Abstract
Objectives Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) have a substantially lower global warming potential than pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). To help mitigate climate change, we assessed the potential reduction in CO2-equivalents when replacing MDIs by DPIs in the Netherlands, and estimated the associated cost.
Design We performed a four-step analysis based on data from two national databases of two independent governmental bodies (Dutch National Healthcare Institute and the Dutch Healthcare Authority). First, we calculated the number of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma that were using inhalation medication (2020). Second, we calculated the number and total of daily defined doses of MDIs, DPIs, and soft mist inhalers and the number of spacers per patients, dispensed by non-hospital based pharmacies in 2020. Third, we estimated the potential reduction in CO2-equivalents (eq.) if all eligible patients (≥7 years old; COPD with ≤1 exacerbation per year) would switch from using MDIs to using DPIs as eco-friendly alternatives. Fourth, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Results In 2020, 1.4 million patients used inhalers for COPD or asthma treatment. A total of 460 million defined daily doses (DDDs) from inhalers were dispensed, of which – after the exclusion of nebulisers – 50.4% were from MDIs. We estimated that this use could be reduced by 70% leading to annual reduction in emissions of 77 - 84 million kg CO2eq. saving at best EUR 49.8 million annually.
Conclusions In the Netherlands, substitution of MDIs to DPIs for eligible patients is theoretically safe and in accordance with medical guidelines, while reducing emissions by 80 million kg.CO2eq. on average and saving at best EUR 49.8 million per year. This study confirms the potential climate and economic benefit of delivering eco-friendlier respiratory care.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Given availability and reliability of the data, the present analysis can easily be replicated elsewhere which allows for international comparison and aggregation.
Implementation challenges remain underexposed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Dutch National Health Care Institute
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data sources are openly available at - GIP database (2021). Genees- en hulpmiddelen Informatie Project | Medicines and medical devices Information Project. Available: https://www.gipdatabank.nl/ - DIS database (2021). DBC Informatie Systeem | Diagnosis-Treatment Combination Information system. Available: https://www.opendisdata.nl/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript or its attachments
