Mucociliary Clearance Following a Next-Generation Propellant Versus Hydrofluoroalkane-134a via Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Two-Way Crossover Study in Healthy Adults.
Scott H Donaldson, Kirby L Zeman, Alan Bell, Mandeep Jassal, Hitesh Pandya, Jennifer L Bell, Margareta Puu, Magnus Aurivillius, Mehul Patel, William Bennett
{"title":"Mucociliary Clearance Following a Next-Generation Propellant Versus Hydrofluoroalkane-134a via Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Two-Way Crossover Study in Healthy Adults.","authors":"Scott H Donaldson, Kirby L Zeman, Alan Bell, Mandeep Jassal, Hitesh Pandya, Jennifer L Bell, Margareta Puu, Magnus Aurivillius, Mehul Patel, William Bennett","doi":"10.1177/19412711261470884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) are commonly used for respiratory disease treatment but contain propellants, such as hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA-134a), with global warming potential (GWP) that contribute to the climate emergency. To safeguard essential medicine access, it is crucial to transition to lower-GWP propellants, such as hydrofluoroolefin-1234ze (HFO-1234ze), which has 99% lower GWP than HFA-134a. In accordance with global regulatory requirements, this study was conducted to support the registration of pMDIs with HFO-1234ze.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, two-way crossover study assessed the effects of HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in healthy participants aged 18-60 years. Participants received six inhalations twice daily of HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a in two 7-day (+3) intervention periods separated by a 7- to 14-day washout. The primary and secondary endpoints were change from period-specific baseline in average whole lung MCC (%) through 60 minutes (MCC60) and at 3 hours (MCC3h), respectively, measured via inhalation of <sup>99m</sup>Tc-labeled colloid and gamma camera imaging. Given significant baseline variability, a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of the primary endpoint assessed change from average baseline instead of period-specific baseline MCC60. Additional safety and tolerability measures were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-five participants were screened; the Primary Analysis Set included 34 participants who completed both intervention periods. For the primary endpoint, change from period-specific baseline in MCC60 was negligible, with an estimated change (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -0.6% (-3.2%, 1.9%) for HFO-1234ze and 0.8% (-1.7%, 3.3%) for HFA-134a. The estimated least-squares mean difference (95% CI) between HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a was -1.4% (-5.8%, 2.9%). For the secondary endpoint, the estimated least-squares mean difference for change from period-specific baseline in MCC3h between HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a was -5.7% (-10.9%, -0.5%). There were no unexpected safety findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no clinically relevant impact of HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a on MCC in healthy participants.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration number: </strong>NCT05755932.</p>","PeriodicalId":14940,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery","volume":" ","pages":"19412711261470884"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19412711261470884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) are commonly used for respiratory disease treatment but contain propellants, such as hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA-134a), with global warming potential (GWP) that contribute to the climate emergency. To safeguard essential medicine access, it is crucial to transition to lower-GWP propellants, such as hydrofluoroolefin-1234ze (HFO-1234ze), which has 99% lower GWP than HFA-134a. In accordance with global regulatory requirements, this study was conducted to support the registration of pMDIs with HFO-1234ze.
Methods: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, two-way crossover study assessed the effects of HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in healthy participants aged 18-60 years. Participants received six inhalations twice daily of HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a in two 7-day (+3) intervention periods separated by a 7- to 14-day washout. The primary and secondary endpoints were change from period-specific baseline in average whole lung MCC (%) through 60 minutes (MCC60) and at 3 hours (MCC3h), respectively, measured via inhalation of 99mTc-labeled colloid and gamma camera imaging. Given significant baseline variability, a post hoc analysis of the primary endpoint assessed change from average baseline instead of period-specific baseline MCC60. Additional safety and tolerability measures were assessed.
Results: Forty-five participants were screened; the Primary Analysis Set included 34 participants who completed both intervention periods. For the primary endpoint, change from period-specific baseline in MCC60 was negligible, with an estimated change (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -0.6% (-3.2%, 1.9%) for HFO-1234ze and 0.8% (-1.7%, 3.3%) for HFA-134a. The estimated least-squares mean difference (95% CI) between HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a was -1.4% (-5.8%, 2.9%). For the secondary endpoint, the estimated least-squares mean difference for change from period-specific baseline in MCC3h between HFO-1234ze and HFA-134a was -5.7% (-10.9%, -0.5%). There were no unexpected safety findings.
Conclusion: There was no clinically relevant impact of HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a on MCC in healthy participants.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery is the only peer-reviewed journal delivering innovative, authoritative coverage of the health effects of inhaled aerosols and delivery of drugs through the pulmonary system. The Journal is a forum for leading experts, addressing novel topics such as aerosolized chemotherapy, aerosolized vaccines, methods to determine toxicities, and delivery of aerosolized drugs in the intubated patient.
Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery coverage includes:
Pulmonary drug delivery
Airway reactivity and asthma treatment
Inhalation of particles and gases in the respiratory tract
Toxic effects of inhaled agents
Aerosols as tools for studying basic physiologic phenomena.