A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patientuse aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available.The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel.Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.

This international task force report updates general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test. There are notable changes from prior recommendations in order to accommodate newer delivery devices. Rather than basing the test result upon a methacholine concentration (provocative concentration (PC) causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV)), the new recommendations base the result upon the delivered dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV (provocative dose (PD)). This end-point allows comparable results from different devices or protocols, thus any suitable nebuliser or dosimeter may be used, so long as the delivery characteristics are known. Inhalation may be by tidal breathing using a breath-actuated or continuous nebuliser for 1 min (or more), or by a dosimeter with a suitable breath count. Tests requiring maximal inhalations to total lung capacity are not recommended because the bronchoprotective effect of a deep breath reduces the sensitivity of the test.

In the absence of deep inspirations, healthy individuals develop bronchoconstriction with methacholine inhalation. One hypothesis is that deep inspiration results in bronchodilation. In this study, we tested an alternative hypothesis, that deep inspiration acts as a bronchoprotector. Single-dose methacholine bronchoprovocations were performed after 20 min of deep breath inhibition, in nine healthy subjects and in eight asthmatics, to establish the dose that reduces forced expiratory volume in 1 s by >15%. The provocation was repeated with two and five deep inspirations preceding methacholine. Additional studies were carried out to assess optimization and reproducibility of the protocol and to rule out the possibility that bronchoprotection may result from changes in airway geometry or from differential spasmogen deposition. In healthy subjects, five deep inspirations conferred 85% bronchoprotection. The bronchoprotective effect was reproducible and was not attributable to increased airway caliber or to differential deposition of methacholine. Deep inspirations did not protect the bronchi of asthmatics. We demonstrated that bronchoprotection is a potent physiologic function of lung inflation and established its absence, even in mild asthma. This observation deepens our understanding of airway dysfunction in asthma.

Recently, this international task force reported the general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test, a “direct” airway challenge test. Here, the task force provides an updated description of the pathophysiology and the methods to conduct indirect challenge tests. Because indirect challenge tests trigger airway narrowing through the activation of endogenous pathways that are involved in asthma, indirect challenge tests tend to be specific for asthma and reveal much about the biology of asthma, but may be less sensitive than direct tests for the detection of airway hyperresponsiveness. We provide recommendations for the conduct and interpretation of hyperpnoea challenge tests such as dry air exercise challenge and eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea that provide a single strong stimulus for airway narrowing. This technical standard expands the recommendations to additional indirect tests such as hypertonic saline, mannitol and adenosine challenge that are incremental tests, but still retain characteristics of other indirect challenges. Assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness, with direct and indirect tests, are valuable tools to understand and to monitor airway function and to characterise the underlying asthma phenotype to guide therapy. The tests should be interpreted within the context of the clinical features of asthma.

Two-dimensional (2D or planar) imaging with (99m)Tc radiolabels enables quantification of whole-lung and regional lung depositions for orally inhaled drug products. This article recommends standardized methodology for 2D imaging studies. Simultaneous anterior and posterior imaging with a dual-headed gamma camera is preferred, but imaging with a single-headed gamma camera is also acceptable. Correction of raw data for the effects of gamma ray attenuation is considered essential for accurate quantification, for instance, using transmission scanning with a flood-field source of (99m)Tc or (57)Co. Evidence should be provided of the accuracy of the quantification method, for instance, by determining "mass balance." Lung deposition may be expressed as a percentage of ex-valve or ex-device dose, but should also be given as mass of drug when possible. Assessment of regional lung deposition requires delineation of the lung borders, using X-ray computed tomography, radioactive gas scans ((133)Xe or (81m)Kr), or transmission scans. When quantifying regional lung deposition, the lung should be divided into outer (O) and inner (I) zones. A penetration index should be calculated, as the O/I ratio for aerosol, normalized to that for a radioactive gas or transmission scan. A variety of methods can be used to assess lung deposition and distribution. Methodology and results should be documented in detail, so that data from different centers may be compared. The use of appropriate methodology will provide greater confidence in the results of 2D imaging studies, and should allay concerns that such studies are qualitative or semiquantitative in nature.

This research investigated the impact of the full range of in vitro spray characterization tests described in the FDA Draft Bioequivalence Guidance on nasal deposition pattern, pharmacokinetics, and biological response to nicotine administered by two aqueous nasal spray pumps in human volunteers. Nicotine was selected as a model drug (even though it is not locally acting) based on its ability to alter cardiac function and available plasma assay. Significant differences in pump performance-including mean volume diameters, spray angle, spray width, and ovality ratios-were observed between the two pumps. There were no significant differences in deposition pattern, or pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic response to the nasally administered nicotine. Although there were statistical differences in the in vitro tests between the two pumps, these differences did not result in significant alterations in the site of droplet deposition within the nose, the rate and extent of nicotine absorption, or the physiologic response it induced. These results suggest that current measures of in vitro performance, particularly spray angle and spray pattern (ovality), may not be clinically relevant. Additional research is needed to define what spray pump characteristics are likely to produce differences in deposition pattern and drug response.

Current concepts of cystic fibrosis (CF) pathophysiology link ion transport abnormalities to reduced airway surface liquid (ASL) hydration and impaired mucus clearance. It is likely that correction of the defects that cause ASL dehydration will prevent degradation of mucus clearance, thereby preventing the initiation and/or progression of CF lung disease. A number of novel therapeutic agents aimed at the earliest steps in disease pathogenesis are now under development for the treatment of CF lung disease. Consequently, there is a tremendous need to develop methods that directly assess the effects of these agents on the underlying pathophysiologic process in the target organ. The measurement of mucociliary clearance (MCC) is a highly biologically relevant outcome, but one that is in need of further development. Here, we describe important methodologic aspects of MCC measurement and issues that have limited its use as an outcome measure in the past. Furthermore, we outline the steps that are being carried out now, and will be carried out in the future, to improve the performance of these studies in clinical trials. A systematic approach to optimizing and standardizing the measurement of MCC should greatly advance our ability to assess novel therapies at a relatively early stage of drug development. The resulting data may then be used to select those candidates that should be rapidly advanced into larger clinical trials.

Until the late 1990s, aerosol therapy consisted of beta2-adrenergic agonists, anti-cholinergics, steroidal and non-steroidal agents, mucolytics and antibiotics that were used to treat patients with asthma, COPD and cystic fibrosis. Since then, inhalation therapy has matured to include drugs that: (1) are designed to treat diseases outside the lung and whose target is the systemic circulation (systemic drug delivery); (2) deliver nucleic acids that lead to permanent expression of a gene construct, or protein coding sequence, in a population of cells (gene therapy); and (3) provide needle-free immunization against disease (aerosolized vaccination). During the evolution of these advanced applications, it was also necessary to develop new devices that provided increased dosing efficiency and less loss during delivery. This review will present an update on the success of each of these new applications and their devices. The early promise of aerosolized systemic drug delivery and its outlook for future success will be highlighted. In addition, the challenges to aerosolized gene therapy and the need for appropriate gene vectors will be discussed. Finally, progress in the development of aerosolized vaccination will be presented. The continued expansion of the role of aerosol therapy in the future will depend on: (1) improving the bioavailability of systemically delivered drugs; (2) developing gene therapy vectors that can efficiently penetrate the mucus barrier and cell membrane, navigate the cell cytoplasm and efficiently transfer DNA material to the cell nucleus; (3) improving delivery of gene vectors and vaccines to infants; and (4) developing formulations that are safe for acute and chronic administrations.