This study was presented at the Drug Delivery to the Lungs Conference, 2022.

Summary:

Presented at DDL 2017 in Edinburgh

• Valved holding chambers are widely prescribed to assist patients receiving inhaled medications by avoiding losses caused by imperfect coordination of inhalation and actuation and also to reduce oropharyngeal deposition.
• Regardless of whether using a solution based formulation (like Qvar) or a suspension formulation (Flovent), the use of a valved holding chamber reduced the amount of medication deposited in the mouth (oropharynx) and increased the potential for lung delivery
• This study can be used to help demonstrate the value of using a valved holding chamber for both solution and suspension formulated metered dose inhalers and for all patient populations, including adults

This study was presented at the Drug Delivery to the Lungs, 2022.

This study was presented at the Drug Delivery to the Lungs Conference, 2022.

The FRI deposition profiles highlighted significant differences between the VHCs on test, with intrathoracic delivery for the AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* VHC system being almost double that of the other two VHC systems and being similar to the MDI alone with perfect coordination

Lab study evaluating medication delivery MDI alone vs new portable spacer  

RESULT: Portable spacer provides optimum delivery without need for inhalation coordination.

• The FRI deposition profiles highlight that the MDI/ AeroChamber Plus* Flow Vu* VHC system delivered an appreciably greater percentage of drug to the lung region than either of the two DPIs.
• The influence of inhalation flow profile was less with the MDI/VHC system and differed between the two DPIs.

RDD 2020 - E-Poster Presentation

COPD is a chronic and progressive disease that requires regular self-administration of inhaled medications. However, as the disease progresses, reduced respiratory muscle strength may prevent patients from generating sufficient inspiratory effort to effectively use dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) [1, 2]. In contrast, patients can inhale slowly or breathe tidally from a pMDI with VHC without the need to coordinate with inhaler actuation [3].

Conclusions:

The continuous involvement of patients resulted in a number of key insights that helped guide the design process, resulting in the development of a chamber that patients are much more likely to use while on-the-go.

Conclusions:

• The FRI deposition profiles highlight that the MDI/ AeroChamber Plus* Flow Vu* VHC system delivered an appreciably greater percentage of drug to the lung region than either of the two DPIs.
• The influence of inhalation flow profile was less with the MDI/VHC system and differed between the two DPIs.

Conclusions:

From a UK perspective, BUD/F delivered via an MDI + VHC offers an economic benefit for the treatment of patients with mild asthma. Further analysis is required to determine if there would be any quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) effects based on the chosen intervention.

Conclusions:

• The widely differing inspiratory flow profiles from Turbuhaler† DPI contributed to greater variability in delivered dose to the carina. 
• MDI delivery via the AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* VHC resulted in significantly increased mass to the carinal region irrespective of inhalation maneuver as well as reduced oropharyngeal deposited mass which in vivo is likely to result in reduced throat irritation or thrush in the mouth and throat.