Abstract
Rationale: To effectively evaluate VHCs that incorporate a facemask the most appropriate method is to use a face model that includes soft tissue simulation and an anatomically realistic oro-naso-pharynx. We report a study in which several VHCs (n=3/group) intended for use with children were evaluated using the ADAM III anatomical model of a 4 year old child.
Methods: Each VHC was evaluated by breathing simulator mimicking a short coordination delay of 2s before starting to inhale, followed by tidal breathing (tidal volume=155-mL, I:E ratio=1:2, rate=25 cycles/min). The facemask of the VHC was attached to the anatomical model and the airway coupled to the breathing simulator via a filter to capture drug particles that penetrated as far as the carina. 5-actuations of fluticasone propionate (FP, Flovent 50) were delivered at 30-s intervals and recovered from specific locations in the aerosol pathway by HPLC.
Results: The distribution of FP for each VHC is summarized in the table.
Conclusions: Significantly more FP was delivered to filter/carina with the AeroChamber Plus® VHC (un-paired t-test, p < 0.001). Many factors could have accounted for this difference, such as chamber shape, material and mask seal. It is important that clinicians and pharmacists are aware that large differences in delivery efficiency may exist and therefore substitution should be avoided.
Footnotes
Cite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2019; 54: Suppl. 63, PA963.
This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).
- Copyright ©the authors 2019