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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:AAPS PharmSciTech 2016-12, Vol.17 (6), p.1383-1392
Main Authors: Nichols, Steven C., Mitchell, Jolyon P., Sandell, Dennis, Andersson, Patrik U., Fischer, Manfred, Howald, Markus, Pengilley, Roy, Krüger, Phillip
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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