首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


A Multi-laboratory in Vitro Study to Compare Data from Abbreviated and Pharmacopeial Impactor Measurements for Orally Inhaled Products: a Report of the European Aerosol Group (EPAG)
Authors:Steven C Nichols  Jolyon P Mitchell  Dennis Sandell  Patrik U Andersson  Manfred Fischer  Markus Howald  Roy Pengilley  Phillip Krüger
Institution:1.OINDP Consultant,Rugby,UK;2.Jolyon Mitchell Inhaler Consulting Services Inc.,London,Canada;3.S5 Consulting,Blentarp,Sweden;4.AstraZeneca,Gothenburg,Sweden;5.SkyePharma,Muttenz,Switzerland;6.Zentiva Inhalationprodukte,Munich,Germany;7.Sofotec GmbH,Bad Homburg,Germany
Abstract:Fine particle dose (FPD) is a critical quality attribute for orally inhaled products (OIPs). The abbreviated impactor measurement (AIM) concept simplifies its measurement, provided there is a validated understanding of the relationship with the full resolution pharmacopoeial impactor (PIM) data for a given product. This multi-center study compared fine particle dose determined using AIM and PIM for five dry powder inhaler (DPIs) and two pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) products, one of which included a valved holding chamber (VHC). Reference measurements of FPDPIM were made by each organization using either the full-resolution Andersen 8-stage non-viable impactor (ACI) or Next Generation Impactor (NGI). FPDAIM was determined for the same OIP(s) with their choice of abbreviated impactor (fast screening impactor (FSI), fast screening Andersen (FSA), or reduced NGI (rNGI)). Each organization used its validated assay method(s) for the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) (APIs) involved. Ten replicate measurements were made by each procedure. The upper size limit for FPDAIM varied from 4.4 to 5.0 μm aerodynamic diameter, depending upon flow rate and AIM apparatus; the corresponding size limit for FPDPIM was fixed at 5 μm in accordance with the European Pharmacopoeia. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio FPDAIM/FPDPIM], expressed as a percentage, was contained in the predetermined 85–118% acceptance interval for nine of the ten comparisons of FPD. The average value of this ratio was 105% across all OIPs and apparatuses. The findings from this investigation support the equivalence of AIM and PIM for determination of FPD across a wide range of OIP platforms and measurement techniques.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号