Vibrating Mesh Nebulisers – Can Greater Drug Delivery to the Airways and Lungs Improve Respiratory Outcomes?

Abstract

Aerosols are an increasingly important mode of delivery of drugs, particularly bronchodilators, for the treatment of respiratory diseases, notably asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The most common type of nebuliser is the jet nebuliser (JN); they have been in use for more than a century but these devices can be cumbersome to use and may sometimes deliver insufficient amounts of drug. A more recent development in aerosol therapy is the vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN) which is very user friendly and is more efficient than the JNs due to an extremely low residual volume. Scintigraphy images from studies of volunteer subjects using radio-labelled aerosol treatment show that VMN-generated aerosols deliver more drug to patients in a shorter period of time than JN-generated aerosols. Various bench, animal model and small clinical studies have shown that VMNs are more efficient than JNs in drug delivery, potentially improving clinical outcomes. These studies have included various breathing circuits used in mechanical ventilation (MV), non-invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula systems and devices for spontaneously breathing patients. The efficiency of drug delivery was affected by factors including the position of the nebuliser in the circuit and humidity. Some studies have shown potential substantial savings by hospitals in the cost of MV treatments after switching from metered dose inhalers to VMNs. VMNs have also been shown to be effective for the administration of inhaled antibiotics, corticosteroids and other drugs. Larger studies of the effects of VMNs on patient outcomes are needed but they are likely to be an increasingly important means of administering therapies to a burgeoning population with respiratory disease.

Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Products in Lung Diseases—Intravenous Administration versus Inhalation

“…The investigator can perform endoscopic examination of the tracheobronchial tree and deliver the product precisely to the desired region. Since anesthesia is necessary, the intervention is not indicated for routine treatment [ 117 ]. Regarding uniformity of the distribution pattern, intratracheal administration is inferior to inhalation by spontaneously breathing patients [ 1 ].…”

Defining a Regulatory Strategy for ATMP/Aerosol Delivery Device Combinations in the Treatment of Respiratory Disease

“…The risk is considered highest with embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells [ 123 ]. As outlined above, aerosol-mediated delivery is possible at all stages throughout the development of the disease, from spontaneous breathing patients (via mouthpiece and facemask), to those in receipt of supplemental oxygen—e.g., via high-flow nasal therapy (via nasal cannula, nose mask) and those patients requiring ventilatory support by either non-invasive or life-sustaining invasive mechanical ventilation (via facemask, hood, tracheostomy tube, endotracheal tube) [ 124 ]. The topical administration of aerosolized ATMPs allows for high local concentrations directly at the site of action, as well as the avoidance of the well-documented disadvantages of systemic, gastrointestinal administration.…”

Evaluation of Aerosol Therapy during the Escalation of Care in a Model of Adult Cystic Fibrosis

“…Whilst JN is available in the hospital setting, the VMN is the predominant type. VMN is the only one considered suitable for concurrent use across the various patient interventions encountered throughout the escalation of care from home to intensive care [ 15 , 16 ]. Additionally, current global COVID−19 guidance on the selection of nebuliser recommends the use of devices that maintain a closed system for the prevention of release of both medical and patient-derived bioaerosols into the local environment.…”