Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery
- PMID: 40379925
- DOI: 10.1208/s12249-025-03136-1
Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery
Abstract
Spacers, when used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), enhance aerosol drug delivery and address coordination challenges during inhalation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of emergency spacers with traditional spacers in delivering salbutamol aerosol from pMDIs. The total emitted dose (TED) and particle size distribution of salbutamol were determined using an Andersen MKII cascade impactor. The study evaluated pMDI alone and with various spacers, including traditional antistatic spacers (Able, Tips-Haler, Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, Atomizer Chamber) and emergency spacers (Plastic juice cup, MDI PLUS, Lite-Air spacer, DispozABLE spacer, and Paper sheet spacer) at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min with inhalation volumes of 2 L and 4 L, representing children (> 6 years) and adults, respectively. The pMDI alone delivered the highest TED, significantly exceeding all pMDI-spacer combinations at both inhalation volumes (P < 0.001-0.033), except for the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu at 2 L. The Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu achieved significantly higher TED compared to emergency spacers and the Atomizer Chamber (P < 0.001-0.039) and was non-significantly higher than the Able and Tips-Haler spacers. It also delivered the highest fine particle dose (≤ 5 µg) and exhibited the lowest mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) with significant differences across devices. Traditional spacers, particularly the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, demonstrated superior performance in TED and aerodynamic particle size distribution. However, emergency spacers remain viable alternatives in urgent situations due to their acceptable delivery efficiency.
Keywords: PMDI; aerosol delivery; emergency spacers; salbutamol; valved holding chambers.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: None.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of a cardboard-based spacer for enhancing aerosol delivery from pressurized metered dose inhalers.J Asthma. 2025 Jul;62(7):1141-1147. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2025.2463965. Epub 2025 Feb 12. J Asthma. 2025. PMID: 39907606
-
Comparative evaluation of a novel card-based spacer (MDI PLUS®) versus traditional aerochamber plus®: In-vivo and ex-vivo bioavailability study.Eur J Pharm Sci. 2025 Sep 1;212:107215. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2025.107215. Epub 2025 Jul 22. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2025. PMID: 40706768 Clinical Trial.
-
Evaluation of Disposable and Traditional Accessory Devices for Use With a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler.Respir Care. 2020 Mar;65(3):320-325. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06835. Epub 2019 Aug 27. Respir Care. 2020. PMID: 31455686
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(26):1-149. doi: 10.3310/hta5260. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701099
-
Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over.Health Technol Assess. 2008 May;12(19):iii-iv, 1-360. doi: 10.3310/hta12190. Health Technol Assess. 2008. PMID: 18485271
References
-
- Salvi S, Shevade M, Aggarwal A, Apte K, Barne M, Mohan M, et al. A practical guide on the use of inhaler devices for asthma and COPD. J Assoc Physicians India. 2021;69:8–26.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources