PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of aapspharmspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
 
AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004 March; 5(1): 32.
Published online 2009 November 27. doi:  10.1208/pt050107
PMCID: PMC2784858

The influence of formulation and spacer device on the in vitro performance of solution chlorofluorocarbon-free propellant-driven metered dose inhalers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that spacer devices have limited effect on the in vitro fine particle dose emitted from solution metered dose inhalers containing different proportions of HFA134a [1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane] propellant. Two solution formulations (80% and 97.5% wt/wt HFA134a) were tested across the actuator alone, actuator plus Aerochamber, and Ace holding chamber. Particle size distributions were determined using laser diffraction (LD) and cascade impaction (CI). Multimodal particle size distributions were identified using LD. CI analyses were characterized by a major mode located at ≈0.5 μm. The fine particle dose emitted from the inhaler spacer combinations containing 97.5% HFA134a was independent of the device setup used. Fine particle doses were influenced by spacer setup in 80% HFA134a formulations, indicating different plume dynamics of low vapor pressure formulations. Sampling inlet deposition was approximately O when spacer devices were used with either formulation. When spacers were not used, sampling inlet deposition was increased significantly. However, inlet deposition with the 97.5% HFA134a formulation was significantly less than that of the 80% HFA134a formulation (≈25% of emitted dose compared with 69% respectively). Thus, high propellant concentration formulations appear to have more robust in vitro performance. This is particularly important given the preponderance of poor patient compliance that is associated with spacer use. High propellant concentrations had the advantage of fine particle doses that were independent of the device setup and significantly lowered sampling inlet deposition when no spacer was used.

Key words: HFA134a, aerosol, cascade impaction, laser diffraction, fine particle fraction

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (312K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
1. Williams RO, Patel AM, Barron MK, Rogers TL. Investigation of some commercially available spacer devices for the delivery of glucocorticoid steroids from pMDI. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2001;27:401–412. doi: 10.1081/DDC-100104315. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
2. Everard ML. CFC transition: the Emperor's new clothes. Each class of drug deserves a delivery system that meets its own requirements. Thorax. 2000;55:811–814. doi: 10.1136/thorax.55.10.811. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Crompton GK. The adult patient's difficulties with inhalers. Lung. 1990;168:658–662. doi: 10.1007/BF02718191. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
4. Wilkes W., Fink J, Dhand R. Selecting an accessory device with a metered-dose inhaler: variable influence of accessory devices on fine particle dose, throat deposition, and drug delivery with asynchronous actuation from a metered-dose inhaler. J Aerosol Med. 2001;14:351–360. doi: 10.1089/089426801316970312. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Berg E. In vitro properties of pressurized metered dose inhalers with and without spacer devices. J Aerosol Med. 1995;8(suppl 3):S3–S10. [PubMed]
6. Ellepola AN, Samaranayake LP. Inhalational and topical steroids, and oral candidosis: a mini review. Oral Dis. 2001;7:211–216. doi: 10.1034/j.1601-0825.2001.70402.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Johnson DH, Robart P. Inhaler technique of outpatients in the home. Respir Care. 2000;45:1182–1187. [PubMed]
8. Williams RO, Patel AM, Barron MK, Rogers TL. Investigation of some commercially available spacer devices for the delivery of glucocorticoid steroids from a pMDI. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2001;27:401–412. doi: 10.1081/DDC-100104315. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Tobin MJ, Jenouri G, Danta I, Kim C, Watson H, Sackner MA. Response to bronchodilator drug administration by a new reservoir aerosol delivery system and a review of other auxiliary delivery systems. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126:670–675. [PubMed]
10. Newman SP, Pavia D, Clarke SW. Simple instructions for using pressurized aerosol bronchodilators. J R Soc Med. 1980;73:776–779. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Dubus JC, Guillot C, Badier M. Electrostatic charge on spacer devices and salbutamol response in young children. Int J Pharm. 2003;261(1–2):159–164. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5173(03)00314-4. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Woodcock A, Acerbi D, Poli G. Modulite technology: pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic implications. Respir Med. 2002;96(suppl D):S9–S15. doi: 10.1016/S0954-6111(02)80019-1. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Hirst PH, Pitcairn GR, Richards JC, Rohatagi S, Gillen MS, Newman SP. Deposition and pharmacokinetics of an HFA fomulation of triamcinolone acetonide delivered by pressurized metered dose inhaler. J Aerosol Med. 2001;14:155–165. doi: 10.1089/08942680152484090. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
14. Barry PW, O'Callaghan C. In vitro comparison of the amount of salbutamol available for inhalation from different formulations used with different spacer devices. Eur Respir J. 1997;10:1345–1348. doi: 10.1183/09031936.97.10061345. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Smyth HDC, Hickey AJ. Multimodal particle size distributions emitted from HFA 134a solution pressurized metered dose inhalers. AAPS Pharm-Sci Tech. 2003;4:38–38. doi: 10.1208/pt040338. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
16. Thiel CG. Can in vitro particle size measurements be used to predict pulmonary deposition of aerosol from inhalers? J Aerosol Med. 1998;11:S43–S52. [PubMed]
17. Smyth HDC, Mejia-Millan EA, Hickey AJ. The effect of ethanol on solvency vapor pressure, and emitted droplet size of solution metered dose inhalers containing HFA 134a. Respir Drug Delivery VIII. 2002;2:735–738.
18. Smyth HDC, Hickey AJ. Comparative particle size analysis of solution propellant driven metered dose inhalers using cascade impaction and laser diffraction. Respir. Drug Delivery VIII. 2002;2:731–734.
19. Dewsbury NJ, Kenyon CJ, Newman SP. Effect of handling techniques on electrostatic charge on spacer devices: correlation with in vitro particle size analysis. Int J Pharm. 2004;137:261–264. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(96)04500-0. [Cross Ref]
20. Dunbar CA, Hickey AJ. Evaluation of probability density functions to approximate particle size distributions of representative pharmaceutical aerosols. J Aerosol Sci. 2000;31:813–831. doi: 10.1016/S0021-8502(99)00557-1. [Cross Ref]
21. Dunbar CA, Watkins AP, Miller JF. An experimental investigation of the spray issued from a pMDI using laser diagnostic techniques. J Aerosol Med. 1997;10:351–368. doi: 10.1089/jam.1997.10.351. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Dunbar CA, Watkins AP, Miller JF. Theoretical investigation of the spray from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. Atomization Sprays. 1997;7:417–436. doi: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v7.i4.60. [Cross Ref]
23. Hinds WC. Aerosol technology: properties, behavior, and measurement of airbone particles. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1999.
24. Janssens HM, Devadason SG, Hop WC, LeSouef PN, De Jongste JC, Tiddens HA. Variability of aerosol delivery via spacer devices in young asthmatic children in daily life. Eur Respir J. 1999;13:787–791. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.13d15.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council of Scientific Affairs AMA. Health Literacy: report of the Council of Scientific Affairs.JAMA. 1999;281:552-557. [PubMed]

Articles from AAPS PharmSciTech are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists