Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy

Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology

Myrna B. Dolovich, Richard C. Ahrens, Dean R. Hess, Paula Anderson, Rajiv Dhand, Joseph L. Rau, Gerald C. Smaldone, Gordon Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

558 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. Aim: (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for β-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. Methods: A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, β2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/ holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested β2-agonists) proved to have useable data. Results: None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Conclusions: Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)335-371
Number of pages37
JournalChest
Volume127
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005

Fingerprint

Allergy and Immunology
Aerosols
Asthma
Guidelines
Equipment and Supplies
Metered Dose Inhalers
Therapeutics
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
Dry Powder Inhalers
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cholinergic Antagonists
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Patient Preference
Bronchodilator Agents
MEDLINE
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Inhalation
Libraries
Inpatients

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy : Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. / Dolovich, Myrna B.; Ahrens, Richard C.; Hess, Dean R.; Anderson, Paula; Dhand, Rajiv; Rau, Joseph L.; Smaldone, Gerald C.; Guyatt, Gordon.

In: Chest, Vol. 127, No. 1, 01.01.2005, p. 335-371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dolovich, Myrna B. ; Ahrens, Richard C. ; Hess, Dean R. ; Anderson, Paula ; Dhand, Rajiv ; Rau, Joseph L. ; Smaldone, Gerald C. ; Guyatt, Gordon. / Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy : Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. In: Chest. 2005 ; Vol. 127, No. 1. pp. 335-371.
@article{2e4b52f966d54329b6e20c8a49414baf,
title = "Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology",
abstract = "Background: The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. Aim: (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for β-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. Methods: A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, β2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/ holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested β2-agonists) proved to have useable data. Results: None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Conclusions: Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.",
author = "Dolovich, {Myrna B.} and Ahrens, {Richard C.} and Hess, {Dean R.} and Paula Anderson and Rajiv Dhand and Rau, {Joseph L.} and Smaldone, {Gerald C.} and Gordon Guyatt",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1378/chest.127.1.335",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "335--371",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy

T2 - Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology

AU - Dolovich, Myrna B.

AU - Ahrens, Richard C.

AU - Hess, Dean R.

AU - Anderson, Paula

AU - Dhand, Rajiv

AU - Rau, Joseph L.

AU - Smaldone, Gerald C.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - Background: The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. Aim: (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for β-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. Methods: A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, β2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/ holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested β2-agonists) proved to have useable data. Results: None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Conclusions: Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.

AB - Background: The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. Aim: (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for β-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. Methods: A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, β2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/ holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested β2-agonists) proved to have useable data. Results: None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Conclusions: Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13544253826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13544253826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1378/chest.127.1.335

DO - 10.1378/chest.127.1.335

M3 - Article

VL - 127

SP - 335

EP - 371

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 1

ER -