In vitro evaluation of nonconventional accessory devices for pressurized metered-dose inhalers

Effect of different accessory devices on the dose delivered from pressurised metred-dose inhalers

INTRODUCTIONS

Improved aerosol delivery of bronchodilators to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects is a cornerstone in the treatment approach. Drug delivery and response are improved with the use of accessory devices [spacers and valved holding chambers (VHCs)] with metred-dose inhalers (pMDIs). However, different accessory devices are available in the market with different properties that could affect aerosol delivery. Thus, this study aimed to assess the relative lung deposition and systemic bioavailability and compare bronchodilator response of salbutamol delivered using different accessory devices attached to pMDIs.

METHODS

Twelve healthy subjects and twelve COPD subjects inhaled 300 μg salbutamol (3 pMDI puffs) using five different accessory devices with either masks or mouthpieces (Able, Aerochamber plus flow Vu, Dolphin chamber, Tipshaler spacer, and modified Drink bottle spacer). Urine samples were collected thirty minutes post-dosing and cumulatively for the next twenty-four hours, to determine and compare the relative lung deposition [0-0.5 hour excretion of urinary salbutamol (USAL0.5)] and systemic bioavailability [0.5-24 hours excretion of urinary salbutamol (USAL24)] of salbutamol from the selected accessory devices. Also, the difference between pre and post-inhalation forced expiratory volume in one second (ΔFEV₁ %) of predicted was determined for each accessory device.

RESULTS

Urinary excretion of salbutamol (both USAL0.5 and USAL24 samples) in COPD subjects was significantly (P < .05) lower than in healthy subjects for all accessory devices. USAL0.5 and USAL24 in non-antistatic spacers (modified Drink bottle spacer and Dolphin chamber spacers) were significantly lower (P < .05) than that for antistatic spacers (Aerochamber plus flow Vu, Able and Tips-haler). No significant difference in USAL0.5 and USAL24 was observed between facemasks and mouthpieces. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in ΔFEV₁ % of predicted values between COPD subjects and healthy subjects. However, within the COPD group and the healthy group there was no significant difference in ΔFEV₁ % of predicted values between all accessory devices or between with mouthpiece or with a mask.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD subjects had lower aerosol delivered compared with healthy subjects. Anti-static accessory devices delivered a higher amount of aerosol compared with non-antistatic accessory devices. Even though the presence of a significant difference in aerosol delivery between non-antistatic and antistatic accessory devices no significant difference was found in the ΔFEV₁ % between all accessory devices.

Comparison between traditional and nontraditional add-on devices used with pressurised metered-dose inhalers

Add-on devices that are attached to metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) were introduced to improve aerosol delivery. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of drug delivery from an MDI when attached to different add-on devices at different inhalation volumes.

The total emitted dose (TED) of salbutamol was estimated for the MDI alone and the MDI connected to five different add-on devices (Able valved holding chamber, Tips-haler valved holding chamber, Aerochamber plus flow Vu valved holding chamber, Dolphin chamber, and a handmade water bottle spacer), at inhalation flow of 28.3 L·min⁻¹ with flow volume of 1, 2 and 4 L, assuming young child (aged <6 years), old child (>6 years) and adult inhalation volumes, respectively.

The TED% ranged between 84.1% and 87.2% at all inhalation volumes from the MDI alone, which was significantly greater than all MDI add-on device combinations (p<0.05). The TED% delivered to MDI sampling apparatus by a homemade water bottle spacer and Dolphin chamber, as non-antistatic add-on devices, ranged between 30.5% and 35.3%. However, washing these non-antistatic add-on devices with a light detergent before use improved their TED to range between 47.6% and 51.2%. Non-antistatic add-on devices had significantly lower TED (p<0.05) than that delivered by most antistatic add-on devices, which ranged from 51.3% to 71.6%.

This study suggests that antistatic add-on devices delivered much more aerosol than non-antistatic add-on devices. However, it may be advised to still use a non-antistatic add-on device, for the sake of solving the coordination problem, and wash it with light detergent before use to improve TED.

Antistatic add-on devices deliver much more aerosol from MDIs than non-antistatic add-on deviceshttps://bit.ly/3gSE5aR

Spacer devices for inhaled therapy: why use them, and how?

We present an extensive review of the literature to date pertaining to the rationale for using a spacer/valved holding chamber (VHC) to deliver inhaled therapy from a pressurised, metered-dose inhaler, a discussion of how the properties of individual devices may vary according to their physical characteristics and materials of manufacture, the potential risks and benefits of ancillaries such as valves, and the evidence that they contribute tangibly to the delivery of therapy. We also reiterate practical recommendations for the correct usage and maintenance of spacers/VHCs, which we trust offer practical help and advice to patients and healthcare professionals alike.

A Rationale for Going Back to the Future: Use of Disposable Spacers for Pressurised Metered Dose Inhalers

The introduction of pressurised metered dose inhalers (MDIs) in the mid-1950s completely transformed respiratory treatment. Despite decades of availability and healthcare support and development of teaching aids and devices to promote better use, poor pMDI user technique remains a persistent issue. The main pMDI user aid is the spacer/valved holding chamber (VHC) device. Spacer/chamber features (size, shape, configuration, construction material, and hygiene considerations) can vie with clinical effectiveness (to deliver the same dose as a correctly used pMDI), user convenience, cost, and accessibility. Unsurprisingly, improvised, low-cost alternatives (plastic drink bottles, paper cups, and paper towel rolls) have been pressed into seemingly effective service. A UK law change permitting schools to hold emergency inhalers and spacers has prompted a development project to design a low-cost, user-friendly, disposable, and recyclable spacer. This paper spacer requires neither preuse priming nor washing, and has demonstrated reproducible lung delivery of salbutamol sulphate pMDI, comparable to an industry-standard VHC, an alternative paperboard VHC, and pMDI alone. This new device appears to perform better than these other VHC devices at the low flow rates thought achievable by paediatric patients. The data suggest that this disposable spacer may have a place in the single-use emergency setting.