Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
2248625
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
In vitro comparison of two delivery devices for administering formoterol: Foradil (R) P and formoterol ratiopharm single-dose capsule inhaler
Author(s)
Criee, CP; Meyer, T; Petro, W; Sommerer, K; Zeising, P
Year
2006
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Journal of Aerosol Medicine
ISSN:
0894-2684
EISSN:
1557-9026
Volume
19
Issue
4
Page Numbers
466-472
Language
English
PMID
17196075
DOI
10.1089/jam.2006.19.466
Web of Science Id
WOS:000243413300005
Abstract
Formoterol, a long-acting beta (2)-agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation, is available in various delivery devices. However, differences in the size and uniformity of drug particles generated by different devices may result in variable clinical effects. The present study compared in vitro the aerodynamic particle size distribution, emitted dose and device resistance of formoterol delivered via Foradil Aerolizer (Foradil P) with those a non-proprietary single-dose capsule inhaler (ratiopharm), using an 8-stage Andersen Cascade Impactor set at a flow of 60 L/min. Relative to the formoterol ratiopharm capsule inhaler, Foradil Aerolizer produced particles with a smaller mass median aerodynamic diameter (3.5 vs. 4.1 microm, p = 0.018) and a smaller measured particle diameter distribution (geometric standard deviation 2.2 vs. 2.5, p = 0.048). The Foradil Aerolizer produced a 44% higher fine particle dose than the single-dose capsule inhaler (2.6 vs. 1.8 microg, p = 0.0001). Although the single-dose capsule inhaler produced a higher total emitted dose than that from Foradil Aerolizer (11.2 vs. 10.0 microg, p = 0.155, not significant), the respirable fraction from Foradil Aerolizer was 58% higher (25.7 vs. 16.3%, p = 2 x 10(8)). Both devices had a similarly low airflow resistance. These relative particle size profiles suggest that the Aerolizer may provide a more clinically effective delivery of formoterol to the lungs at the high inspiratory flows such as are typically achieved using this device.
Keywords
aerolizer; airflow resistance; Andersen Cascade Impactor; formoterol; lung deposition; particle size; ratiopharm single-dose capsule inhaler
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity