Valved Holding Chambers and In Vitro Metered Dose Inhaler Performance: Effects of Flow Rate and Inhalation Delay.

BACKGROUND: Multiple factors may influence the performance of a metered dose inhaler (MDI) when used with a valved holding chamber (VHC or "spacer"). METHODS: Andersen Cascade Impactor measurements were conducted for three MDI products and two different VHCs using a specially designed system that accommodated variable delay times between MDI actuation and introduction of the aerosol into the impactor, and allowed reduced flow through the VHC while the impactor was operated at 28.3 L/min. Deposited drug mass and aerodynamic particle size distribution were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods. A two-level, three-factor full-factorial design of experiments (DOE) design was applied to assess the influences of VHC type, flow rate, and inhalation delay on a total of seven performance characteristics for each MDI product. An experiment without a VHC was added to assess the influence of VHC presence. RESULTS: DOE study shows the presence and type of VHC are the major influences on emitted dose and respirable fraction. Following the VHC effect, the inhalation delay has the most significant influence on most MDI performance metrics-emitted dose, respirable particle dose and fraction (aerosols between 1.1 and 4.7 µm), and fine particle dose and fraction (aerosols under 4.7 µm). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the use of DOE analysis to effectively assess the effects of patient handling parameters (flow rate and inhalation delay) on the performance of MDI drugs when used with a VHC. The results of this study will inform Food and Drug Administration reviewers, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare practitioners as to safe and effective use of MDI products when used in conjunction with spacer devices.

Demonstrating Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Orally Inhaled Drug Products (OIPs): Workshop Summary Report.

This March 2009 Workshop Summary Report was sponsored by Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) based on a proposal by the Inhalation and Nasal Technology Focus Group (INTFG) of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Participants from the pharmaceutical industry, academia and regulatory bodies from the United States, Europe, India, and Brazil attended the workshop with the objective of presenting, reviewing, and discussing recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) that may be considered in the development of orally inhaled drug products and regulatory guidances for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (ANDAs), and postapproval changes. The workshop addressed areas related to in vitro approaches to demonstrating BE, biomarker strategies, imaging techniques, in vivo approaches to establishing local delivery equivalence and device design similarity. The workshop presented material that provided a baseline for the current understanding of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs) and identified gaps in knowledge and consensus that, if answered, might allow the design of a robust, streamlined method for the BE assessment of locally acting inhalation drugs. These included the following: (1) cascade impactor (CI) studies are not a good 2 predictor of the pulmonary dose; more detailed studies on in vitro/in vivo correlations (e.g., suitability of CI studies for assessing differences in the regional deposition) are needed; (2) there is a lack of consensus on the appropriate statistical methods for assessing in vitro results; (3) fully validated and standardized imaging methods, while capable of providing information on pulmonary dose and regional deposition, might not be applicable to the BE of inhaled products mainly due to the problems of having access to radiolabeled innovator product; (4) if alternatives to current methods for establishing local delivery BE of OIPs cannot be established, biomarkers (pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoints) with a sufficiently steep dose-response need to be identified and validated for all relevant drug classes; and (5) the utility of pharmacokinetic studies for evaluating "local pulmonary delivery" equivalence deserves more attention. A summary of action items for seminars and working groups to address these topics in the future is also presented.