Comparison of bronchodilator response between Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers in patients with bronchial hyperreactivity
Background: Aerochambers are used for the administration of inhaled drugs. Dosivent® is a previously unstudied chamber. This study aimed to validate the Dosivent® chamber against the widely used Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu®.
Methods: We conducted a non-randomized, open-label, cross-over-controlled, and clinical trial (NCT05821868) in 50 patients with a known positive bronchodilator test. Bronchodilator washout was performed according to standard recommendations. Fifteen minutes after the administration of 400 μg of salbutamol with either chamber, the changes in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured. The agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman graphical analysis. Participants’ satisfaction with the chamber was assessed with the FSI-10 questionnaire.
Results: The mean participant age was 58.0 (SD = 18.5) years, half were women, and only 31 (62%) participants had an FEV1/FVC of <0.7. The median increases in FEV1 obtained with the Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® and Dosivent® were 0.28 L (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.21 – 0.38) and 0.29 L (IQR: 0.20 – 0.43), respectively, and the median increases in FVC were 0.29 L (IQR: 0.19 – 0.37) and 0.28 L (IQR: 0.19 – 0.45). The intraclass correlation coefficient for increases in FEV1 was 0.865, and it was 0.820 for increases in FVC. The median FSI-10 questionnaire score was 42 (IQR: 37 – 47) with Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® and 44 (39 – 48) with Dosivent® (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Our study revealed a strong agreement between salbutamol responses when utilizing both the Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers. This suggests that these devices are interchangeable and can be effectively employed in routine clinical practice.
Relevance for Patients: For patients using inhaled medications, this study provides reassurance regarding the equivalence of the Dosivent® chamber with the widely used Aerochamber Plus® Flow- Vu®. This provides patients with more options for device selection, potentially improving convenience and satisfaction with their inhalation therapy. Patients and healthcare providers can consider the Dosivent® chamber as a viable alternative, which may positively impact treatment adherence and overall respiratory health management.
[1] Confalonieri M, Braga L, Salton F, Ruaro B, Confalonieri P. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Definition: Is it Time to Incorporate the Concept of Failure of Lung Regeneration? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023;207:366-7.
[2] Miravitlles M, Kawayama T, Dreher M. LABA/LAMA as First-line Therapy for COPD: A Summary of the Evidence and Guideline Recommendations. J Clin Med 2022;11:6623.
[3] Sanders M. Inhalation Therapy: An Historical Review. Prim Care Respir J 2007;16:71-81.
[4] Stein SW, Thiel CG. The History of Therapeutic Aerosols: A Chronological Review. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2017;30:20-41.
[5] Rau JL. The Inhalation of Drugs: Advantages and Problems. Respir Care 2005;50:367-82.
[6] Ivey JW, Vehring R, Finlay WH. Understanding Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler Performance. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2015;12:901-16.
[7] Lexmond A, Forbes B. Drug Delivery Devices for Inhaled Medicines. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2017;237:265-80.
[8] Sorino C, Negri S, Spanevello A, Visca D, Scichilone N. Inhalation Therapy Devices for the Treatment of Obstructive Lung Diseases: The History of Inhalers Towards the Ideal Inhaler. Eur J Intern Med 2020;75:15-8.
[9] Rogliani P, Calzetta L, Coppola A, Cavalli F, Ora J, Puxeddu E, et al. Optimizing Drug Delivery in COPD: The Role of Inhaler Devices. Respir Med 2017;124:6-14.
[10] Lawford P, McKenzie D, Alston D. The Effect of an Aerochamber on Bronchodilator Response to a Metereddose Inhaler. Practitioner 1982;226:2093-5.
[11] Nicola M, Hussein RR, Soliman YM, Abdelrahim M. Effect of Different Accessory Devices on the Dose Delivered from Pressurised Metred-dose Inhalers. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75:e14157.
[12] Barjaktarevic I, Kaner R, Buhr RG, Cooper CB. Bronchodilator Responsiveness or Reversibility in Asthma and COPD-a Need for Clarity. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2018;13:3511-3.
[13] Graham BL, Steenbruggen I, Miller MR, Barjaktarevic IZ, Cooper BG, Hall GL, et al. Standardization of Spirometry 2019 Update. An Official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society Technical Statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e70-88.
[14] Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical Evaluation of Agreement between Two Methods for Measuring a Quantitative Variable. Comput Biol Med 1989;19:61-70.
[15] Bland JM, Altman DG. A Note on the Use of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient in the Evaluation of Agreement between Two Methods of Measurement. Comput Biol Med 1990;20:337-40.
[16] Crimi N, Palermo F, Cacopardo B, Vancheri C, Oliveri R, Palermo B, et al. Bronchodilator Effect of Aerochamber and Inspirease in Comparison with Metered Dose Inhaler. Eur J Respir Dis 1987;71:153-7.
[17] Nelson HS, Loffert DT. Comparison of the Bronchodilator Response to Albuterol Administered by the OptiHaler, the AeroChamber, or by Metered Dose Inhaler Alone. Ann Allergy 1994;72:337-40.
[18] Prabhakaran S, Shuster J, Chesrown S, Hendeles L. Response to Albuterol MDI Delivered through an Antistatic Chamber During Nocturnal Bronchospasm. Respir Care 2012;57:1291-6.
[19] Ammari WG, Toor S, Chetcuti P, Stephenson J, Chrystyn H. Evaluation of Asthma Control, Parents’ Quality of Life and Preference between AeroChamber Plus and AeroChamber Plus Flow-vu Spacers in Young Children with Asthma. J Asthma 2015;52:301-7.
[20] Burudpakdee C, Kushnarev V, Coppolo D, Suggett JA. A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus(®) Flow-vu(®) Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber for Asthma Control. Pulm Ther 2017;3:283-96.
[21] Dissanayake S, Suggett J. A Review of the in vitro and in vivo Valved Holding Chamber (VHC) Literature with a Focus on the AeroChamber Plus Flow-vu Anti-static VHC. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2018;12:1753465817751346.
[22] Wachtel H, Nagel M, Engel M, El Azzi G, Sharma A, Suggett J. In vitro and Clinical Characterization of the Valved Holding Chamber AeroChamber Plus(®) Flow-vu(®) for Administrating Tiotropium Respimat(®) in 1-5-yearold Children with Persistent Asthmatic Symptoms. Respir Med 2018;137:181-90.
[23] Fakih F, Spangenthal S, Sigal B, Darken P, Maes A, Siddiqui S, et al. Randomized Study of the Effects of Aerochamber Plus(®) Flow-vu(®) on the Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Glycopyrronium/ Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate Metered Dose Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Respir Med 2018;138:74-80.
[24] Nicola M, Soliman YM, Hussein R, Saeed H, AbdelrahimM. Comparison between Traditional and Nontraditional Addon Devices Used with Pressurised Metered-dose Inhalers. ERJ Open Res 2020;6:00073-2020.
[25] Tordera MP, Viejo JL, Sanchis J, Badia X, Cobos N, Picado C, et al. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Preferences with Inhalers in Asthma with the FSI-10 Questionnaire. Arch Bronconeumol 2008;44:346-52.
[26] Zervas E, Samitas K, Gaga M. Assessment of Satisfaction with Different Dry Powder Inhalation Devices in Greek Patients with COPD and Asthma: The ANASA Study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2016;11:1845-55.
[27] Plaza V, Giner J, Curto E, Alonso-Ortiz MB, Orue MI, Vega JM, et al. Determinants and Differences in Satisfaction with the Inhaler among Patients with Asthma or COPD. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020;8:645-53.