Loading…
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)
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...
Saved in:
Published in: | AAPS PharmSciTech 2016-12, Vol.17 (6), p.1383-1392 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053 |
container_end_page | 1392 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1383 |
container_title | AAPS PharmSciTech |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Nichols, Steven C. Mitchell, Jolyon P. Sandell, Dennis Andersson, Patrik U. Fischer, Manfred Howald, Markus Pengilley, Roy Krüger, Phillip |
description | 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 FPD
PIM
were made by each organization using either the full-resolution Andersen 8-stage non-viable impactor (ACI) or Next Generation Impactor (NGI). FPD
AIM
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 FPD
AIM
varied from 4.4 to 5.0 μm aerodynamic diameter, depending upon flow rate and AIM apparatus; the corresponding size limit for FPD
PIM
was fixed at 5 μm in accordance with the European Pharmacopoeia. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio [FPD
AIM
/FPD
PIM
], 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1208/s12249-015-0476-9 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1841139421</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1841139421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcmO1DAQhiMEYhZ4AC6ojsMh4CUrt1bTNC3NaFps16jilOmMnDh4QeoH4_3Gox4QJ04uub7_k60_y15x9pYL1rzzXIiizRkvc1bUVd4-yc55KVnetlI8_Wc-yy68v2NMSN7K59mZqOpKSNmcZ79XcBNNGHODvXUYrDvCOMP3MTgLX0IcjhAsrO20oCP4gAFBOzvBqu8d_Rox0AA4D7A_oJtQ2YVGNLBLuEouuCH00dFEc_Cg08WtQ2OOsJsPaFJ07-wQVfDvAeEzLdYFsBrCgWATXZLhDCty1lsDW2fjAleb_Wr75kX2TKPx9PLxvMy-fdx8XX_Kr2-3u_XqOleyqUOuNBuE6FvRKJJDLRXquu-LWlLRt7yvmUCNlWrKquh1gokGptumLLAsWcNKeZldnbyLsz8j-dBNo1dkDM5ko-94U3Au20LwhPITqtJzvSPdLW6c0B07zrqHtrpTW11qq3toq2tT5vWjPvYTDX8Tf-pJgDgBPq3mH-S6OxvdnL78H-s9lNaiVQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1841139421</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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)</title><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Nichols, Steven C. ; Mitchell, Jolyon P. ; Sandell, Dennis ; Andersson, Patrik U. ; Fischer, Manfred ; Howald, Markus ; Pengilley, Roy ; Krüger, Phillip</creator><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Steven C. ; Mitchell, Jolyon P. ; Sandell, Dennis ; Andersson, Patrik U. ; Fischer, Manfred ; Howald, Markus ; Pengilley, Roy ; Krüger, Phillip</creatorcontrib><description>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 FPD
PIM
were made by each organization using either the full-resolution Andersen 8-stage non-viable impactor (ACI) or Next Generation Impactor (NGI). FPD
AIM
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 FPD
AIM
varied from 4.4 to 5.0 μm aerodynamic diameter, depending upon flow rate and AIM apparatus; the corresponding size limit for FPD
PIM
was fixed at 5 μm in accordance with the European Pharmacopoeia. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio [FPD
AIM
/FPD
PIM
], 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1530-9932</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-9932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1208/s12249-015-0476-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26762338</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Administration, Inhalation ; Aerosols - administration & dosage ; Aerosols - chemistry ; Biochemistry ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Biotechnology ; Dry Powder Inhalers - methods ; Equipment Design ; Materials Testing ; Metered Dose Inhalers ; Particle Size ; Pharmacology/Toxicology ; Pharmacy ; Research Article ; Technology, Pharmaceutical - methods</subject><ispartof>AAPS PharmSciTech, 2016-12, Vol.17 (6), p.1383-1392</ispartof><rights>American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26762338$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Steven C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Jolyon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandell, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersson, Patrik U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howald, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pengilley, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krüger, Phillip</creatorcontrib><title>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)</title><title>AAPS PharmSciTech</title><addtitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</addtitle><addtitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</addtitle><description>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 FPD
PIM
were made by each organization using either the full-resolution Andersen 8-stage non-viable impactor (ACI) or Next Generation Impactor (NGI). FPD
AIM
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 FPD
AIM
varied from 4.4 to 5.0 μm aerodynamic diameter, depending upon flow rate and AIM apparatus; the corresponding size limit for FPD
PIM
was fixed at 5 μm in accordance with the European Pharmacopoeia. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio [FPD
AIM
/FPD
PIM
], 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.</description><subject>Administration, Inhalation</subject><subject>Aerosols - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Aerosols - chemistry</subject><subject>Biochemistry</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Dry Powder Inhalers - methods</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Metered Dose Inhalers</subject><subject>Particle Size</subject><subject>Pharmacology/Toxicology</subject><subject>Pharmacy</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Technology, Pharmaceutical - methods</subject><issn>1530-9932</issn><issn>1530-9932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kcmO1DAQhiMEYhZ4AC6ojsMh4CUrt1bTNC3NaFps16jilOmMnDh4QeoH4_3Gox4QJ04uub7_k60_y15x9pYL1rzzXIiizRkvc1bUVd4-yc55KVnetlI8_Wc-yy68v2NMSN7K59mZqOpKSNmcZ79XcBNNGHODvXUYrDvCOMP3MTgLX0IcjhAsrO20oCP4gAFBOzvBqu8d_Rox0AA4D7A_oJtQ2YVGNLBLuEouuCH00dFEc_Cg08WtQ2OOsJsPaFJ07-wQVfDvAeEzLdYFsBrCgWATXZLhDCty1lsDW2fjAleb_Wr75kX2TKPx9PLxvMy-fdx8XX_Kr2-3u_XqOleyqUOuNBuE6FvRKJJDLRXquu-LWlLRt7yvmUCNlWrKquh1gokGptumLLAsWcNKeZldnbyLsz8j-dBNo1dkDM5ko-94U3Au20LwhPITqtJzvSPdLW6c0B07zrqHtrpTW11qq3toq2tT5vWjPvYTDX8Tf-pJgDgBPq3mH-S6OxvdnL78H-s9lNaiVQ</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Nichols, Steven C.</creator><creator>Mitchell, Jolyon P.</creator><creator>Sandell, Dennis</creator><creator>Andersson, Patrik U.</creator><creator>Fischer, Manfred</creator><creator>Howald, Markus</creator><creator>Pengilley, Roy</creator><creator>Krüger, Phillip</creator><general>Springer US</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>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)</title><author>Nichols, Steven C. ; Mitchell, Jolyon P. ; Sandell, Dennis ; Andersson, Patrik U. ; Fischer, Manfred ; Howald, Markus ; Pengilley, Roy ; Krüger, Phillip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Administration, Inhalation</topic><topic>Aerosols - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Aerosols - chemistry</topic><topic>Biochemistry</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Dry Powder Inhalers - methods</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Metered Dose Inhalers</topic><topic>Particle Size</topic><topic>Pharmacology/Toxicology</topic><topic>Pharmacy</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Technology, Pharmaceutical - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Steven C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Jolyon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandell, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersson, Patrik U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howald, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pengilley, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krüger, Phillip</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nichols, Steven C.</au><au>Mitchell, Jolyon P.</au><au>Sandell, Dennis</au><au>Andersson, Patrik U.</au><au>Fischer, Manfred</au><au>Howald, Markus</au><au>Pengilley, Roy</au><au>Krüger, Phillip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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)</atitle><jtitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</jtitle><stitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</stitle><addtitle>AAPS PharmSciTech</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1383</spage><epage>1392</epage><pages>1383-1392</pages><issn>1530-9932</issn><eissn>1530-9932</eissn><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 FPD
PIM
were made by each organization using either the full-resolution Andersen 8-stage non-viable impactor (ACI) or Next Generation Impactor (NGI). FPD
AIM
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 FPD
AIM
varied from 4.4 to 5.0 μm aerodynamic diameter, depending upon flow rate and AIM apparatus; the corresponding size limit for FPD
PIM
was fixed at 5 μm in accordance with the European Pharmacopoeia. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio [FPD
AIM
/FPD
PIM
], 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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26762338</pmid><doi>10.1208/s12249-015-0476-9</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1530-9932 |
ispartof | AAPS PharmSciTech, 2016-12, Vol.17 (6), p.1383-1392 |
issn | 1530-9932 1530-9932 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1841139421 |
source | PubMed Central(OpenAccess); Springer Nature |
subjects | Administration, Inhalation Aerosols - administration & dosage Aerosols - chemistry Biochemistry Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Biotechnology Dry Powder Inhalers - methods Equipment Design Materials Testing Metered Dose Inhalers Particle Size Pharmacology/Toxicology Pharmacy Research Article Technology, Pharmaceutical - methods |
title | 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) |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T18%3A19%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Multi-laboratory%20in%20Vitro%20Study%20to%20Compare%20Data%20from%20Abbreviated%20and%20Pharmacopeial%20Impactor%20Measurements%20for%20Orally%20Inhaled%20Products:%20a%20Report%20of%20the%20European%20Aerosol%20Group%20(EPAG)&rft.jtitle=AAPS%20PharmSciTech&rft.au=Nichols,%20Steven%20C.&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1383&rft.epage=1392&rft.pages=1383-1392&rft.issn=1530-9932&rft.eissn=1530-9932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1208/s12249-015-0476-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1841139421%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-cf0d22b928ce3d73caf7bb473e4b91b702afa6c8564bfcf0eed0f9854a5508053%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1841139421&rft_id=info:pmid/26762338&rfr_iscdi=true |