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
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
The FRI deposition profiles highlight that the MDI/AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* VHC delivered a significantly greater percentage of drug to the lung region than either of the two DPIs, irrespective of flow rate.
This was reflected in much higher modelled oropharyngeal deposition for the two DPIs.
The influence of inhalation flow profile was significant for one of the DPIs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The most efficient and effective delivery method remains that recommended in the device IFU (one actuation inhaled at a time, as well inhalation as soon as possible after actuation)
However, this laboratory-based study has indicated that a modified common-canister protocol with an anti-static VHC as the aerosol transfer vehicle has the potential to be a viable ‘off-label’ proposition in hospital situations where there is an urgent need to conserve pMDI medication as well as avoid cross-contamination from pathogenic viruses or bacteria
