In the 24 years since first being marketed, the mesh nebulizer has been developed by five main manufacturers into a viable solution for the delivery of high-value nebulized drugs. Mesh nebulizers provide increased portability, convenience and energy efficiency along with similar lung deposition and increased ease of use compared with jet nebulizers. An analysis of EU and US clinical trial databases has shown that mesh nebulizers are now preferred over jet nebulizers for clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The results show a strong preference for the use of mesh nebulizers in trials involving high cost and niche therapy areas. Built-in capability to optimize the way patients use their mesh nebulizer and manage their disease will further increase uptake. [Formula: see text].

BACKGROUND:Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) should be shaken before use to prevent creaming or sedimentation of the drugs in solution; however, data published on this topic are limited, and it is rarely specified how soon after shaking the device should be actuated. Delays between shaking and firing the pMDI have previously been shown to cause significant inhomogeneity in delivered dose. We studied the effect of various shake-fire delays on the drug delivered from five commercially available pMDIs commonly prescribed for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to assess the potential variability in delivered dose.METHODS:The pMDI formulations tested were the Flovent HFA, Ventolin Evohaler, Airomir Inhaler, and Symbicort (suspension pMDIs), and the QVAR 100 Inhaler (solution pMDI). Each pMDI was shaken for 5 seconds before attachment to a dosage unit sampling apparatus collection tube and filter, and it was actuated once with shake-fire delays of 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 seconds. Analysis of the eluates from the collection tubes and filters was performed by using high-performance liquid chromatography. Three of each pMDI were tested twice with each time delay.RESULTS:All of the suspension pMDIs produced variable amounts of drug over the shake-fire delays tested. A comparison of the delivered doses after the 0- and 60-second delays showed that the drug delivered increased for the Flovent HFA (320%), Ventolin Evohaler (346%), and Airomir Inhaler (230%) pMDIs; decreased for the Symbicort budesonide (75%) and formoterol fumarate (76%) pMDI; and remained consistent for the QVAR 100 Inhaler pMDI.CONCLUSIONS:The amount of drug delivered can vary widely over different shake-fire delays with suspension pMDIs. Therefore, guidance should be given to users/caregivers on the timing of firing after shaking their device, particularly with pediatrics, who may take time to become receptive to accepting their medication after pMDI shaking and before dose administration.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are used to treat pediatric asthma. The shaking of a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is required to ensure consistency of emitted dose. Delays between shaking and actuating the pMDI are frequent during administration of aerosols to children where a valved holding chamber is used. METHODS: In a recent clinical trial, we used a monitoring device to record shaking and actuation of the pMDI and the inhalation profiles of children with asthma while they were inhaling fluticasone hydrofluoroalkane from a valved holding chamber onto an external filter. During the procedure, in vitro and transport samples were generated without a delay between shaking and actuating the pMDI. Emitted dose, expressed as percentage of ex-actuator nominal dose, obtained from the second actuation following a recorded shake-actuation interval for subjects and from in vitro/transport samples (no delay) were compared. RESULTS: The mean emitted dose was 158.6% (95% CI 150.1–167.2%) (subjects) and 106.8% (95% CI 104.7–108.9%) (in vitro + transport) of the ex-actuator nominal dose (P < .001). The mean delay between shaking and actuating the pMDI was 12.9 s (95% CI 11.9–13.9 s) for the subject samples. A strong correlation was observed between shake and actuation delay and the emitted dose of the second actuation following the delay (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.61). A 10-, 20-, and 30-s delay resulted in an emitted dose of the second actuation following the delay of 147, 187, and 227% of the ex-actuator nominal dose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Delays between shaking and actuating a corticosteroid suspension pMDI resulted in an increase in the emitted dose of the second actuation following the delay. This can be a common occurrence when doses are administered by a caregiver to a patient via a holding chamber. This should be addressed by practitioners educating patients and parents on proper inhaler use. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01714063.)

Background To improve convenience to patients, there have been advances in the operation of nebulizers, resulting in fast treatment times and less drug lost to the environment. However, limited attention has been paid to the effects of these developments on the delivered dose (DD) and respirable delivered dose (RDD). Published pharmacopoeia and ISO testing guidelines for adult-use testing utilize a single breathing pattern, which may not be sufficient to enable effective comparisons between the devices. Materials and methods The DD of 5 mg of salbutamol sulfate into adult breathing patterns with inhalation:exhalation (I:E) ratios between 1:1 and 1:4 was determined. Droplet size was determined by laser diffraction and RDD calculated. Nine different nebulizer brands with different modes of operation (conventional, venturi, breath-enhanced, mesh, and breath-activated) were tested. Results Between the non-breath-activated nebulizers, a 2.5-fold difference in DD (~750–1,900 µg salbutamol) was found; with RDD, there was a more than fourfold difference (~210–980 µg). With increasing time spent on exhalation, there were progressive reductions in DD and RDD, with the RDD at an I:E ratio of 1:4 being as little as 40% of the dose with the 1:1 I:E ratio. The DD and RDD from the breath-activated mesh nebulizer were independent of the I:E ratio, and for the breath-activated jet nebulizer, there was less than 20% change in RDD between the I:E ratios of 1:1 and 1:4. Conclusion Comparing nebulizers using the I:E ratio recommended in the guidelines does not predict relative performance between the devices at other ratios. There was significant variance in DD or RDD between different brands of non-breath-activated nebulizer. In future, consideration should be given to revision of the test protocols included in the guidelines, to reflect more accurately the potential therapeutic dose that is delivered to a realistic spectrum of breathing patterns.

A rapid and simple reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for the quantitation of colistimethate sodium in pharmaceutical formulations has been developed. The chromatographic separation was performed using a Phenomenex Kinetex XB-C18 column with gradient elution using a mobile phase containing acetonitrile and 32mM sodium sulphate. Quantitation is based on the sum of the areas of two prominent peaks in the chromatogram, which produces a total peak area that is stable for 120 sample injections. The HPLC method was validated over the range 0.05-7mg/mL, and was shown to be suitable for the analysis of aerosolised pharmaceuticals in terms of aerosol output onto filter and for the analysis of samples from a cascade impactor, which is used for the determination of aerosol particle size.

BACKGROUND:Valved holding chambers (VHCs) are used in children to deliver pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI). In vitro data suggest that uncoordinated use decreases the amount of drug available for inhalation. We hypothesize that in an ex vivo study, the coordinated maneuver will deliver more drug than the uncoordinated one. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Thirty-two clinically stable asthmatic children, ages 5-8 years, completed the study. An aerosol filter was interposed between a small-volume nonelectrostatic VHC and a mouthpiece to capture the drug emitted by one puff of Flovent® 220 mcg during tidal breathing. Inhalation and actuation parameters were measured by an electronic monitor, and the number of breaths required to empty the VHC was calculated. Subjects completed three coordinated and three uncoordinated (actuation at the beginning of inhalation and exhalation, respectively) runs in random order. Drug content from the filter and VHC was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography and expressed as percentage of emitted dose. RESULTS:[mean (99% confidence interval)] Filter dose was higher during coordinated technique 46% (43%-50%) than during uncoordinated technique 41% (37%-44%) (p < 0.001). Peak inspiratory flow and tidal volume were 23.2 L/min (21.3-25.1 L/min) and 281 mL (251-311 mL), respectively. Subjects required three breaths to empty the VHC in 96% of the tests. CONCLUSIONS:Actuating the pMDI into a small-volume nonelectrostatic VHC during exhalation reduced by 11% the amount of fluticasone captured at the exit of the VHC. Asthmatic children (5-8 years old) need three or less breaths to empty the small-volume VHC (NCT01714063).

In creating a new medical device, ease of use is a critical requirement, assessment of which is now expected by regulatory authorities. A formative usability evaluation was performed with 16 participants (9 female, 7 male; 4 with previous nebulizer experience) aged 5 to 73 years. Data were collected based on success of the patient to perform the task and their perception of the ease of use. Table 1. Successful use of device (%); tasks with success greater than 90% with all devices not shown. With all nebulizers, users found the preparation and cleaning most difficult (Table 1). The greatest variation was with cleaning, with first attempt success ranging from 0 to 69%. The devices that were the easiest to prepare and clean received the highest scores from patients for perceived ease of use (Table 2). Ease of filling, cleaning, and reassembly are key features that increase user perception of ease of use and thus may increase compliance. The design of the prototype proved superior in most aspects to the currently commercial mesh nebulizers; users also preferred the prototype in all aspects above the other nebulizers, and changes based on user feedback were made to the final design of the device.

Mesh nebulizers are designed to generate aerosol in 1 of 2 ways, passively with a horn vibrating ultrasonically against a static mesh or actively with a mesh mounted in an ultrasonically vibrating piezo ring, and have 4 distinct advantages over jet or ultrasonic devices: they benefit from a single-pass aerosol production mechanism, there is no variability in drug delivered across the treatment due to concentration by evaporation, no increase in drug temperature during operation, and the potential for shear forces acting on the formulation during aerosol production is low. We conducted in vitro studies using 4 mesh nebulizers of both active and passive designs to test their suitability for delivering formulations with a wide range of characteristics, including polypeptides and proteins up to 150 kDa, bi- and multi-laminar liposomal formulations, non-ionic surfactant vesicles, non-water-soluble suspensions, and formulations with physicochemical parameters ranging from 1-2 mPa.s viscosity and 44-71 mN/m surface tension. Aerosols were characterized in terms of predicting the amount of active pharmaceutical component delivered into simulated tidal breathing, particle size distribution, and post-nebulization formulation integrity. Among the formulations examined, the mesh nebulizers tested did not affect physical or biologic integrity in terms of retention of enzymatic or antibiotic activities and liposomal structure, and there were no quantifiable changes to component identity after nebulization, as determined by HPLC. The use of mesh nebulizers offers the potential for successful delivery of new and increasingly complex biologics. Results from the testing of 30 formulations will be presented.

Introduction: Nebulizers are a common device choice for use when developing a new drug product, but the range of nebulizer devices available can make it difficult to select the right device. Increasingly, companies are only able to promote a drug with the device that was used during the development program; therefore, choosing the best device at an early stage is important in order to achieve commercial success. Selecting a device that is inappropriate for the intended drug can result in poor drug delivery from the nebulizer to the patient, which would have obvious implications for the development program. As device performance varies, it is important to ensure that the most appropriate device is chosen for the intended drug to ensure optimal drug delivery to the patient population.Areas covered: In this review, the types of nebulizer devices available are highlighted, and the factors that should be taken into consideration when selecting the most appropriate device for a new drug are discussed. The review is broadly divided into drug, device, patient and trial characteristics.Expert opinion: Efficient nebulizer devices that combine electronic monitoring capabilities as a form of telehealth are likely to provide superior drug delivery to patients and accurate clinical trial data. Their use in adaptive clinical trials may help to vastly reduce the time and costs associated with achieving drug approval.