Abstract
Introduction
There is increasing pressure to use environmentally friendly dry powder inhalers (DPI) instead of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI). However, correct inhalation technique is needed for effective inhaler therapy, and there is persistent concern whether patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to use DPIs successfully. The aims of this study were to find clinical predictors for peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) and to assess whether patients with COPD had difficulties in generating sufficient PIF with a high resistance DPI.
Methods
Pooled data of 246 patients with COPD from previous clinical trials was analyzed to find possible predictors of PIF via the DPI Easyhaler (PIFEH) and to assess the proportion of patients able to achieve an inhalation flow rate of 30 l/min, which is needed to use the Easyhaler successfully.
Results
The mean PIF was 56.9 l/min and 99% (243/246) of the study patients achieved a PIF ≥ 30 l/min. A low PIF was associated with female gender and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), but the association was weak and a statistical model including both only accounted for 18% of the variation seen in PIFEH.
Conclusions
Based on our results, impaired expiratory lung function or patient characteristics do not predict patients’ ability to use DPIs in COPD; 99% of the patients generated sufficient PIFEH for successful dose delivery. Considering the targets for sustainability in health care, this should be addressed as DPIs are a potential option for most patients when choosing the right inhaler for the patient.
Trial Registration
Two of three included trials were registered under numbers NCT04147572 and NCT01424137. Third trial preceded registration platforms and therefore, was not registered.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out the study? |
High carbon footprint of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) devices increases the pressure to prefer dry powder inhalers (DPI) in treatment of COPD, but sufficient inspiratory effort is needed to use DPIs. |
There is concern among clinicians whether patients with COPD are able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow to use DPIs successfully. |
What was learned from the study? |
In this work, we show 99% of the patients generated sufficient inspiratory flow rate to operate Easyhaler DPI. Additionally, inspiratory capability of the patient cannot be predicted from parameters easily available in a clinical setting. |
Our results show that inspiratory flow rate does not limit use of Easyhaler among patients with COPD. |
Introduction
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disorder characterized by severe airflow limitation and hence is often treated with inhaled bronchodilators and in some phenotypes corticosteroids [1]. Inhalation is the preferred route of administration and there has been an active discussion about sustainability of inhaler therapy and its clinical implications. The devices available for use differ drastically in terms of carbon footprint. Propellant containing pressurized metered-dosed inhalers (pMDI) devices have 20–40 fold greater carbon footprint compared to propellant-free dry powder inhalers (DPIs) [2]. Recently, there was an urgent call for immediate actions against global warming in health care from many of the leading biomedical journals [3] and WHO has identified reducing greenhouse gas emissions as one of the ten avenues which health care workers should utilize to reduce global warming. In the United Kingdom, the propellants from pMDIs account for approximately 13% of the National Health Services carbon footprint related to the delivery of care [4].
As with any medical device, correct handling of the inhaler is a prerequisite for successful therapy. Depending on the device, it may include dose preparation or actuation as well as the inhalation maneuver. The nature of the inhalation maneuver depends heavily on the used device. The pMDI utilizes pressurized propellant to aerosolize the formulation and deliver the dose. They require considerable coordination between actuation of the device and precise breathing pattern for successful inhalation [5]. DPIs use the energy from the patients inspiratory effort to de-agglomerate the formulation into respirable particles [6]. For accurate and consistent delivery with medium-high and high resistance DPIs, the peak inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver should in general reach a flow rate of 30 l/min or higher, but there are device specific requirements [7]. The vast majority of patients are able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rates despite the inhaler resistance [8].
The aims of this study were to analyze pooled data from clinical studies including 246 patients with COPD to find possible clinical predictors for PIF and to assess whether the patients with COPD had difficulties in generating sufficient PIF with a high resistance DPI Easyhaler® (Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland).
Methods
Patients
Only patients with a documented diagnosis of COPD were included. We combined data from three studies; two randomized, multicenter, crossover, open-label studies carried out in Estonia and Finland [9, 10] [ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT04147572 and NCT01424137], as well as one Investigator Initiated Trial (Malmberg), which was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Helsinki University Central Hospital [11].
Figure 1 shows subject selection to this study from the pooled population of the original clinical trials.
The study protocols were reviewed by regional ethical committees according to their region of conduct and were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject prior to the study.
PIF Measurements
The Easyhaler comes in two inhaler versions, namely, the standard Easyhaler, currently used in in products with a single active ingredient, and the center-slot Easyhaler, currently used in fixed-dose combination products. Design of the aerosolization engine is different in these two device variants, and as a result they differ in internal air flow resistance. The results with the different devices are not directly comparable. For this work, we have only used the data on the standard variant. The standard Easyhaler has a higher air flow resistance and thus the same patient using the center-slot device would achieve higher inspiratory flow rates.
The PIFEH measurements have been described in detail elsewhere [11]. Shortly, the inspiratory flow parameters were measured using SpiroMaster MX Spirometer (Medikro, Kuopio, Finland). Three inspiratory profiles were recorded and the inhalation with highest PIF was analyzed. All other inspiratory parameters were analyzed from the same profile where the PIF was acquired.
Statistical Methods
The demography and baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The primary endpoint was peak inspiratory flowrate (PIF) through the Easyhaler. General linear models were used to investigate independent predictive factors of PIF and their coefficients. First, the univariate relationships of PIF with different predictive variables were constructed. Second, a multivariate model was constructed using the same variables that were used in univariate models.
Patient and Public Involvement
In this work, we pooled three already completed clinical trials and therefore patients or public were not involved in the design or execution of this study.
Results
A summary of the baseline characteristics is found in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the relationship of peak inspiratory flow rate requirement for the Easyhaler (PIFEH) and age (A), BMI (B), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (C), or degree of obstruction (FEV1/FVC, D). The dashed line shows the PIFEH level of 30 l/min, which is required to successfully use the Easyhaler. Mean PIFEH was 56.9 l/min. Out of 246 patients, only three failed to achieve sufficient PIFEH
Dependence of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) through the Easyhaler on age (R2 = 2.5%), body mass index (R2 = 0.09%), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (R2 = 13%), and degree of obstruction (FEV1/FVC, R2 = 5%). The horizontal line at 30 l/min represents the peak inspiratory flow rate requirement of the Easyhaler
To find possible predictors of PIF, we built univariate models from age, BMI, and lung function parameters to assess how well they predicted PIFEH. The best degree of determination (R2) was with PEF, which only explained 14% of the variation seen in PIFEH. It was closely followed by FEV1 and FVC explaining 13% of the variation. As all of the lung function parameters showed strong collinearity with their relationship to PIFEH and there was no clear best candidate in terms of degree of determination, we chose FEV1 due to its clinical availability and its direct medical relevance to patients with COPD.
Using FEV1, age, gender, and BMI, we built a linear regression model for prediction of PIFEH (Table 2). Only FEV1 and female gender were statistically significant to a low PIF. The degree of determination of the model was only 18%.
Discussion
In the present study, we found that almost all of the patients with COPD included were able to achieve the PIF of 30 l/min, which is needed to use the Easyhaler successfully. A low PIF was associated with female gender and a low FEV1 but the explanatory value was too low to be clinically meaningful.
As the pressure to favor DPIs over pMDIs due to environmental reasons has increased, there has been some concern among clinicians on the clinical implications [12]. As a result, there has been an on-going effort to identify meaningful clinical factors that would predict ability of the patient to use their inhaler device. However, based on our results and the literature, parameters commonly determined in clinical practice such as age, gender, BMI, or lung function parameters have not been useful in prediction of PIF performance [13, 14]. In accordance with the literature, we were unable to identify any variable that would be useful in identifying the potential for failure in daily clinical practice.
Fortunately, the inability of the patients to achieve sufficient PIF through their DPI seems to be rare. In our study, the mean PIFEH was 56.9 l/min and 99% of the patients were able to inhale through the device with sufficient effort. The patient population included a significant number of patients with severe air flow limitation as assessed by FEV1. While there are reports indicating suboptimal inspiratory flow rates with DPIs, in many cases the PIF limit in the studies is set far higher than what the manufacturers recommend for their devices. Represas-Represas et al. studied PIF with In-Check Dial training device and concluded that 27.9% of the patients had suboptimal PIF [14]. However, in the study, 26 out of 42 failures come from medium-high resistance devices, which is a heterogeneous group in their PIF requirements. The authors used a PIF limit of 60 l/min for this resistance range. For example, the Turbuhaler requires PIF of 60 l/min, while the center-slot variant of the Easyhaler with similar resistance requires flow rate of only 30 l/min. From Fig. 2 it can be concluded that with a limit of 30 l/min, the vast majority of patients would have succeeded (30 l/min difference is > 2 SD) even with the standard variant and would achieve higher flow rates with center-slot variant due to difference in resistance. Also, in a study by Malmberg et al., over 99% of 380 patients with asthma or COPD were able to achieve sufficient PIF with medium-high and high resistance devices and there was no significant difference between patients with asthma or patients with COPD [13]. Al-Showair and colleagues showed that 57% of 163 patients with COPD had a PIF less than 30 l/min with Handihaler [15], but the finding was not confirmed in our recent study, where only two out of 200 subjects failed [9]. Represas-Represas et al. concluded that none of the patients with pMDI failed to reach the correct PIF range, which is in conflict with the results of Haughney et al. [16] where approximately 30% of the patients with asthma inhaled too forcefully from their pMDI devices even after teaching and coaching by health care professionals. In several studies, patients have been shown to make more errors in the handling and inhaling when using pMDI instead of DPI [16, 17]. In this study, the subjects were trained, and the device use was monitored by the study personnel. This limits the study’s generalizability to real-life situations. However, the results show that pulmonary function is not a limiting factor and more emphasis should be put on training the patients and health care professionals in the correct use of the devices.
In the present study, a low PIF was associated with female gender and a low FEV1. These association were, however, too weak to be useful in clinical practice. There have been efforts to determine suitable predictors for PIF in COPD already previously. Tsuburai et al. studied the correlation of hand grip strength to PIF and found it to correlate better with PIF than age, FVC, or 6-min walking test. However, this was only observed in men and none of the subjects failed to achieve sufficient PIF [18]. Ghosh et al. concluded that female sex was the only factor associated with reduced PIF [19]. There have also been attempts to model the actual deposition of the inhaled drug particles. Horváth et al. modeled drug deposition with dry powder inhalers and concluded that age or disease severity had no statistically significant effect on the deposition patterns [20]. There is a concern among clinicians that due to their impaired expiratory lung function, patients with COPD would have difficulties in using dry powder inhalers (DPIs). It is noteworthy that expiratory parameters in spirometry tests are poorly associated with the inspiratory performance. Terzano and Oriolo found that PIF mildly correlated with mouth inspiratory pressure, inspiratory capacity, and vital capacity, but not with any other lung function parameters [21]. Anderson et al. found no correlation between spirometric PIF and FEV1 in patients with COPD [22]. The results highlight that the inspiratory and expiratory maneuvers are physiologically distinct and cannot be used to predict each other. Therefore, the ability of the patient to use the DPI device is not affected by the severity of the disease in COPD, and low FEV1 should not be used to refuse patients from using DPIs.
A potential limitation for this work is that even though the diagnosis was documented, it was not confirmed by the study group at the recruitment to the clinical studies. However, the FEV1/FVC was measured for each patient and from Fig. 2D we see that the vast majority of the subjects fall below 0.72 cut-off and there was a wide range of disease severities included in the population. Also, a wider range in the variable may be beneficial for the building of the PIF prediction model.
While choosing the correct inhaler for each patient is important, in the end it is the disease control, and therefore the clinical end points, that matter. A Cochrane review in 2016 compared delivery methods of bronchodilators during acute exacerbation of COPD but found the evidence lacking to make conclusions [23]. In studies with clinical endpoints, the results have been similar. In the KRONOS study, no significant difference in FEV1 was seen between the pMDI and DPI delivery of budesonide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination in a population of 635 patients with COPD [24]. Maltais et al. compared two long-acting β agonist/long-acting muscarinic agonist fixed-combination products administered from either pMDI or DPI. They concluded that while the products were similar in terms of peak FEV1, the pMDI product failed to achieve non-inferiority for morning pre-dose FEV1 [25]. The Easyhaler has been studied in children for the treatment of acute exacerbation of asthma and no significant difference was found when compared to pMDI with spacer or nebulizer [26].
Conclusions
Based on our data, obesity, age, or severity of airflow limitation are not limiting factors on use of DPIs, and for example, FEV1 should not be used as a decisive factor when selecting an inhaler device with the patient. On the other hand, 99% of the patients in this study were able to use the Easyhaler successfully. Hence, failing to achieve sufficient inspiratory flow rate with the Easyhaler is rare and the required inspiratory flow rate does not limit the use of the Easyhaler among patients with COPD.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to Finnish law on medical research and statements of regional ethical committees.
References
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2020.
Benedick. Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer Medical and Chemical Technical Options Committee. 2018 Assessment report. 2018. https://brill.com/abstract/journals/iner/1/2/article-p231_4.xml
Atwoli L, Baqui AH, Benfield T, Bosurgi R, Godlee F, Hancocks S, et al. Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):939–41.
Wilkinson A, Woodcock A. The environmental impact of inhalers for asthma: a green challenge and a golden opportunity. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15135.
Lavorini F. Inhaled drug delivery in the hands of the patient. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2014;27(6):414–8.
Laube BL, Janssens HM, de Jongh FHC, Devadason SG, Dhand R, Diot P, et al. What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies. Eur Respir J. 2011;37(6):1308–417.
Haidl P, Heindl S, Siemon K, Bernacka M, Cloes RM. Inhalation device requirements for patients’ inhalation maneuvers. Respir Med. 2016;118:65–75.
Selroos O, Borgström L, Ingelf J. Performance of Turbuhaler in patients with acute airway obstruction and COPD, and in children with Asthma. Treat Respir Med. 2006;5(5):305–15.
Jõgi R, Mattila L, Vahteristo M, Takala A, Lähelmä S, Vartiainen VA, et al. Inspiratory flow parameters through dry powder inhalers in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): device resistance does not limit use in COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021;16:1193–201.
Jõgi R, Lähelmä S, Vahteristo M, Happonen A, Haikarainen J. In vitro flow rate dependency of delivered dose and fine particle dose of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate Easyhaler and Seretide Diskus with patient flow rates collected in a randomized controlled trial. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2018;31:jamp.2018.1463.
Malmberg LP, Rytilä P, Happonen P, Haahtela T. Inspiratory flows through dry powder inhaler in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: age and gender rather than severity matters. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2010;5:257–62.
Usmani OS, Scullion J, Keeley D. Our planet or our patients—is the sky the limit for inhaler choice? Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(1):11–3.
Malmberg LP, Pelkonen AS, Vartiainen V, Vahteristo M, Lähelmä S, Jõgi R. Patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory flows via Easyhaler® dry powder inhaler: a pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(2):621–31.
Represas-Represas C, Aballe-Santos L, Fernández-García A, Priegue-Carrera A, López-Campos JL, González-Montaos A, et al. Evaluation of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow in patients with stable COPD. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):3949.
Al-Showair RAM, Tarsin WY, Assi KH, Pearson SB, Chrystyn H. Can all patients with COPD use the correct inhalation flow with all inhalers and does training help? Respir Med. 2007;101(11):2395–401.
Haughney J, Lee AJ, McKnight E, Pertsovskaya I, O’Driscoll M, Usmani OS. Peak inspiratory flow measured at different inhaler resistances in patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(2):890–6.
Gregoriano C, Dieterle T, Breitenstein AL, Dürr S, Baum A, Maier S, et al. Use and inhalation technique of inhaled medication in patients with asthma and COPD: data from a randomized controlled trial. Respir Res. 2018;19(1):237.
Tsuburai T, Komase Y, Tsuruoka H, Oyama B, Muraoka H, Hida N, et al. The relationship between peak inspiratory flow and hand grip strength measurement in men with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BMC Pulm Med. 2022;22(1):65.
Ghosh S, Pleasants RA, Ohar JA, Donohue JF, Drummond MB. Prevalence and factors associated with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rates in COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:585–95.
Horváth A, Farkas Á, Szipőcs A, Tomisa G, Szalai Z, Gálffy G. Numerical simulation of the effect of inhalation parameters, gender, age and disease severity on the lung deposition of dry powder aerosol drugs emitted by Turbuhaler®, Breezhaler® and Genuair® in COPD patients. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2020;1(154): 105508.
Terzano C, Oriolo F. Lung characteristics in elderly males and females patients with COPD: differences and optimal use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(11):2708–16.
Anderson M, Collison K, Drummond MB, Hamilton M, Jain R, Martin N, et al. Peak inspiratory flow rate in COPD: an analysis of clinical trial and real-world Data. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021;16:933–43.
van Geffen WH, Douma WR, Slebos DJ, Kerstjens HA. Bronchodilators delivered by nebuliser versus pMDI with spacer or DPI for exacerbations of COPD. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011826.pub2.
Ferguson GT, Rabe KF, Martinez FJ, Fabbri LM, Wang C, Ichinose M, et al. Triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate with co-suspension delivery technology versus dual therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (KRONOS): a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled tr. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(10):747–58.
Maltais F, Ferguson GT, Feldman GJ, Deslee G, Bourdin A, Fjällbrant H, et al. A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler in COPD. Adv Ther. 2019;36(9):2434–49.
Direkwatanachai C, Teeratakulpisarn J, Suntornlohanakul S, Trakultivakorn M, Ngamphaiboon J, Wongpitoon N, et al. Comparison of salbutamol efficacy in children–via the metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with Volumatic spacer and via the dry powder inhaler, Easyhaler, with the nebulizer—in mild to moderate asthma exacerbation: a multicenter, randomized study. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2011;29(1):25–33.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants of the study.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
We acknowledge Mikko Vahteristo (Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland) for expert statistical advice and Aino Takala for medical writing assistance (funded by Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland).
Funding
Original trials and funding for the writing was provided by Orion (Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland). The journal’s Rapid Service Fee was also funded by Orion (Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Annette Kainu, Hanna Hisinger-Mölkänen, Ville A. Vartiainen, and Martin Andersson were responsible for the concept and design of the study. Ville A. Vartiainen was responsible for data analysis and initial drafting of the manuscript. Witold Mazur, Federico Lavorini, and Christer Janson commented on and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Annette Kainu has received consultation and lecture fees from ALK Nordic A/S, GSK Finland, and Orion Pharma. Witold Mazur had attended advisory boards and received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi. Ville Vartianen has received consultation and lecture fees from Orion Pharma. Hanna Hisinger Molkanen is an employee of Orion Pharma. Christer Janson has received a research grant from AstraZeneca, received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi-Genzyme, and has participated in the scientific advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Martin Anderrson and Federico Lavorini have nothing to declare.
Ethical Approval
The study protocols were reviewed by regional ethical committees according to their region of conduct and were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject prior to the study. The Ethics Committee of the Helsinki University Hospital District for the sites in Finland, and the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu (UT REC) for the sites in Estonia.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kainu, A., Vartiainen, V.A., Mazur, W. et al. Successful Use of Easyhaler® Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials. Pulm Ther 10, 133–142 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00246-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00246-8