You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 1
  • Thoughtful prescription of inhaled medication has the potential to reduce inhaler-related greenhouse gas emissions by 85%

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Asthma
Thoughtful prescription of inhaled medication has the potential to reduce inhaler-related greenhouse gas emissions by 85%
  1. Ville Vartiainen1,
  2. Ashley A Woodcock2,
  3. Alex Wilkinson3,
  4. Christer Janson4,
  5. Unnur Björnsdóttir5,
  6. Tari Haahtela6 and
  7. Lauri Lehtimäki7
  1. 1Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki, Finland
  2. 2University NHS Foundation Trust, UK, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Respiratory Department, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK
  4. 4Department of Medical Sciences: Respiratory, Allergy and Sleep Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  5. 5Department of Allergy and Pulmonary Medicine, University Hospital Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  6. 6Skin and Allergy Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  7. 7Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ville Vartiainen; ville.vartiainen{at}helsinki.fi

Abstract

Introduction Both physicians and patients are increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of medication. The shift of treatment paradigm towards MART-treatment (Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) in asthma affects the treatment-related emissions. The carbon footprint of inhaled medication is also tied to the type of the device used. Today the most commonly used propellant-containing pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) have a carbon footprint typically 20–40-fold higher than propellant-free dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft mist inhalers.

Methods We analysed the carbon footprint of inhaled medications in Europe using published life cycle analyses of marketed inhalers and comprehensive 2020 European sales data. In addition, we give an estimate on treatment-related emissions of different treatment regimens on Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 2.

Results There is potential to reduce the carbon footprint of inhaled medications by 85% if DPIs are preferred over pMDIs. Emissions from pMDIs in the EU were estimated to be 4.0 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) and this could be reduced to 0.6 MT CO2e if DPIs were used instead. In the treatment of moderate asthma with DPI, an as-needed combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in a single inhaler had a substantially lower annual carbon footprint (0.8 kg CO2e) than the more traditional maintenance therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid alone with as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (2.9 kg CO2e).

Discussion There has been an urgent call for healthcare to reduce its carbon footprint for appropriate patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), changing to non-propellant inhalers can reduce the carbon footprint of their treatment by almost 20-fold.

  • inhaler devices
  • asthma

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. The data are obtained from IQVIA MIDAS quarterly database and subject to licence from IQVIA.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001782

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Propellant gases used in pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) devices are known to be potent greenhouse gases and pMDI are considered to have a significantly larger environmental impact compared with dry powder inhalers (DPIs).

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • In this work, we report the use of pMDI-based medication in 2020 and the effect of Maintenance and Reliever Therapy-treatment on treatment-related emissions. The carbon footprint of inhaler treatment can be reduced by 85% by using non-propellant inhalers without compromising the treatment.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • Replacing 90% of pMDIs in Europe with DPIs or soft mist inhalers would equal to removing 1.5 million cars from the roads in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Preferentially using greener inhalers would reduce the environmental impact of inhaler treatment without compromising treatment.

    Introduction

    The WHO has estimated that increases in malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress due to climate change will cause 250 000 deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.1 The treatment paradigm has a large effect on how and when the medication is used and is therefore, tied to the treatment-related greenhouse gas emissions of asthma. During the past few years, the international treatment guidelines for asthma have shifted from regular maintenance and as-needed reliever therapy towards Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (MART). Today the most commonly used propellant-containing pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) have a 20–40-fold higher carbon footprint compared with propellant-free dry powder inhalers (DPI).2 Selection of inhalers in the treatment of respiratory disease is, therefore, a prime example of how healthcare professionals can directly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    The health benefits to the patient must be the physician’s first priority. There are several safe and effective inhaled medications for asthma and COPD, which are available in a range of different inhaler devices. Most patients with COPD or asthma can generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate needed for the use of modern DPIs despite the internal resistance of the device.3 4 When patients are given a wide range of inhaler options, multi-dose DPIs are the most popular device type.5

    Currently, pMDIs are the most used inhalers globally, but there are considerable differences between countries and regions. For example, in Sweden DPIs account for 87% of inhalers, while in the UK the majority (70%) of patients use pMDIs.6 The UK switched to pMDIs for ICS over the last 10–20 years mainly on cost grounds, even though there was evidence that asthma control deteriorated. Wilkinson et al concluded that switching from pMDI to DPI on a national level is not only more environmentally sustainable but could reduce drug costs as well.7 High use of DPIs does not seem to hamper overall disease control, indeed asthma control is better than average in some countries with a high proportion of inhaled medication being delivered with DPIs.8

    As a part of their sustainability programmes, many companies have conducted life cycle analyses (LCA) of their inhaler products including raw material acquisition, processing and manufacturing, distribution and transportation, use, reuse and maintenance and waste management and recycling.9 LCA can produce information on many environmental measures such as the carbon footprint, water use, land use, human toxicity, marine toxicity and so on. Carbon footprint is defined as the total global warming potential of greenhouse gases, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), emitted into the atmosphere. CO2e is calculated by multiplying the amount of a greenhouse gas by its global warming potential relative to carbon dioxide. The most commonly used propellants in pMDIs are HFC-134a and HFC-227ea. The sixth IPCC assessment report assigns these gases a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 1530 and 3600, respectively.10 This is a significant increase from the fifth assessment report where they were assigned a GWP of 1300 and 3350 respectively, meaning previous analyses have likely underestimated the true carbon footprint of pMDIs.

    Physicians assess benefits and risks for their individual patients, but physicians and patients are increasingly aware of the environmental sustainability of therapeutic choices. This study aims to provide practical information for clinicians prescribing inhalers to treat chronic airway diseases. Hence, we searched all the available LCA data and combined it with inhaler sales data to estimate (1) the overall carbon footprint of inhaler medication use and (2) patient-level carbon footprint of different treatment regimes.

    Materials and methods

    We conducted a systematic literature search from the databases of medline, biosis, ipa, ddfu, hcaplus, embase and scisearch for inhaler device type or brand associated with terminology used with environmental impact or LCA. Relevant articles were identified also from the reference lists of the articles from the literature search and authors’ own files. Some LCA did not include the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and these were excluded from the analysis.

    IQVIA data base (IQVIA MIDAS Quarterly, 2020) was searched for sales data for different kinds of inhalers reported as total doses in Europe. Sufficiently accurate data were available from the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Greece, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Denmark, and Luxemburg.

    All calculations on carbon footprint used product-specific information when available and the Montreal Protocol Medical and Chemical Options Committee (MCTOC) assessment report when product-specific LCA was not available. For general calculations of pMDIs, it was assumed that the devices included the more common propellant gas HFA-134a. Treatment regimens used in calculations are those deemed typical by authors according to current summaries of product characteristics and international treatment guidelines.11 12

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients or public were not involved in the design, conduct or reporting of this work.

    Results

    Life cycle analyses

    The carbon footprint per dose for inhalers with publicly available LCA is presented in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Carbon footprint per dose of each inhaler with available LCA and MCTOC estimate of device type-specific average footprints

    Inhaler use and corresponding CO2e emissions

    In 2020, the European countries in the IQVIA database used nearly 30 billion doses of pMDI-based medication. Assuming the general estimate of 125 g CO2e per one dose this amounts to approximately 3.6 million tons (Mt) of CO2e.2 On a national level, the UK was the largest individual source of emissions (44% of total) at approximately 1.3 Mt CO2e. Assuming emission of 10 g CO2e per one dose from a DPI (emissions estimated by MCTOC), the equivalent treatment delivered in DPIs would have resulted in net emissions of approximately 0.28 Mt CO2e for the whole European dataset, and 0.11 Mt CO2e for the UK, indicating a decrease of 85% compared with pMDI.

    In 2020, over 16 000 000 000 doses of salbutamol in pMDI device were sold in the EU, which accounts to more than half of the total pMDI sales. The proportion of salbutamol compared with total pMDI sales ranged from 35% in Sweden up to 67% in the UK. Terbutaline and fenoterol made negligible contributions compared with salbutamol. The carbon footprint of pMDI salbutamol alone was estimated to be 2.1 Mt CO2e.

    The IQVIA database provided a representative spread of European countries and can be extrapolated to include the whole EU population (UK, Norway and Switzerland are omitted). On 1 January 2020, the population of the EU was estimated to be 447 million and EU countries included in the data accounted for 407 million people.13 Scaling by population leads to total pMDI greenhouse gas emissions of 4.0 Mt CO2e for the EU. Our estimate of EU emissions, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for US Emissions and MCTOC estimate for global emissions are presented in figure 1.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Estimated carbon greenhouse gas emissions from pMDI devices (CO2e) in EU, EPA estimate for US Emissions and MCTOC estimate for global emissions as well as estimated emissions from corresponding number of DPIs. DPIs, dry powder inhalers; MCTOC, Montreal Protocol Medical and Chemical Options Committee; pMDI, pressurised metered-dose inhalers.

    Patient-level CO2e emissions of different treatment strategies

    The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has recently revised their international recommendations on asthma treatment. Most newly diagnosed patients with asthma start from GINA step 2. The new GINA guidelines include two treatment tracks:

    1. In Track 1, for patients at GINA Step 2 it recommends a fixed combination treatment of long-acting β2-agonist formoterol with inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) in a single inhaler taken only as-needed.

    2. In the alternative Track 2, for patients at GINA Step 2 the recommendation uses a more traditional strategy of a low-dose maintenance ICS therapy with a separate rescue therapy with short acting β-2 agonist (SABA.11

    To estimate the inhaler use of the patients, we used data from the clinical trial by Bateman et al when patients are treated with as-needed budesonide-formoterol (mimicking Track 1 above) compared with daily maintenance budesonide with as-needed SABA (mimicking Track 2 above). In the study, the patients were using Turbuhaler DPI for all inhaled medications.14 Since there are thus far no LCA reports available for Turbuhaler, we could not use LCA data specific for Turbuhaler. Instead we used LCA for an Easyhaler DPI since there are published LCA data on Easyhaler for the treatment options in GINA Track 1 and 2 (as described above), and, these LCA are all performed in a single LCA making it internally consistent. In contrast to the study by Bateman et al, the SABA used in this analysis was salbutamol instead of terbutaline.

    On Track 1, 1 year of treatment with as-needed budesonide–formoterol DPI (0.52 inhalations/day14) results in greenhouse gas emissions of 0.8 kg CO2e. On Track 2 above, twice daily maintenance budesonide 200 µg DPI results in 2.4 kg CO2e, plus 0.49 doses of as-needed SABA/day14 results in 0.5 kg CO2e (a total of 2.9 kg CO2e per year). The calculation assumes 100% adherence to the maintenance therapy. With the adherence of 1.3 doses per day reported by Bateman et al, the carbon footprint would be 1.6 kg CO2e for the maintenance budesonide and 2.1 kg CO2e for the maintenance budesonide and SABA together. As the adherence comes from a clinical trial it is likely to overestimate the adherence in real life. Track 1 had similar exacerbations and lower ICS exposure,14 but also lower greenhouse gas emissions.

    Budesonide with as needed SABA administered from pMDI with similar use as in the study would have resulted in net emissions of 170 kg CO2e.14 Figure 2 shows emissions resulting from the two treatment strategies Track 1 and Track 2 of the GINA step 2 with either DPI or pMDI.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Annual carbon footprint (CO2e) of different treatment regimens in asthma at GINA step 2. DPI, dry powder inhaler; ICS, inhalable corticosteroid; pMDI, pressurised metered-dose inhaler; SABA, short acting β-2 agonist.

    Table 2 shows carbon footprint of 1 year of treatment with typical use of inhalers with LCA available. For comparison, estimates of carbon footprint based on MCTOC estimates are presented for some alternative choices. The table can be used to estimate the carbon footprint of inhaler treatment for an individual patient with different combinations of inhalers.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Carbon footprint of 1 year of treatment with typical use of inhalers with LCA available

    Discussion

    In this study, we show that switching from pMDI to DPI substantially reduces the carbon footprint of inhaled treatments. In many countries rescue SABA is almost exclusively delivered by pMDIs, which accounts for over 50% of the carbon footprint of inhaled therapy. Not only does overuse of SABA pose a significant environmental burden,15 it worsens asthma control, and is associated with asthma deaths. A switch to DPI salbutamol would reduce the carbon footprint for salbutamol by >90% but have no impact on asthma control. However, a switch to DPI combination LABA/ICS for maintenance and rescue would also reduce the overall carbon footprint by 90%, but in addition, substantially improve asthma control. While 100% switch is neither realistic nor desirable, a significant number of patients could use either of the device types. A smaller proportion of subjects switching from pMDI to DPI would create a respective fraction of net saves in green house gas emissions.

    It is important that any changes in inhalers and strategy should be done carefully, measured and in partnership with the patient. Non-medical switches (eg, on cost) forced on a population level may lead to deterioration of disease control.16 Most data on inhaler switching are from open-label marketing-led clinical trials with virtually no real-world data. In a Hungarian study,17 143 patients with asthma and 96 with COPD switched their pMDI to a DPI (budesonide–formoterol Easyhaler). After 12 weeks, disease control improved (asthma control test; COPD assessment test), while the annual carbon footprint reduced from 219 kg CO2e to 3 kg CO2e. A UK observational study investigated inhaler switches to save drug costs and found 918 patients who were switched between pMDI and DPI. The authors concluded ‘switching between MDIs and DPIs did not seemingly impact on exacerbations, adverse medication events or respiratory events’. Indeed, the rate of exacerbations was significantly lower in the 3 months ‘risk period’ following a switch to DPIs compared with stable periods.18

    The cost of DPIs is often considered to be higher than that of pMDIs, but this largely depends on the specific device being chosen as a replacement. Wilkinson et al studied the health economics of inhaler switches based on NHS prescription data from England in 2017.7 Their findings showed that for every 10% of pMDIs that were switched to the cheapest equivalent DPI, the annual drug costs would decrease by 9.4 million Euros, whereas retaining the 2017 DPI brand distribution would result in an increase of 14.5 million Euros.

    LCA are relatively new and still not perfectly validated measures. While there is some standardisation, analyses use a wide variety of assumptions. While analyses are not precisely comparable, they do give an order of magnitude. For example, EU transportation emitted 1100 Mt CO2e during 2019, around one-third of all emissions. In comparison a typical gasoline-driven car produces annually 4.6 t of CO2. Nevertheless, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, switching 90% of the current pMDIs in Europe to DPIs would be equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the roads.19 At an individual level, a switch from pMDI to the same medication in a DPI would be similar to changing from a meat to a plant-based diet.20

    Due to different methodologies, the EPA estimate for US pMDI emissions and our estimate for EU emissions are not directly comparable, but we can still assess the relative magnitude of the emissions (figure 1). The population of the USA in 2020 was approximately 332 million and it would result in the emission of 7.5 g CO2e per capita, while based on our results emissions from EU would be approximately 8.8 g CO2e per capita. While the estimate is not based on full LCA and encompasses only the propellant release in the use phase in the life cycle, in the case of pMDIs this constitutes 94%–98% of the carbon footprint in LCAs.6 21 22 As 88% of the inhaler sales in the USA were pMDI devices in 2020 there is a large potential for reduction of emissions.23 In the UK, Jeswani et al estimated emissions from inhalers amount to 1.4 Mt CO2e which is roughly in line with our results.22 They also estimate other environmental impacts for pMDIs and one DPI model. The other impacts remain as a largely uninvestigated field as the manufacturers generally have not released third-party certified LCA reports for those. Pernigotti et al estimated that if 80% of the pMDI using patients switched to DPIs in UK, Italy, France, Germany and Spain it would lead to 68% decrease inhaler-related carbon footprint.24 If the degree of switch is taken into account, the results are very similar to those of our analysis.

    The costs of developing new inhalers (and with established drugs) is enormous. Some companies have moved largely or entirely to soft mist inhaler or DPIs for new inhaled drugs (eg, BI, Novartis). Others (eg, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline) have announced new low GWP propellant R&D programmes to replace HFC134a in pMDIs. The candidate propellants are HFC-152a21 and HFO-1234ze(E). These new inhalers have a carbon footprint almost as low as current DPIs, but will need substantial R&D programmes, the size and length of which depends on the stringency of the safety requirements of the regulatory authorities around the world.25 However, it will likely take a decade or more to roll out any new low GWP propellants to all inhaler brands and drugs.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states in its sixth report that without a sharp decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, climate change will lead to irreversible loss of the most fragile ecosystems, and the most vulnerable people and societies will face crisis one after another.26 In healthcare sector, inhaler therapy is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions globally, which can be easily mitigated through the use of green inhalers at the same time as following guidelines. High standards of care and use of low carbon footprint inhalers are interlinked goals. Low carbon footprint inhalers should be offered to new patients as first choice, unless there is a specific medical reason to choose otherwise.

    Conclusions

    Switching from pMDI to DPI substantially reduces the carbon footprint of inhaled treatments. It is now time to act in partnership with patients.27 There is nothing to be gained by waiting.21 For those patients who do need an pMDI, low carbon pMDIs will be a very welcome additional transition over the next decade.

    Data availability statement

    Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. The data are obtained from IQVIA MIDAS quarterly database and subject to licence from IQVIA.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    Acknowledgments

    Orion Pharma is acknowledged for supporting the medical writing of this work as well as providing access to the IQVIA sales database.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. WHO
      . Climate change and health. 2018. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health [Accessed 13 May 2021].
    2. ↵
      1. Benedick
      . Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer medical and chemical technical options committee. 2018 assessment report. 2018.
    3. ↵
      1. Haughney J,
      2. Lee AJ,
      3. McKnight E, et al
      . Peak Inspiratory Flow Measured at Different Inhaler Resistances in Patients with Asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021;9:890–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.026
      OpenUrl
    4. ↵
      1. Anderson M,
      2. Collison K,
      3. Drummond MB, et al
      . Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in COPD: An Analysis of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2021;16:933–43. doi:10.2147/COPD.S291554
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      1. Schreiber J,
      2. Sonnenburg T,
      3. Luecke E
      . Inhaler devices in asthma and COPD patients - a prospective cross-sectional study on inhaler preferences and error rates. BMC Pulm Med 2020;20:222. doi:10.1186/s12890-020-01246-z
    6. ↵
      1. Janson C,
      2. Henderson R,
      3. Löfdahl M, et al
      . Carbon footprint impact of the choice of inhalers for asthma and COPD. Thorax 2020;75:82–4. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-213744
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    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
    8. ↵
      1. Haahtela T,
      2. Herse F,
      3. Karjalainen J, et al
      . The Finnish experience to save asthma costs by improving care in 1987-2013. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017;139:408–14. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2016.12.001
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Klöpffer W
      . The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006;11:116–22. doi:10.1065/lca2006.04.019
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      IPCC AR6 WGI chapter 7 supplementary material. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf [Accessed 10 Apr 2022].
    11. ↵
      1. Global Initiative for Asthma
      . Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2021.
    12. ↵
      1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
      . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2020.
    13. ↵
      1. Eurostat
      . Population change - demographic balance and crude rates at national level. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_gind/default/table?lang=en [Accessed 02 Aug 2021].
    14. ↵
      1. Bateman ED,
      2. Reddel HK,
      3. O’Byrne PM, et al
      . As-Needed Budesonide–Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1877–87. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715275
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Janson C,
      2. Menzies-Gow A,
      3. Nan C, et al
      . SABINA: An Overview of Short-Acting β2-Agonist Use in Asthma in European Countries. Adv Ther 2020;37:1124–35. doi:10.1007/s12325-020-01233-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Gilbert I,
      2. Wada K,
      3. Burudpakdee C, et al
      . The Impact of A Forced Non-Medical Switch of Inhaled Respiratory Medication Among Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Patient Survey on Experience with Switch, Therapy Satisfaction, and Disease Control. Pat Prefer Adherence 2020;14:1463–75. doi:10.2147/PPA.S242215
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Gálffy G,
      2. Szilasi M,
      3. Tamási L
      . Effectiveness and Patient Satisfaction with Budesonide/Formoterol Easyhaler® Among Patients with Asthma or COPD Switching from Previous Treatment: a Real-World Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Pulm Ther 2019;5:165–77. doi:10.1007/s41030-019-0097-7
      OpenUrl
    18. ↵
      1. Bloom CI,
      2. Douglas I,
      3. Olney J, et al
      . Cost saving of switching to equivalent inhalers and its effect on health outcomes. Thorax 2019;74:1078–86. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212957
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. United States Environmental Protection Agency
      . Greenhouse gas emissions from a typical passenger vehicle. 2018.
    20. ↵
      1. Wynes S,
      2. Nicholas KA
      . The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett 2017;12:074024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      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
    22. ↵
      1. Jeswani HK,
      2. Azapagic A
      . Life cycle environmental impacts of inhalers. J Clean Prod 2019;237:117733. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117733
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    23. ↵
      1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      . Market characterization of the U.S. metered dose inhaler industry. 2021. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/epa-hq-oar-2021-0044-0002_attachment_1-mdis.pdf?VersionId=EonCVwZG6UXYmpe9hmej95NIM0B2zUlr
    24. ↵
      1. Pernigotti D,
      2. Stonham C,
      3. Panigone S, et al
      . Reducing carbon footprint of inhalers: analysis of climate and clinical implications of different scenarios in five European countries. BMJ Open Respir Res 2021;8:e001071. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2021-001071
    25. ↵
      1. Hargreaves C,
      2. Budgen N,
      3. Whiting A, et al
      . S60 A new medical propellant HFO-1234ze(E): reducing the environmental impact of inhaled medicines. Thorax 2022;77:A38–9. doi:10.1136/thorax-2022-BTSabstracts.66
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Masson-Delmotte V,
      2. Zhai P,
      3. Pörtner H-O, et al
      ., eds. Global Warming of 1.5°C. 2018.
    27. ↵
      1. Atwoli L,
      2. Baqui AH,
      3. Benfield T, et al
      . Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e1493–5. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00398-3
      OpenUrl
      1. Carbon Trust Ltd
      . Product carbon footprint certification summary report. 2014.
      1. Hänsel M,
      2. Bambach T,
      3. Wachtel H
      . Inhaler Compared with Pressurised Metered-Dose Inhalers. Adv Ther 2019;36:2487–92. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-01028-y
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors VV: conceptualisation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, project administration, visualisation, writing–original draft, and writing—review and editing, acted as the guarantor. AAW: writing – review and editing. AW: writing—review and editing. CJ: writing—review and editing. UB: writing—review and editing. TH: conceptualisation, supervision, writing—review and editing. LL: conceptualisation, supervision, writing

      —review and editing.

    • Funding This study was funded by Orion Pharma.

    • Competing interests VV is a former employee of Orion Pharma and has received consultation fees from Orion Pharma. LL has received fees for lectures, advisory board meetings or consultations from ALK, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Sanofi and Teva. USB has received fees for lectures, advisory board meetings or consultations from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and, Sanofi. CJ has received fees for lectures, advisory board meetings or consultations from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Sanofi and Teva. TH has received fees for lectures from GSK, Orion Pharma and Sanofi. AW is a member of the United Nations Medical Chemical Technical Options Committee, and has made unpaid contributions to scientific publications with AstraZeneca and GSK. AAW has received fees for lectures and advisory board meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Orion.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.