Recalibrating Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Nebulizers versus Inhalers for Maintenance Therapy in COPD: Past as Prologue.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pub Date : 2024-11-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/COPD.S491275
Rajiv Dhand, Michael W Hess, Abebaw Mengistu Yohannes
{"title":"Recalibrating Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Nebulizers versus Inhalers for Maintenance Therapy in COPD: Past as Prologue.","authors":"Rajiv Dhand, Michael W Hess, Abebaw Mengistu Yohannes","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S491275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aerosol therapy administered via handheld inhaler or nebulizer device has long been standard for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both for maintenance therapy and for management of acute exacerbations. Of the 2 options for drug delivery, inhaler devices are the most widely used for ambulatory patients with COPD as they are small, portable, and convenient and offer an array of medication options. They are, however, prone to suboptimal inhalation technique and use errors, which decrease the amount of medication delivered, compromise efficacy, and adversely affect clinical outcomes. Nebulizers are less often employed for aerosol delivery than inhalers, particularly in the home environment. Considered bulky and expensive, nebulizers have historically had limited medication options compared with inhalers. Nonetheless, nebulizers may be preferred over inhalers in specific patient populations, such as in patients with poor lung function, lack of hand-breath coordination, or cognitive impairment. Furthermore, technological advances and development of new nebulizer-compatible medications are shifting the benefit equation for nebulizers versus inhalers in a way that merits reconsideration of the role of nebulizers in the maintenance treatment of COPD. Using the available literature, this state-of-the-art review critically evaluates the benefits and limitations of aerosol therapy delivery via inhaler or nebulizer for patients with COPD; describes the factors that may influence the benefit equation, including current advances in nebulizer technology and future developments; and provides insights on implementation of nebulizer therapy in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"19 ","pages":"2571-2586"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11612562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S491275","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aerosol therapy administered via handheld inhaler or nebulizer device has long been standard for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both for maintenance therapy and for management of acute exacerbations. Of the 2 options for drug delivery, inhaler devices are the most widely used for ambulatory patients with COPD as they are small, portable, and convenient and offer an array of medication options. They are, however, prone to suboptimal inhalation technique and use errors, which decrease the amount of medication delivered, compromise efficacy, and adversely affect clinical outcomes. Nebulizers are less often employed for aerosol delivery than inhalers, particularly in the home environment. Considered bulky and expensive, nebulizers have historically had limited medication options compared with inhalers. Nonetheless, nebulizers may be preferred over inhalers in specific patient populations, such as in patients with poor lung function, lack of hand-breath coordination, or cognitive impairment. Furthermore, technological advances and development of new nebulizer-compatible medications are shifting the benefit equation for nebulizers versus inhalers in a way that merits reconsideration of the role of nebulizers in the maintenance treatment of COPD. Using the available literature, this state-of-the-art review critically evaluates the benefits and limitations of aerosol therapy delivery via inhaler or nebulizer for patients with COPD; describes the factors that may influence the benefit equation, including current advances in nebulizer technology and future developments; and provides insights on implementation of nebulizer therapy in clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在COPD患者维持治疗中对雾化器和吸入器的认知和态度的重新校准:过去作为序幕。
长期以来,通过手持吸入器或雾化器装置进行的气溶胶疗法一直是慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)治疗的标准方法,无论是用于维持治疗还是用于急性加重的管理。在给药的两种选择中,吸入器装置是最广泛用于慢性阻塞性肺病门诊患者的,因为它们体积小、便携、方便,并提供一系列药物选择。然而,它们容易出现不理想的吸入技术和使用错误,从而减少给药量,降低疗效,并对临床结果产生不利影响。与吸入器相比,雾化器较少用于气溶胶输送,特别是在家庭环境中。雾化器体积庞大,价格昂贵,与吸入器相比,雾化器的药物选择一直有限。尽管如此,在特定的患者群体中,如肺功能差、手呼吸不协调或认知障碍的患者,雾化器可能比吸入器更受欢迎。此外,技术进步和新型雾化器相容药物的发展正在改变雾化器与吸入器的利益平衡,这在某种程度上值得重新考虑雾化器在COPD维持治疗中的作用。利用现有的文献,这篇最新的综述批判性地评估了通过吸入器或雾化器对COPD患者进行气溶胶治疗的益处和局限性;描述可能影响效益方程式的因素,包括雾化器技术的当前进展和未来发展;并对雾化治疗在临床实践中的实施提供了一些见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
期刊最新文献
Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Maintenance Treatment-Naive Patients with COPD in the US. Diagnostic Inaccuracies in COPD: Misdiagnosis, Race and Gender Disparities. Prevalence of Myocardial Infarction With Obstructive and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in a Middle-Aged Population With Chronic Airflow Limitation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Single-Use Flexible Bronchoscope in Facilitating Endobronchial Valve Treatment in Severe Emphysema. Chronic Airflow Limitation, Lower Respiratory Symptoms, COPD and Chronic Rhinosinusitis in a Middle-Aged Population: The Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A Link Between the Lower and Upper Airways.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1