Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Omar Ahmed Sayed, Mohamed E. A. Abdelrahim, Nabila Ibrahim Laz, Haitham Saeed
{"title":"Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery","authors":"Omar Ahmed Sayed,&nbsp;Mohamed E. A. Abdelrahim,&nbsp;Nabila Ibrahim Laz,&nbsp;Haitham Saeed","doi":"10.1208/s12249-025-03136-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Spacers, when used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), enhance aerosol drug delivery and address coordination challenges during inhalation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of emergency spacers with traditional spacers in delivering salbutamol aerosol from pMDIs. The total emitted dose (TED) and particle size distribution of salbutamol were determined using an Andersen MKII cascade impactor. The study evaluated pMDI alone and with various spacers, including traditional antistatic spacers (Able, Tips-Haler, Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, Atomizer Chamber) and emergency spacers (Plastic juice cup, MDI PLUS, Lite-Air spacer, DispozABLE spacer, and Paper sheet spacer) at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min with inhalation volumes of 2 L and 4 L, representing children (&gt; 6 years) and adults, respectively. The pMDI alone delivered the highest TED, significantly exceeding all pMDI-spacer combinations at both inhalation volumes (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001–0.033), except for the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu at 2 L. The Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu achieved significantly higher TED compared to emergency spacers and the Atomizer Chamber (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001–0.039) and was non-significantly higher than the Able and Tips-Haler spacers. It also delivered the highest fine particle dose (≤ 5 µg) and exhibited the lowest mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) with significant differences across devices. Traditional spacers, particularly the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, demonstrated superior performance in TED and aerodynamic particle size distribution. However, emergency spacers remain viable alternatives in urgent situations due to their acceptable delivery efficiency.</p><h3>Graphical Abstract</h3>\n<div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":6925,"journal":{"name":"AAPS PharmSciTech","volume":"26 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1208/s12249-025-03136-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS PharmSciTech","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1208/s12249-025-03136-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Spacers, when used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), enhance aerosol drug delivery and address coordination challenges during inhalation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of emergency spacers with traditional spacers in delivering salbutamol aerosol from pMDIs. The total emitted dose (TED) and particle size distribution of salbutamol were determined using an Andersen MKII cascade impactor. The study evaluated pMDI alone and with various spacers, including traditional antistatic spacers (Able, Tips-Haler, Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, Atomizer Chamber) and emergency spacers (Plastic juice cup, MDI PLUS, Lite-Air spacer, DispozABLE spacer, and Paper sheet spacer) at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min with inhalation volumes of 2 L and 4 L, representing children (> 6 years) and adults, respectively. The pMDI alone delivered the highest TED, significantly exceeding all pMDI-spacer combinations at both inhalation volumes (P < 0.001–0.033), except for the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu at 2 L. The Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu achieved significantly higher TED compared to emergency spacers and the Atomizer Chamber (P < 0.001–0.039) and was non-significantly higher than the Able and Tips-Haler spacers. It also delivered the highest fine particle dose (≤ 5 µg) and exhibited the lowest mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) with significant differences across devices. Traditional spacers, particularly the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, demonstrated superior performance in TED and aerodynamic particle size distribution. However, emergency spacers remain viable alternatives in urgent situations due to their acceptable delivery efficiency.

Graphical Abstract

评估紧急隔离与传统隔离,一个体外模型的气溶胶输送
当与加压计量吸入器(pmdi)一起使用时,间隔器可以增强气溶胶给药并解决吸入过程中的协调问题。本研究旨在比较紧急隔离剂与传统隔离剂从pmdi输送沙丁胺醇气雾剂的效果。使用Andersen MKII级联冲击器测定沙丁胺醇的总发射剂量(TED)和粒径分布。本研究评估了pMDI单独使用和使用各种隔离剂,包括传统的防静电隔离剂(Able、tip - haler、Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu、Atomizer Chamber)和紧急隔离剂(塑料果汁杯、MDI Plus、Lite-Air隔离剂、dispoable隔离剂、Paper sheet隔离剂),吸入量分别为2l /min,流速为28.3 L/min,分别代表儿童(6岁)和成人(4l)。pMDI单独提供了最高的TED,在两种吸入体积(P < 0.001-0.033)上都显著超过了所有pMDI-间隔器组合,除了2 l的Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu,与紧急间隔器和雾化器腔(P < 0.001-0.039)相比,Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu获得了显著更高的TED,但与Able和Tips-Haler间隔器相比,没有显著性提高。它还提供了最高的细颗粒剂量(≤5µg),并表现出最低的质量中位气动直径(MMAD),在不同设备之间存在显著差异。传统的隔离器,特别是Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu,在TED和空气动力学粒度分布方面表现出了卓越的性能。然而,紧急间隔器由于其可接受的交付效率,在紧急情况下仍然是可行的替代方案。图形抽象
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS PharmSciTech
AAPS PharmSciTech 医学-药学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
3.00%
发文量
264
审稿时长
2.4 months
期刊介绍: AAPS PharmSciTech is a peer-reviewed, online-only journal committed to serving those pharmaceutical scientists and engineers interested in the research, development, and evaluation of pharmaceutical dosage forms and delivery systems, including drugs derived from biotechnology and the manufacturing science pertaining to the commercialization of such dosage forms. Because of its electronic nature, AAPS PharmSciTech aspires to utilize evolving electronic technology to enable faster and diverse mechanisms of information delivery to its readership. Submission of uninvited expert reviews and research articles are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信