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.

PRESENTED AT VIRTUAL ATS 2020

• Evaluations of inhaler use have demonstrated that mishandling of MDIs is commonplace.
• One of the most common errors is the failure to coordinate inhalation with actuation of the inhaler
• One of the reasons why VHCs are often prescribed, is to reduce the severity of this error
• This Functional Respiratory Imaging (FRI) based study assessed the likely severity of a short inhalation delay (from actuation) with an MDI alone and how it contrasted to the use with a VHC

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].

As current MDIs contain hydrofluorocarbon propellants, it would be beneficial to find ways to reduce carbon emissions without compromising patient safety.

This lab study investigated a way to optimize the modelled lung dose per actuation while at the same time minimizing the carbon emissions from the MDI

• 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 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

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.

Patient use & evaluations of Aerobika* device across 23 UK Centres

RESULT: Improved CAT scores, 92% patients continuing Tx, 87% HCP (very) happy.