In vitro comparison of Pulmicort Respules™ with Clenil® pro aerosol in combination with three nebulisers
A. Vaghi, E. Berg, S. Liljedahl, J. O. Svensson (Garbagnate, Italy; Lund, Sweden)
Source: Annual Congress 2002 - Asthma - Therapy and management -1
Session: Asthma - Therapy and management -1
Session type: Thematic Poster Session
Number: 376
Disease area: Airway diseases
Abstract Aim: To compare the in vitro performance of two products for nebulisation in combination with three different nebulisers: relatively small droplets (Cirrus/Pari Master) to medium (Pari LC Plus/Pari Master) to large (Clenny).Material: Pulmicort Respules™ 0.5 mg budesonide/ml (AstraZeneca) and Clenil® pro Aerosol 0.4 mg BDP (Beclometasone dipropionate)/ml (Chiesi). The nebulisers were charged with 2 ml per test and run for 5 minutes.Method: Dose-to-patient was determined according to the CEN standard, i.e. tidal volume=500 ml, 15 breaths per minute and I/E ratio=1. The dose quality was determined with the Andersen impactor at 28 l/min. The shape of the suspended particles were studied by SEM.Results: A higher fine particle dose is achieved with Pulmicort Respules. The estimated dose to the lungs for Pulmicort Respules is in the range 8-14% of nominal dose and the corresponding figures for Clenil pro Aerosol are 3-6% of nominal dose. The most probable reason for the difference is different particle size of the suspended drug in the formulations. SEM pictures are presented in the figures. Budesonide particles are small, about 2 μm in diameter in contrast to BDP, that are needle-shaped and up to about 10 μm long.
Pulmicort Respules and Clenil pro AerosolConclusion: Pulmicort Respules shows a higher fine particle dose most likely due to a more favorable particle shape and size of the suspended budesonide.
Rating:
You must login to grade this presentation.
Share or cite this content
Citations should be made in the following way:
A. Vaghi, E. Berg, S. Liljedahl, J. O. Svensson (Garbagnate, Italy; Lund, Sweden). In vitro comparison of Pulmicort Respules™ with Clenil® pro aerosol in combination with three nebulisers. Eur Respir J 2002; 20: Suppl. 38, 376
You must login to share this Presentation/Article on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or by email.
Member's Comments
Related content which might interest you:
Related content which might interest you:
Comparison of two budesonide powder inhalers, Giona Easyhaler® and Pulmicort Turbuhaler® in steroid-naive asthmatic patients Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 18: Suppl. 33, 100s Year: 2001
Flutide™ Diskus™ less consistent than Pulmicort® Turbuhaler® with respect to in vitro fine particle dose proportionality Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 18: Suppl. 33, 157s Year: 2001
Chemical compatibility of budesonide inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules™) with other nebulization products Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 18: Suppl. 33, 121s Year: 2001
Beclometasone/formoterol administered via extrafine dry powder inhaler in controlled asthmatic patients: Comparison with pMDI and beclometasone monotherapy Source: Annual Congress 2012 - Trials in asthma: asthma exacerbations and severe asthma Year: 2012
Does Clickhaler match the Turbuhaler for efficacy of inhaled budesonide? Source: Eur Respir J 2005; 26: Suppl. 49, 339s Year: 2005
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodinamic effect of AeroChamber Plus spacer on the Extrafine beclometasone dipropionate plus formoterol combination (200/6 µg) Source: Annual Congress 2010 - Drug delivery and pharmacokinetics II Year: 2010
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of budesonide administered via Clickhaler® or Turbuhaler® Source: Eur Respir J 2003; 22: Suppl. 45, 311s Year: 2003
Comparison of proficiency of pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) use with asthma control Source: Annual Congress 2008 - Recent advances in the treatment and pathogenesis of asthma Year: 2008
Bronchodilator response to salbutamol administered through metered-dose inhaler plus spacer or dry-powder inhaler in asthmatic patients Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 18: Suppl. 33, 101s Year: 2001
Efficacy, safety and cost of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler compared with budesonide plus formoterol as separate inhalers Source: Eur Respir J 2002; 20: Suppl. 38, 43s Year: 2002
Assessment of relative potency of salbutamol administered via a metered-dose inhaler plus spacer or via a dry-powder inhaler in asthma patients Source: Eur Respir J 2006; 28: Suppl. 50, 209s Year: 2006
Lung deposition of formoterol in COPD patients: comparison of formoterol HFA pMDI, and formoterol dry powder inhaler Source: Eur Respir J 2007; 30: Suppl. 51, 100s Year: 2007
Fine particle mass of salbutamol: diskus and turbuhaler in vitro compared Source: Eur Respir J 2002; 20: Suppl. 38, 499s Year: 2002
Pharmaceutical development of salmeterol HFA metered dose inhaler Source: Eur Respir J 2004; 24: Suppl. 48, 582s Year: 2004
Demonstration of therapeutic equivalence between Salmeterol/fluticasone Easyhaler and Seretide Diskus Source: International Congress 2017 – Inhalers and their use Year: 2017
Efficacy and safety of new formulation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol delivered via a HFA pMDI inhaler in patients with asthma Source: Virtual Congress 2020 – Asthma inhalers: devices and adherence studies Year: 2020
Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI) using co-suspension delivery technology compared to monocomponents and an active comparator in COPD Source: International Congress 2018 – Pharmacological management of COPD Year: 2018
The novel budesonide HFA pMDI is clinically comparable to the conventional budesonide CFC pMDI in paediatric patients with asthma Source: Eur Respir J 2005; 26: Suppl. 49, 160s Year: 2005
A comparison of the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SF) with beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) delivered via metered dose inhaler (MDI) in patients not well controlled on bronchodilators alone Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 18: Suppl. 33, 53s Year: 2001
Improved delivery of fenoterol plus ipratropium bromide using Respimat(R) compared with a conventional metered dose inhaler Source: Eur Respir J 2001; 17: 225-232 Year: 2001