scholarly journals Inappropriate Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate with Dry Powder Inhaler in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Yu Chen ◽  
Chun-Kai Huang ◽  
Hui-Chuan Peng ◽  
Chong-Jen Yu ◽  
Jung-Yien Chien
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Flow Rate ◽  
Dry Powder Inhaler ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Inspiratory Flow Rate ◽  
Dry Powder ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Peak Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate

A generic fluticasone propionate and salmeterol dry powder inhaler: Evidence of usability, function, and robustness

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald P. Tashkin ◽  
Arkady Koltun ◽  
Róisín Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Dry Powder Inhaler ◽  
Chemical Degradation ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Dry Powder ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Flow Rates

Background: A generic combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder in a premetered, multidose, nonreusable inhaler was recently approved. Objective: To assess the performance of the generic device. Methods: Findings from three studies with regard to device usability, function, and robustness were reviewed. Results: In a study to assess device function in patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device was successfully used by patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were either dry powder inhaler users or dry powder inhaler‐naive, even though they were not trained beyond being provided the instructions for use. In a study to measure inhaled flow rates generated by patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device consistently simulated the delivery of a full dose of drug, even to patients with severe respiratory disease and reduced inspiratory flow rates. Although the generic device had a slightly higher airflow resistance, this study demonstrated that this difference did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of drug delivery. Pressure drop, a key parameter that drives the fluidization and aerosolization of the powder dose, was found to be comparable between the devices. In an open-label study, the generic device met all U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifications for device robustness after 21.5 days of twice-daily dosing via oral inhalation among 111 participants with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All inhalers tested demonstrated conformity with a pharmacopeia with respect to key quality parameters (assay, delivered dose uniformity, aerodynamic size distribution). There was no evidence of chemical degradation of the active ingredients, nor of microbial or water ingress into the powder, as a result of inhaler use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document