be evaluated individually.

Determinants and Differences in Satisfaction with the Inhaler Among Patients with Asthma or COPD

BACKGROUND

Satisfaction with the inhaler is an important determinant of treatment adherence in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, few studies have compared these 2 groups to identify the factors associated with satisfaction with the inhaler.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare satisfaction with the inhaler in patients with asthma or COPD and to determine the variables associated with high inhaler satisfaction.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional study of 816 patients (406 with asthma and 410 with COPD) was conducted. Satisfaction was assessed with the Feeling of Satisfaction with Inhaler (FSI-10) questionnaire. All participants completed the Test of Adherence to Inhalers and either the Asthma Control Test (ACT) or the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

RESULTS

Overall, the asthma group was significantly more satisfied with the inhaler (mean [standard deviation] FSI-10 scores: 44.1 [6.5] vs 42.0 [7.7]; P < .001) and more satisfied on most (7 of 10; 70%) items. Patients with asthma were significantly more satisfied with the inhaler regardless of the adherence level or the type of nonadherence pattern. Younger age, good disease control (ACT ≥20 or CAT ≤10), previous inhaler training, and absence of unwitting nonadherence were all independently and significantly associated with high inhaler satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, disease control, and training in inhalation technique all play a more significant role than the specific diagnosis in explaining satisfaction with the device in patients with asthma and COPD. These findings underscore the need to provide better training and more active monitoring of the inhalation technique to improve patient satisfaction, treatment adherence, and clinical outcomes.

Comparison between lignocaine nebulization and airway nerve block for awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy-guided nasotracheal intubation: a single-blind randomized prospective study

BACKGROUND

The preferred management strategy for difficult airways is awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy-guided intubation, which requires effective airway anesthesia to ensure patient comfort and acceptance. This randomized single-blind prospective study was conducted to compare lignocaine nebulization and airway nerve block for airway anesthesia prior to awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy-guided intubation.

METHODS

Sixty adult patients scheduled for surgical procedures under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to two groups. Group N received jet nebulization (10 ml of 4% lignocaine) and Group B received bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal nerve blocks (each with 2 ml of 2% lignocaine) followed by fiberoptic bronchoscopy-guided nasotracheal intubation. All patients received procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine. The intubation time, intubating conditions, vocal cord position, cough severity, and degree of patient satisfaction were recorded. Student's t test was used to analyze parametric data, while the Mann-Whitney U test was applied to non-parametric data and Fisher's test to categorical data. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The time taken for intubation was significantly shorter in Group B [115.2 (14.7) s compared with Group N [214.0 (22.2) s] (P = 0.029). The intubating conditions and degree of patient comfort were better in Group B compared with Group N. Although all patients were successfully intubated, patient satisfaction was higher in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Airway nerve blocks are preferable to lignocaine nebulization as they provide superior-quality airway anesthesia. However, nebulization may be a suitable alternative when a nerve block is not feasible.

Aerosol delivery during spontaneous breathing with different types of nebulizers- in vitro/ex vivo models evaluation

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers for spontaneous breathing have been evaluated through different study designs. There are limitations in simulated bench models related to patient and nebulizer factors. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation of inhaled drug mass between in vitro and ex vivo studies by testing aerosol deposition of various types of nebulizers.

METHODS

Ten healthy subjects were recruited to receive aerosol therapy with five nebulizers in random order: 1) a jet nebulizer (JN); 2) a breath-enhanced nebulizer (BEN); 3) a manually triggered nebulizer (MTN), 4) a breath-actuated nebulizer (BAN), and 5) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with valved-adapter. A unit dose of salbutamol containing 5 mg in 2.5 mL was placed into the nebulizer and administered for 10 min. For the ex vivo study, minute ventilation of healthy subjects was recorded for 1 min. For the in vitro study a breathing simulator was utilized with adult breathing patterns. Aerosolized drug from the nebulizers and the accessory tubes was captured using inspiratory and expiratory collecting filters. Captured drug was eluted, measured and expressed as inhaled and exhaled mass using spectrophotometry at a wavelength of 276 nm.

RESULTS

10 healthy subjects were recruited, aged 20.8 ± 0.7 years old, with a mean height of 166.2 ± 9.2 cm and weight of 64.7 ± 12.4 kg. There was no significant difference in the inhaled drug dose between the JN and BEN (15.0 ± 1.94% and 17.74 ± 2.65%, respectively, p = .763), yet the inhaled doses were lower than the other three nebulizers (p < .001). The VMN delivered greater inhaled dose than the other four nebulizers (p < .01). The respiratory rate of the cohorts was significantly correlated with the inhaled drug dose. For the in vitro model, the JN delivered a lower inhaled dose (11.6 ± 1.6, p < .001) than the other nebulizers, whereas the MTN and BAN deposited significantly lower exhaled doses (1.7 ± 0.4 and 2.7 ± 0.2, respectively, p < .001). The VMN demonstrated a greater drug dose with the in vitro study than the ex vivo model (44.0 ± 0.9% and 35.5 ± 6.3% respectively, p = .003), whereas the JN in the ex vivo model resulted in a greater inhaled drug dose (15.0 ± 1.9% for ex vivo vs 11.6 ± 1.6% for in vitro, p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

These in vitro/ex vivo model comparisons of nebulizers performance indicated that breath-related nebulizers can be estimated using an in vitro model; however, the JN and VMN delivered inhaled drug mass differed between models. There was a significant correlation between respiratory rate and inhaled mass, and the inhaled drug dose generated by VMN correlated with minute ventilation. This study demonstrated that the VMN produced greater inhaled drug dose and lowest residual dose, whereas the BEN, BAN, and MTN produced lower exhaled drug dose in both in vitro and ex vivo models.

Key considerations on nebulization of antimicrobial agents to mechanically ventilated patients

Nebulized antibiotics have an established role in patients with cystic fibrosis or bronchiectasis. Their potential benefit to treat respiratory infections in mechanically ventilated patients is receiving increasing interest. In this consensus statement of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the body of evidence of the therapeutic utility of aerosolized antibiotics in mechanically ventilated patients was reviewed and resulted in the following recommendations: Vibrating-mesh nebulizers should be preferred to jet or ultrasonic nebulizers. To decrease turbulence and limit circuit and tracheobronchial deposition, we recommend: (a) the use of specifically designed respiratory circuits avoiding sharp angles and characterized by smooth inner surfaces, (b) the use of specific ventilator settings during nebulization including use of a volume controlled mode using constant inspiratory flow, tidal volume 8 mL/kg, respiratory frequency 12 to 15 bpm, inspiratory:expiratory ratio 50%, inspiratory pause 20% and positive end-expiratory pressure 5 to 10 cm H₂O and (c) the administration of a short-acting sedative agent if coordination between the patient and the ventilator is not obtained, to avoid patient's flow triggering and episodes of peak decelerating inspiratory flow. A filter should be inserted on the expiratory limb to protect the ventilator flow device and changed between each nebulization to avoid expiratory flow obstruction. A heat and moisture exchanger and/or conventional heated humidifier should be stopped during the nebulization period to avoid a massive loss of aerosolized particles through trapping and condensation. If these technical requirements are not followed, there is a high risk of treatment failure and adverse events in mechanically ventilated patients receiving nebulized antibiotics for pneumonia.

Effects of ventilator settings, nebulizer and exhalation port position on albuterol delivery during non-invasive ventilation: an in-vitro study

Background

Few studies have investigated the factors affecting aerosol delivery during non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Our aim was to investigate, using a bench-top model, the effect of different ventilator settings and positions of the exhalation port and nebulizer on the amount of albuterol delivered to a lung simulator.

Methods

A lung model simulating spontaneous breathing was connected to a single-limb NIV ventilator, set in bi-level positive airway pressure (BIPAP) with inspiratory/expiratory pressures of 10/5, 15/10, 15/5, and 20/10 cmH₂O, or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5 and 10 cmH₂O. Three delivery circuits were tested: a vented mask with the nebulizer directly connected to the mask, and an unvented mask with a leak port placed before and after the nebulizer. Albuterol was collected on a filter placed after the mask and then the delivered amount was measured with infrared spectrophotometry.

Results

Albuterol delivery during NIV varied between 6.7 ± 0.4% to 37.0 ± 4.3% of the nominal dose. The amount delivered in CPAP and BIPAP modes was similar (22.1 ± 10.1 vs. 24.0 ± 10.0%, p = 0.070). CPAP level did not affect delivery (p = 0.056); in BIPAP with 15/5 cmH₂O pressure the delivery was higher compared to 10/5 cmH₂O (p = 0.033) and 20/10 cmH₂O (p = 0.014). Leak port position had a major effect on delivery in both CPAP and BIPAP, the best performances were obtained with the unvented mask, and the nebulizer placed between the leak port and the mask (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this model, albuterol delivery was marginally affected by ventilatory settings in NIV, while position of the leak port had a major effect. Nebulizers should be placed between an unvented mask and the leak port in order to maximize aerosol delivery.

Characteristics of an ideal nebulized antibiotic for the treatment of pneumonia in the intubated patient

Gram-negative pneumonia in patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as higher healthcare costs compared with those who do not have the disease. Intravenous antibiotics are currently the standard of care for pneumonia; however, increasing rates of multidrug resistance and limited penetration of some classes of antimicrobials into the lungs reduce the effectiveness of this treatment option, and current clinical cure rates are variable, while recurrence rates remain high. Inhaled antibiotics may have the potential to improve outcomes in this patient population, but their use is currently restricted by a lack of specifically formulated solutions for inhalation and a limited number of devices designed for the nebulization of antibiotics. In this article, we review the challenges clinicians face in the treatment of pneumonia and discuss the characteristics that would constitute an ideal inhaled drug/device combination. We also review inhaled antibiotic options currently in development for the treatment of pneumonia in patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated.

Randomized trial of efficacy and safety of dornase alfa delivered by eRapid nebulizer in cystic fibrosis patients

BACKGROUND

Dornase alfa administered via jet nebulizer is indicated as a chronic respiratory medication for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Efficacy and safety of dornase alfa via an electronic nebulizer with vibrating membrane technology have not been formally assessed in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

87 CF patients (≥6 years) were randomized in a crossover study to receive dornase alfa 2.5 mg/d in 2-week periods with the Pari eRapid and Pari LC Plus jet nebulizers. The primary end point was comparison of forced expiratory volume in the first second. Safety, quality of life, and treatment satisfaction/preference were also compared between devices.

RESULTS

Lung function was equivalent between nebulizers. Most domain scores from the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication instruments were similar but patients strongly preferred the eRapid. Mean patient-reported administration times were shorter with the eRapid vs the LC Plus (2.7 vs 10.2 min). Adverse events were similar between devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of dornase alfa via the eRapid nebulizer resulted in comparable efficacy and safety, shorter nebulization times, and higher patient preference.

Replacing nebulizers by MDI-spacers for bronchodilator and inhaled corticosteroid administration: Impact on the utilization of hospital resources

Background and objectives

Metered-dose inhalers plus spacers (MDI-spacer) are as effective as, or better than, nebulizers in aerosol delivery. The selection of aerosol delivery system for hospitalized children can have a significant impact on the utilization of healthcare resources.

Design and setting

A quality improvement project to evaluate the impact of conversion to MDI-spacer to administer bronchodilators (BDs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) to hospitalized children on the utilization of hospital resources. The project was conducted in a tertiary pediatric ward from April to May 2013.

Materials and methods

The project was conducted over a six-week period. In the first two weeks, data were gathered from all hospitalized children receiving BDs and/or ICSs by nebulizers. This data collection was followed by a two-week washout period during which training of healthcare providers and operational changes were implemented to enhance the conversion to MDI-spacer. In the last two weeks, data were gathered from hospitalized children after conversion to MDI-spacer. The primary outcomes included the mean time (in minutes) of medication preparation and delivery. Secondary outcomes included the following: need for respiratory therapy assistance, estimated cost of treatment sessions, and patient/caregiver satisfaction.

Results

Five hundred seventy-five treatment sessions were enrolled (288 on nebulizers, 287 on MDI-spacer). The nebulizer group had more male predominance and were slightly older compared to the MDI-spacer group (male: 59% vs. 53% and mean age: 52 vs. 40 months respectively). The duration of treatment preparation and delivery was significantly lower in the MDI-spacer group (2 min reduction in preparation time and 5 min reduction in delivery time; p < 0.01). Caregivers mastered MDI-spacer use after an average of two observed sessions, eliminating the need for respiratory therapy assistance during the hospital stay. Medication cost analysis showed savings in favor of MDI-spacer (cost reduction per 100 doses: 50% for albuterol, 30% for ipratropium bromide, and 87% for ICSs). The patient satisfaction survey showed “very good” to “excellent” levels in both groups.

Conclusions

Conversion to MDI-spacer for BDs and ICSs administration in hospitalized children improve hospital resource utilization.

Experimentation with inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids have been used for decades with different production systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The following jet-nebulizers: (a) Invacare, (b) Sunmist, (c) Maxineb and ultrasound nebulizers: (a) GIMA, (b) OMRON and (c) EASY NEB II were used as production systems. The jet-nebulizers were used with different residual cups and volume filling, while the ultrasound nebulizers with different volume fillings and face mask versus inlet.

RESULTS

Inhalation and ultrasound process detect significant differences between the factors and interactions considered, but each technique follows a specific pattern of magnitude effect. Thus the inhaled mechanism ranks the factor effects in decreasing order: residual cup>drug>nebulizer>loading (2, 3, 4 ml) and also drug>residual cup>nebulizer (loading 8 ml). The ultrasound mechanism orders as follows: nebulizer>drug>loading. In fact, varying micro environmental conditions created during the performance of the devices in both processes alternate the magnitude of factor significance allowing for unique capacities.

CONCLUSIONS

PULMICORT, MAXINEB, design cup J and loading 6 ml are the best options for the inhaled process. Optimal combinations are provided by FLIXOTIDE and cup B and also by MAXINEB and cup J. The incorporation of large residual cups suggests one out of six drugs, the SUNMIST nebulizer and design D as the best choices. Ultrasound performance informs for other optimal conditions: ZYLOREN, MAXINEB, 4 ml load and MAXINEB×loading 4 ml.

A case of esophageal candidiasis in an adolescent who had frequently received budesonide nebulizing therapy

Corticosteroid (budesonide) nebulizer therapy is commonly performed. Its side effects have been considered as being safe or ignorable. The authors present a case of esophageal candidiasis in a healthy female adolescent who was treated with budesonide nebulizer therapy a few times for a cough during the previous winter season. This child presented with dysphagia and epigastric pain for 1 month. Esophageal endoscopy showed a whitish creamy pseudomembrane and erosions on the esophageal mucosa. Pathologic findings showed numerous candidal hyphae. She did not show any evidence of immunodeficiency, clinically and historically. The esophageal lesion did not resolve naturally. The esophageal lesion completely improved with the antifungal therapy for 2 weeks; the symptoms disappeared, and the patient returned to normal health. It is important that frequent esophageal exposure to topical corticosteroids application can cause unexpected side effects.

Establishing the optimal nebulization system for paclitaxel, docetaxel, cisplatin, carboplatin and gemcitabine: back to drawing the residual cup

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy drugs have still the major disadvantage of non-specific cytotoxic effects. Although, new drugs targeting the genome of the tumor are already in the market, doublet chemotherapy regimens still remain the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment. Novel modalities of administration are under investigation such as; aerosol, intratumoral and intravascular.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study five chemotherapy drugs; paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, carboplatin and cisplatin were nebulized with three different jet nebulizers (Maxineb(®), Sunmist(®), Invacare(®)) and six different residual cups at different concentrations. The purpose of the study was to identify the "ideal" combination of nebulizer-residual cup design-drug-drug loading for a future concept of aerosol chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. The Mastersizer(®) 2000 was used to evaluate the aerosol droplet mass median aerodynamic diameter.

RESULTS

The drug, nebulizer and residual cup design greatly influences the producing droplet size (p<0.005, in each case). However; the design of the residual cup is the most important factor affecting the produced droplet size (F=834.6, p<0.001). The drug loading plays a vital role in the production of the desired droplet size (F=10.42, p<0.001). The smallest droplet size was produced at 8 ml loading (1.26 μm), while it remained the same at 2, 4 and 6 mls of drug loading.

CONCLUSION

The ideal nebulizer would be Maxineb(®), with a large residual cup (10 ml maximum loading capacity) and 8 mls loading and the drug with efficient pulmonary deposition would be docetaxel.

A prospective comparison of Porta-sonic and Fisoneb ultrasonic nebulizers for administering aerosol pentamidine

OBJECTIVE

To report patient acceptability and overall therapeutic effectiveness of two different ultrasonic nebulizers, Fisoneb and Porta-sonic, for the administration of aerosol pentamidine for Pneumocysitis carinii prophylaxis in human immunodeficiency virus (hiv)-infected individuals.

DESIGN

Prospective assessment of a random subgroup of 174 individuals from an inception cohort of 1093 patients attending a central aerosol pentamidine treatment centre in Toronto, Ontario.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-four patients who had been receiving aerosolized pentamidine for more than 10 weeks using Fisoneb at 60 mg every two weeks were switched to Porta-sonic. Subjective evaluation included three standard 10 cm visual analogue scales rating cough/wheeze, aftertaste and overall preference. The individuals were also asked to compare the duration of time spent on the aerosol treatments. Objective evaluation included spirometry performed immediately before and 15 mins after pentamidine administration. Prospective surveillance of the entire cohort was preformed to record and document episodes of breakthrough P carinii pneumonia.

RESULTS

Porta-sonic was the overall preferred nebulizer in 82% of patients. Less time was spent on aerosol treatment using the Porta-sonic nebulizer compared with the Fisoneb in 66% of patients. The Porta-sonic nebulizer system produced less aftertaste compared with Fisoneb. Both nebulizers produced significant but modest reduction in flow rates. During the study period there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of breakthrough P carinii pneumonia between the two groups. A total of 91 episodes occurred, at a rate of 0.5 episodes per patient-month on Porta-sonic compared with 0.7 episodes per patient-month on Fisoneb (P=0.2536).

DISCUSSION

Aerosol pentamidine remains the proven second-line prophylaxis against P carinii pneumonia in hiv/aids for those intolerant to trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole. Cough, bronchospasm and poor taste are side effects that may limit patient tolerance and acceptability. The results of this study show that the Porta-sonic nebulizer system significantly reduces some of these side effects and increases patient preference.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that Porta-sonic, the newer nebulizer system, with more ideal in vitro characteristics may become a favoured device in clinical practice.