Study design (if review, criteria of inclusion for studies)
HTA report
Interventions
eFlow® vibrating membrane nebulizer
Outcome measures
The information included in this report comes from small, low methodological quality studies and most of them do not report relevant clinical results. The only advantage shown in the published studies is shorter nebulization time with eFlow® when compared with conventional devices. However, this does not show relevant clinical benefits beyond its potential better adherence. Also, one study mentions that its performance may decrease after 6 months in use. In addition, there are other nebulizers (e.g., I-neb®) with which it may be compared, since they have potential advantages. So far, based on the evidence found, there is no evidence that shows the clinical benefit of eFlow® over conventional devices beyond nebulization times. More properly designed studies are required to assess if eFlow® would have a relevant benefit in patients with cystic fibrosis.
Keywords: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Infection; Inhalation OR nebulised; pharmacological_intervention; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Pseudomonas; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Respiratory Tract Infections; non pharmacological intervention - devices OR physiotherapy;