Comparison of Three Valved Holding Chambers for the Delivery of Fluticasone Propionate–HFA to an Infant Face Model

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare three valved holding chambers (VHC) with facemasks attached. One VHC (AeroChamber Max[TM] with medium mask) was made with materials that dissipate surface electrostatic charge, and the others (OptiChamber^® Advantage and ProChamber[TM] with pediatric facemask) were made from non-conducting materials. The OptiChamber Advantage and ProChamber VHCs were each washed with an ionic detergent and drip dried before testing to minimize surface electrostatic charge. The AeroChamber Max VHCs were tested "out of the package" and also after wash, rinse, and drying. An infant face model incorporating an electrostatic filter in the oral cavity was connected to a breath simulator using a standard waveform for a small child. The fit of each VHC with facemask was demonstrated by agreement of inspiratory flow measurements between a pneumotachograph connected to the system with those set on the simulator. An HFA–fluticasone propionate metered dose inhaler (MDI; 125 µg/dose) was inserted into the VHC, two actuations were delivered, and the filters were subsequently assayed using high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). Testing and sample assay order was randomized, and HPLC assays were undertaken blinded. Drug delivery efficiency expressed as a percentage of the total dose of fluticasone propionate (250 µg) for the AeroChamber Max VHC "out-of-the-package" was 22.0(0.7)% (mean [99% CI]) and 21.2(1.5)% when pre-washed/rinsed. Results for the pre-washed ProChamber and OptiChamber Advantage VHCs were 10.2(0.55)% and 8.8(1.9)%, respectively. The more efficient delivery of medication via VHCs made from electrostatic charge dissipative materials should be considered when choosing doses for small children.