Balancing efficacy and portability: comparative in vitro/in vivo evaluation of MDI PLUS® versus AeroChamber2go™ spacers for aerosol delivery.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY
Ahmed H M Sobh, Marwa Mohsen, Ahmed M Abdelfattah, Mohamed E A Abdelrahim, Basma M E Mohamed
{"title":"Balancing efficacy and portability: comparative <i>in vitro</i>/<i>in vivo</i> evaluation of MDI PLUS® versus AeroChamber2go™ spacers for aerosol delivery.","authors":"Ahmed H M Sobh, Marwa Mohsen, Ahmed M Abdelfattah, Mohamed E A Abdelrahim, Basma M E Mohamed","doi":"10.1080/02770903.2025.2552742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommended using spacers or valved holding chambers to counter the common problems of poor pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) technique. However, many subjects avoid using conventional spacers because they are bulky and inconvenient to carry around in public.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to compare the novel, MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup> spacer, with AeroChamber2go™ on their <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i> aerosol performance, as well as their user training requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong><i>In vitro</i>, aerosol characteristics were assessed using an Andersen cascade impactor at 28.3 L/min with Ventolin<sup>®</sup> pMDI (5 puffs, 100 µg/puff); HPLC quantified drug deposition on each stage. <i>In vivo</i>, 20 asthmatic subjects received 500 µg salbutamol via pMDI alone, and pMDI + AeroChamber2go™ or MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup>. Urine samples were collected at 30 min and cumulatively over 24 h after inhaler use, and salbutamol samples were extracted and assessed using HPLC. <i>Ex vivo</i> delivery and user inhaler mastery were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fine-particle dose increased from 94.98 µg (pMDI alone) to 128.45 µg with AeroChamber2go™ and 130.04 µg with MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup>, while the fine-particle fraction rose from 26.58% to 65.72% and 67.19%, respectively (<i>p</i> < .05). Thirty-minute urinary salbutamol excretion nearly doubled with both the MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup> and the AeroChamber2go, whereas systemic bioavailability over 24 h was significantly reduced from 143.35 µg with pMDI alone to approximately 60 µg with either device (<i>p</i> < .01). Notably, MDI PLUS required the fewest training sessions to master (1.03, <i>p</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup> and the AeroChamber2go™ significantly enhanced pulmonary delivery and reduced systemic exposure compared to pMDI alone, while MDI PLUS<sup>®</sup> might potentially show a superior ease of use. These findings support the adoption of either device to optimize inhaler therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2025.2552742","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommended using spacers or valved holding chambers to counter the common problems of poor pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) technique. However, many subjects avoid using conventional spacers because they are bulky and inconvenient to carry around in public.

Objective: We aimed to compare the novel, MDI PLUS® spacer, with AeroChamber2go™ on their in vitro and in vivo aerosol performance, as well as their user training requirements.

Methods: In vitro, aerosol characteristics were assessed using an Andersen cascade impactor at 28.3 L/min with Ventolin® pMDI (5 puffs, 100 µg/puff); HPLC quantified drug deposition on each stage. In vivo, 20 asthmatic subjects received 500 µg salbutamol via pMDI alone, and pMDI + AeroChamber2go™ or MDI PLUS®. Urine samples were collected at 30 min and cumulatively over 24 h after inhaler use, and salbutamol samples were extracted and assessed using HPLC. Ex vivo delivery and user inhaler mastery were also assessed.

Results: The fine-particle dose increased from 94.98 µg (pMDI alone) to 128.45 µg with AeroChamber2go™ and 130.04 µg with MDI PLUS®, while the fine-particle fraction rose from 26.58% to 65.72% and 67.19%, respectively (p < .05). Thirty-minute urinary salbutamol excretion nearly doubled with both the MDI PLUS® and the AeroChamber2go, whereas systemic bioavailability over 24 h was significantly reduced from 143.35 µg with pMDI alone to approximately 60 µg with either device (p < .01). Notably, MDI PLUS required the fewest training sessions to master (1.03, p < .05).

Conclusions: Both the MDI PLUS® and the AeroChamber2go™ significantly enhanced pulmonary delivery and reduced systemic exposure compared to pMDI alone, while MDI PLUS® might potentially show a superior ease of use. These findings support the adoption of either device to optimize inhaler therapy.

平衡功效和便携性:MDI PLUS®与AeroChamber2go™气溶胶输送间隔剂的体外/体内比较评估
背景:全球哮喘倡议(GINA)建议使用间隔器或带阀保持室来应对不良的加压计量吸入器(pMDI)技术的常见问题。然而,许多受试者都避免使用传统的垫片,因为它们体积庞大,不方便在公共场合携带。目的:我们旨在比较新型MDI PLUS®隔离器与AeroChamber2go™在体外和体内的气溶胶性能,以及它们的用户培训要求。方法:采用Andersen级联冲击器,以28.3 L/min的速度,用Ventolin®pMDI(5支,100µg/支)评估体外气溶胶特性;高效液相色谱法定量测定各阶段药物沉积。在体内,20名哮喘患者分别通过pMDI、pMDI + AeroChamber2go™或MDI PLUS®分别接受500µg沙丁胺醇治疗。在吸入器使用后30分钟和24小时内收集尿液样本,并提取沙丁胺醇样本并使用HPLC进行评估。体外输送和使用者吸入器掌握也进行了评估。结果:AeroChamber2go™和MDI PLUS®的细颗粒剂量分别从94.98µg (pMDI单独使用)和130.04µg增加到128.45µg,细颗粒含量分别从26.58%增加到65.72%和67.19% (p®和AeroChamber2go),而24 h的系统生物利用度则从pMDI单独使用的143.35µg显著降低到两种设备的约60µg (p p)。与单独使用pMDI相比,MDI PLUS®和AeroChamber2go™均可显著增强肺输送并减少全身暴露,而MDI PLUS®可能显示出更优越的易用性。这些发现支持采用任何一种装置来优化吸入器治疗。
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
Journal of Asthma
Journal of Asthma 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Providing an authoritative open forum on asthma and related conditions, Journal of Asthma publishes clinical research around such topics as asthma management, critical and long-term care, preventative measures, environmental counselling, and patient education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信