Publication:
Lung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinion

dc.contributor.authorBaloira, Adolfo
dc.contributor.authorAbad, Araceli
dc.contributor.authorFuster Gomila, Antonia
dc.contributor.authorGarcia Rivero, Juan Luis
dc.contributor.authorGarcia-Sidro, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorMarquez-Martin, Eduardo
dc.contributor.authorPalop, Marta
dc.contributor.authorSoler, Nestor
dc.contributor.authorVelasco, JL
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Torralba, Fernando
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-18T06:42:06Z
dc.date.available2024-09-18T06:42:06Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractBackground: Our aim was to describe: 1) lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate; 2) main characteristics of inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to analyze the features and results of inhaler devices in COPD patients. These devices included pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), and a soft mist inhaler (SMI). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as well as search strategies (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2019). In vitro and in vivo studies were included. Two reviewers selected research articles, collected and analyzed data independently. Narrative searches complemented the SLR. We discussed the results of the reviews in a nominal group meeting and agreed on various general principles and recommendations. Results: The SLR included 71 research articles, some were of low-moderate quality, and there was great variability regarding populations and outcomes. Lung deposition rates varied across devices: 8%-53% for pMDIs, 7%-69% for DPIs, and 39%-67% for the SMI. The aerosol exit velocity was high with pMDIs (more than 3 m/s), while it is much slower (0.84-0.72 m/s) with the SMI. In general, pMDIs produce large-sized presearch articles (1.22-8 mu m), DPIs produce medium-sized presearch articles (1.8-4.8 mu m), and 60% of the presearch articles reach an aerodynamic diameter <5 mu m with the SMI. All inhalation devices reach central and peripheral lung regions, but the SMI distribution pattern might be better compared with pMDIs. DPIs' intrinsic resistance is higher than that of pMDIs and SMI, which are relatively similar and low. Depending on the DPI, the minimum flow inspiratory rate required was 30 L/min. pMDIs and SMI did not require a high inspiratory flow rate. Conclusion: Lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate are key factors when selecting an inhalation device in COPD patients.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe project was funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim. Boehringer-Ingelheim had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. The authors received no direct compensation related to the develop-ment of the manuscript. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.es_ES
dc.format.page1021-1033es_ES
dc.format.volume16es_ES
dc.identifier.citationBaloira A, Abad A, Fuster A, Rivero JLG, Garcia-Sidro P, Marquez-Martin E, et al. Lung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinion. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2021;16:1021-33.en
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/COPD.S297980
dc.identifier.issn1178-2005
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseasees_ES
dc.identifier.otherhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/19675
dc.identifier.pubmedID33907390es_ES
dc.identifier.puiL2007097786
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85105094985
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/23165
dc.identifier.wos648300800001
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherDove Medical Press
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S297980en
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accessen
dc.rights.licenseAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subjectCOPD
dc.subjectLung deposition
dc.subjectInspiratory flow
dc.subjectInhalation devices
dc.subjectSystematic literature review
dc.subject.decsTestimonio de Experto*
dc.subject.decsEnfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica*
dc.subject.decsBroncodilatadores*
dc.subject.decsHumanos*
dc.subject.decsDiseño de Equipo*
dc.subject.decsPulmón*
dc.subject.decsInhaladores de Dosis Medida*
dc.subject.decsAdministración por Inhalación*
dc.subject.decsInhaladores de Polvo Seco*
dc.subject.meshLung*
dc.subject.meshDry Powder Inhalers*
dc.subject.meshEquipment Design*
dc.subject.meshAdministration, Inhalation*
dc.subject.meshPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive*
dc.subject.meshExpert Testimony*
dc.subject.meshHumans*
dc.subject.meshBronchodilator Agents*
dc.subject.meshMetered Dose Inhalers*
dc.titleLung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinionen
dc.typereview articleen
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isPublisherOfPublicationba22643b-836b-4738-8dc3-444eb4bd4ec4
relation.isPublisherOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryba22643b-836b-4738-8dc3-444eb4bd4ec4

Files