Background Nebuliser systems are used to deliver medications to the lungs, to control the symptoms and the progression of lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). There are many different nebulised-medications prescribed for people with CF and there are many different types of nebuliser systems. Some of these nebulised medications are licenced for, and can be taken via only one type of nebuliser system; some are licensed for, and can be taken via more than one type of nebuliser system. This is an update to a previous systematic review. Objectives To assess the time efficiency, effectiveness, safety, cost and impact of use (e.g. burden of care, adherence, quality of life (QoL)) of different nebuliser systems, when used with different inhaled medications for people with CF. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books containing conference proceedings. We searched the reference lists of each study for additional publications and approached the manufacturers of both nebuliser systems and nebulised medications for published and unpublished data. We also searched online trial registries. Date of the most recent search: 9 August 2023. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing nebuliser systems, including conventional nebulisers, vibrating mesh technology (VMT) systems, adaptive aerosol delivery (AAD) systems and ultrasonic nebuliser systems. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. They also independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A third review author assessed studies where agreement could not be reached. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Main results The search identified 216 studies with 33 of these (2270 participants) included in the review. These studies compared the delivery of tobramycin, colistin, dornase alfa, hypertonic saline and other solutions through the different nebuliser systems in children and adults with CF. This review demonstrates variability in the delivery of medication depending on the nebuliser system used. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low. Some conventional nebuliser systems providing higher flows, higher respirable fractions, and smaller particles decrease treatment time, increase deposition (the amount of drug reaching the lung), and may be preferred by people with CF, as compared to other conventional nebuliser systems providing lower flows, lower respirable fractions and larger particles. Newer nebuliser systems using AAD, or VMT (or both) reduce treatment time compared to conventional systems. Deposition (as a percentage of priming dose) with AAD is greater than with conventional systems. VMT systems may give greater deposition than conventional systems when measuring sputum levels. The available data indicate that these newer systems are safe when used with an appropriate priming dose, which may be different to the priming dose used for conventional systems. There is an indication that adherence is maintained or improved and that individuals prefer AAD or VMT systems, but also that some nebuliser systems using VMT may be subject to increased system failures. There is limited, unclear evidence on the impact of different nebuliser systems on lung function and a lack of data on the impact of different nebuliser systems on our outcomes of quality of life (QoL), adverse effects, respiratory exacerbations and related implications, adherence, satisfaction, cost and device reliability. Authors' conclusions Newer technologies e.g. AAD and VMT have advantages over conventional systems in terms of treatment time, deposition as a percentage of priming dose, preference and adherence. Data are lacking for all varieties of medications which are used in CF care, including different inhaled antibiotics or hypertonic saline, with all delivery (nebuliser system) possibilities. Long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate different nebuliser systems to determine patient-focused outcomes (such as QoL and burden of care), safe and effective dosing levels of a wide variety of medications, clinical outcomes (such as hospitalisations and need for antibiotics), and an economic evaluation of their use. There are insufficient data to establish whether one nebuliser system is better than another overall. Clinicians should be aware of the variability in the performance of different nebuliser systems, compatibility with specific nebulised medication, and they must work with their patients to choose the best nebuliser system for each individual. This is likely to be an ongoing process as the needs and circumstances of each individual change over time.
