Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Minimising the environmental impact of inhaled therapies: problems with policy on low carbon inhalers

Duncan Keeley, Jane E. Scullion, Omar S. Usmani
European Respiratory Journal 2020 55: 2001122; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01122-2020
Duncan Keeley
1Thame, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane E. Scullion
2University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jane E. Scullion
Omar S. Usmani
3National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The greenest inhaler is an appropriately prescribed device, that the patient has been properly taught and assessed how to use, is happy with and most important of all, gives them clinical benefit https://bit.ly/2VKicQW

From the authors:

We thank L. Lehtimäki and colleagues for their letter, and acknowledge and apologise for the error they identify relating to the country of the study [1]. All respiratory inhaled treatments are a combination of the drug and device, and we cited the Icelandic study to illustrate that an enforced switch of treatment by the government, here to low-cost alternatives, led to poorer clinical outcomes [1]. In this context, the mandated recommendations of the UK government for environmental reasons, give cause for concern. Our editorial stresses the necessity for patient engagement and choice, as well as clinical efficacy, to be considered in all steps of inhaler prescribing.

Non-consensual switches may result in discontent and lack of confidence amongst patients, and it has been suggested that patients with stable respiratory disease remain on their current inhaler device [2]. Prescribers must therefore take account of their patient's preference, and data show patients prefer an aqueous-based aerosol device rather than a dry-powder aerosol in comparative inhaler device studies with the same therapeutic drug [3, 4]. Efficacy data from real-world studies have suggested that the dry-powder inhaler (DPI) device with the same drug components gives poorer patient outcomes in asthma and COPD, compared to a pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) [5, 6]. One inhaler does not fit all, so prescribers should choose a device that is tailored to patients’ individual and specific needs.

A UK prescribing cost analysis model indeed suggested the possibility of cost savings with increased use of DPIs, but this was dependent on prescribers using the lowest cost alternatives when switching, with significant cost increases should that not be the case [7]. Globally, continued access to low-cost inhalers will be vital for prescribers in low-income countries. We also highlight the need to carefully interrogate the data used in the models that underlie proposals for change; for example, recent work on the carbon footprint of pMDIs show this to be lower than that quoted in official documents [8]. The idea of combining pMDI with spacer as an emergency pack is evidence-based, since the effectiveness of the components of this therapeutic approach in exacerbations of asthma has been shown [9]. This could usefully form part of the self-management options for patients with asthma, regardless of the inhaler type used for routine therapy.

We acknowledge that our table should have included consideration of a low global warming potential device as one element in a carefully controlled approach to reducing the environmental impact of respiratory treatments. However, interpreting this as a switch to the DPI device class is wrong. When a change in treatment is being considered, healthcare professionals should consider “low global warming potential” (GWP) devices that include low-GWP pMDIs, DPIs and soft mist inhalers. Indeed, within 5 years, we will have clinically available pMDIs with potentially lower GWP than current DPIs [8]. It is vital, both in the UK context and internationally, that patients with asthma and COPD who need pMDIs retain access to them.

In the UK, as elsewhere, healthcare systems are currently operating under the massive additional stress of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Any change in the pattern of inhaler use should be deferred until a more normal service can be resumed, and none of our respiratory patients should be forced into switching inhalers. We must redouble our efforts to improve the education of health care professionals and patients in the use of inhaler devices. For sure, the greenest inhaler is an appropriately prescribed device, that the patient has been properly taught and assessed how to use, is happy with and most important of all, gives them clinical benefit [10].

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-01122-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: D. Keeley has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J.E. Scullion reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Teva, Roche, Guidelines for nurses, MA healthcare, Orion and MIMS, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: O.S. Usmani reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Prosonix and Edmond Pharma, personal fees from Aerocrine, Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Zentiva, Cipla and Pearl Therapeutics, outside the submitted work.

  • Received April 11, 2020.
  • Accepted April 11, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Björnsdóttir US,
    2. Sigurðardóttir ST,
    3. Jonsson JS, et al.
    Impact of changes to reimbursement of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists in obstructive lung diseases: a population-based, observational study. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68: 812–819. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12473
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Bjermer L
    . The importance of continuity in inhaler device choice for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration 2014; 88: 346–352. doi:10.1159/000363771
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Dekhuijzen PN,
    2. Lavorini F,
    3. Usmani OS
    . Patients’ perspectives and preferences in the choice of inhalers: the case for Respimat or HandiHaler. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016; 10: 1561–1572. doi:10.2147/PPA.S82857
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Muraki M,
    2. Gose K,
    3. Hanada S, et al.
    Which inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β-agonist combination is better in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, a dry powder inhaler or a pressurized metered-dose inhaler? Drug Deliv 2017; 24: 1395–1400. doi:10.1080/10717544.2017.1378937
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Price D,
    2. Roche N,
    3. Christian Virchow J, et al.
    Device type and real-world effectiveness of asthma combination therapy: an observational study. Respir Med 2011; 105: 1457–1466. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2011.04.010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jones R,
    2. Martin J,
    3. Thomas V, et al.
    The comparative effectiveness of initiating fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy via pMDI versus DPI in reducing exacerbations and treatment escalation in COPD: a UK database study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12: 2445–2454. doi:10.2147/COPD.S141409
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Wilkinson AJK,
    2. Braggins R,
    3. Steinbach I, et al.
    Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e028763. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018–028763
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Panigone S,
    2. Sandri F,
    3. Ferri R, et al.
    Environmental impact of inhalers for respiratory diseases: decreasing the carbon footprint while preserving patient-tailored treatment. BMJ Open Respir Res 2020; 7: e000571. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000571
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Keeley D,
    2. Partridge MR
    . Emergency MDI and spacer packs for asthma and COPD. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 380–382. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30046-3
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Lavorini F,
    2. Usmani OS
    . Correct inhalation technique is critical in achieving good asthma control. Prim Care Respir J 2013; 22: 385–386. doi:10.4104/pcrj.2013.00097
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 55 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 55 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Minimising the environmental impact of inhaled therapies: problems with policy on low carbon inhalers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Minimising the environmental impact of inhaled therapies: problems with policy on low carbon inhalers
Duncan Keeley, Jane E. Scullion, Omar S. Usmani
European Respiratory Journal May 2020, 55 (5) 2001122; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01122-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Minimising the environmental impact of inhaled therapies: problems with policy on low carbon inhalers
Duncan Keeley, Jane E. Scullion, Omar S. Usmani
European Respiratory Journal May 2020, 55 (5) 2001122; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01122-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Refined risk stratification in PAH and timing of lung transplantation
  • Outcomes of cirrhotic patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension
  • Diagnosis for cystic fibrosis with new generation sweat test
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Refined risk stratification in PAH and timing of lung transplantation
  • COVID-19 drug research and the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design
  • COVID-19 drug research and the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society