Renishkumar R Delvadia1, Xiangyin Wei2, P Worth Longest3, Jurgen Venitz2, Peter R Byron2. 1. 1 Food and Drug Administration , Rockville, Maryland. 2. 2 School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, Virginia. 3. 3 School of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The amount of drug aerosol from an inhaler that can pass through an in vitro model of the mouth and throat (MT) during a realistic breath or inhalation flow rate vs. time profile (IP) is designated the total lung dose in vitro, or TLDin vitro. This article describes a clinical study that enabled us to recommend a general method of selecting IPs for use with powder inhalers of known airflow resistance (R) provided subjects followed written instructions either alone or in combination with formal training. METHODS: In a drug-free clinical trial, inhaler-naïve, nonsmoking healthy adult human volunteers were screened for normal pulmonary function. IPs were collected from each volunteer inhaling through different air flow resistances after different levels of training. IPs were analyzed to determine the distribution of inhalation variables across the population and their dependence on training and airflow resistance. RESULTS: Equations for IP simulation are presented that describe the data including confidence limits at each resistance and training condition. Realistic IPs at upper (90%), median (50%), and lower (10%) confidence limits were functions of R and training. Peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFR) were inversely proportional to R so that if R was assigned, values for PIFR could be calculated. The time of PIFR, TPIFR, and the total inhaled volume (V) were unrelated to R, but dependent on training. Once R was assigned for a powder inhaler to be tested, a range of simulated IPs could be generated for the different training scenarios. Values for flow rate acceleration and depth of inspiration could also be varied within the population limits of TPIFR and V. CONCLUSIONS: The use of simulated IPs, in concert with realistic in vitro testing, should improve the DPI design process and the confidence with which clinical testing may be initiated for a chosen device.
BACKGROUND: The amount of drug aerosol from an inhaler that can pass through an in vitro model of the mouth and throat (MT) during a realistic breath or inhalation flow rate vs. time profile (IP) is designated the total lung dose in vitro, or TLDin vitro. This article describes a clinical study that enabled us to recommend a general method of selecting IPs for use with powder inhalers of known airflow resistance (R) provided subjects followed written instructions either alone or in combination with formal training. METHODS: In a drug-free clinical trial, inhaler-naïve, nonsmoking healthy adult human volunteers were screened for normal pulmonary function. IPs were collected from each volunteer inhaling through different air flow resistances after different levels of training. IPs were analyzed to determine the distribution of inhalation variables across the population and their dependence on training and airflow resistance. RESULTS: Equations for IP simulation are presented that describe the data including confidence limits at each resistance and training condition. Realistic IPs at upper (90%), median (50%), and lower (10%) confidence limits were functions of R and training. Peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFR) were inversely proportional to R so that if R was assigned, values for PIFR could be calculated. The time of PIFR, TPIFR, and the total inhaled volume (V) were unrelated to R, but dependent on training. Once R was assigned for a powder inhaler to be tested, a range of simulated IPs could be generated for the different training scenarios. Values for flow rate acceleration and depth of inspiration could also be varied within the population limits of TPIFR and V. CONCLUSIONS: The use of simulated IPs, in concert with realistic in vitro testing, should improve the DPI design process and the confidence with which clinical testing may be initiated for a chosen device.
Authors: M R Miller; J Hankinson; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; A Coates; R Crapo; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; R Jensen; D C Johnson; N MacIntyre; R McKay; D Navajas; O F Pedersen; R Pellegrino; G Viegi; J Wanger Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Renish R Delvadia; P Worth Longest; Michael Hindle; Peter R Byron Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.849
Authors: Peter R Byron; Michael Hindle; Carlos F Lange; P Worth Longest; Donald McRobbie; Michael J Oldham; Bo Olsson; Charles G Thiel; Herbert Wachtel; Warren H Finlay Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.849
Authors: Jiwoong Choi; Lawrence J LeBlanc; Sanghun Choi; Babak Haghighi; Eric A Hoffman; Patrick O'Shaughnessy; Sally E Wenzel; Mario Castro; Sean Fain; Nizar Jarjour; Mark L Schiebler; Loren Denlinger; Renishkumar Delvadia; Ross Walenga; Andrew Babiskin; Ching-Long Lin Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 2.849
Authors: P Worth Longest; Karl Bass; Rabijit Dutta; Vijaya Rani; Morgan L Thomas; Ahmad El-Achwah; Michael Hindle Journal: Expert Opin Drug Deliv Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 6.648
Authors: Connor Howe; Mohammad A M Momin; Karl Bass; Ghali Aladwani; Serena Bonasera; Michael Hindle; Philip Worth Longest Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Chantal Darquenne; John S Fleming; Ira Katz; Andrew R Martin; Jeffry Schroeter; Omar S Usmani; Jose Venegas; Otmar Schmid Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 2.849