Comparable bronchodilation with hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol and chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC) albuterol in children with asthma.

This was an open-label, parallel group, randomized, age-stratified, multicenter study designed to compare the safety and efficacy of regular use of albuterol formulated in hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA albuterol) and albuterol formulated in chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC albuterol) in children with asthma. Children age 4-11 years using a short-acting inhaled beta2-agonist for 6 months to manage stable asthma, and with a prestudy forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) of >50% predicted after withholding short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists for at least 6 hr, an increase in FEV1 > or = 12% within 30 min after two puffs of CFC albuterol, and the capability to comply with medication withholding requirements were eligible for study entry. After screening evaluation, patients entered a minimum 7-day run-in period. On study day 1 spirometry and a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) were performed, pulse and blood pressure were measured, and patients self-administered two puffs of their randomized study drug, either HFA albuterol or CFC albuterol. Serial spirometry was performed over 6 hr after study drug dosing. Pulse and blood pressure were measured just prior to each spirometry and a 12-lead ECG was performed at 60 min postdose. Patients took two puffs of their study drug four times a day for 4 weeks. At study week 4, study day 1 procedures were repeated. Patients maintained a daily diary of morning (A.M.) and evening (P.M.) peak expiratory flow (PEF), daytime asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and study drug use. Demographics and baseline characteristics of the 63 patients randomized to HFA albuterol (33) and CFC albuterol (30) were similar. No significant differences were found between the HFA albuterol and CFC albuterol treatment groups for any of the primary or secondary FEV1 efficacy variables either at study day 1 or study week 4. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for A.M. and P.M. PEF, individual asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and rescue study drug use over the 4-week study. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups for change from predose in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 12-lead ECG intervals at either study day 1 or study week 4. Adverse event reporting was similar for the two treatment groups. In this study, with regular use of HFA albuterol in children with asthma, there was a similar safety profile and comparable bronchodilator efficacy as with CFC albuterol.

Proventil HFA prevents exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children.

Short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists used just prior to exercise are an effective method for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children. This was a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study that compared the effectiveness of albuterol formulated in hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) to albuterol formulated in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and to placebo in protecting asthmatic children age 6-11 from EIB. Patients self-administered either HFA albuterol, two different CFC albuterol products, or placebo 30 min prior to exercise challenge. Spirometry was performed predose and 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 min after the exercise challenge was completed. The smallest percent change from the predose forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) after exercise challenge was similar for the three active treatments, and each of the active treatments was significantly better than placebo. Each active treatment had significantly fewer patients unprotected from EIB (unprotected defined as having >20% fall in FEV1 after exercise challenge) than placebo. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure and electrocardiogram (ECG) intervals were similar for the three active treatments following exercise. HFA albuterol is as effective as albuterol products formulated in CFCs and more effective than placebo in protecting asthmatic children from EIB.

Protection against methacholine bronchoconstriction to assess relative potency of inhaled beta2-agonist.

The purposes of this study were to estimate the relative dose potency (RP) of two formulations of salbutamol pressurized metered-dose inhalers (Proventil-HFA and Ventolin-CFC MDIs) to protect against methacholine bronchoconstriction, to validate this method and provide recommendations. The protective effects of 100-, 200-, and 400-micrograms doses of Proventil-HFA were compared with the same doses of Ventolin-CFC in 18 adult asthmatics (mean FEV1, 92% predicted; mean baseline PC20 methacholine, 1.8 mg/ml), in a dose-level blind, balanced, eight-period, crossover, placebo-controlled study. The log-transformed PC20 values after each dose of the drugs were compared by repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A significant dose-effect was present (p < 0.0001). Using the Finney assay, the RP of Proventil-HFA compared with Ventolin-CFC was 1.08 (90% CI, 0.81-1.46) (80% power). This was also estimated using a nonlinear Emax model to validate the Finney method. The most precise estimate of RP was obtained with the comparison between 100- and 200-micrograms doses (RP, 1.00; 90% CI, 0.77-1.31). There were no adverse events resulting from the drugs or methacholine. We conclude that Proventil-HFA salbutamol is bioequivalent to Ventolin-CFC salbutamol. Bronchoprotection to methacholine is a valid method of demonstrating bioequivalence. By this method, 100- and 200-micrograms doses of salbutamol inhalations from an MDI will suffice.

Safety of long-term treatment with HFA albuterol.

BACKGROUND: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as propellants in metered-dose inhalers deplete stratospheric ozone, which results in serious public health concerns. Albuterol has been reformulated in the non-ozone-depleting propellant, hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA albuterol). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the safety of HFA albuterol to an albuterol product formulated in chlorofluorocarbon propellants (CFC albuterol) during 1 year of treatment in asthmatics. Bronchodilator efficacy of the two products was assessed as a secondary objective. METHODS: The results from two open-label, parallel-group trials of similar design in asthmatics requiring short-acting beta-agonists for symptom control were combined. Patients took two puffs bid of either HFA albuterol or CFC albuterol for 1 year. Additional puffs of study drug were allowed as needed to control asthma symptoms. Adverse events were recorded at clinic visits. Patients self-administered study drug at quarterly visits and underwent serial spirometry during a 6-h period postdose. Bronchodilator efficacy variables, based on FEV1 response to study drug, were proportion of responders, time to onset of effect, peak percent change, time to peak effect, duration of effect, and area under the curve. Differences between products and changes over time in efficacy variables were assessed using an analysis of variance model. Regression analyses with FEV1 as a covariate were performed post-hoc to analyze changes in bronchodilator efficacy over time. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for patients receiving HFA albuterol (n = 337) and CFC albuterol (n = 132). Total reported adverse events were similar for the two treatments. Differences in only four individual adverse events were noted: the HFA albuterol group reported more gastroenteritis and dizziness; the CFC albuterol group reported more epistaxis and expectoration. Adverse events attributed to study drug use were infrequent. No serious adverse events were related to study drug use. Predose FEV1 at quarterly visits increased to a small extent in both groups from month 0 to month 12. The bronchodilator efficacy of HFA albuterol was comparable to that of CFC albuterol at the quarterly visits, but decreased from baseline for both products over the 12 months of treatment. Use of inhaled corticosteroids, nasal corticosteroids, or theophylline did not explain the increase in predose FEV1 over time and did not protect patients from developing reduced bronchodilator efficacy by month 12. The change in predose FEV1 did not entirely account for the reduced bronchodilator efficacy over time. CONCLUSIONS: HFA albuterol has a safety profile similar to that of CFC albuterol during chronic, scheduled use, and both drugs are well tolerated. HFA albuterol and CFC albuterol provided comparable bronchodilator efficacy, but bronchodilator efficacy decreased for both products with 1 year of use.

Switching patients with asthma from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) albuterol to hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol.

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants deplete stratospheric ozone. Production and use of CFCs, except for certain critical exemptions, has been prohibited by the Montreal Protocol. Use of CFCs as propellants in metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) is still allowed, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is planning the transition to alternative propellants for use in MDIs. Hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA), a non-ozone-depleting propellant, has been used to reformulate albuterol (HFA albuterol). This study evaluates whether comparable safety and efficacy continues for 12 weeks after patients with asthma are switched from CFC albuterol to HFA albuterol. Patients with asthma stabilized on CFC albuterol during a 12-week safety and efficacy trial were randomized to either continue receiving CFC albuterol or to be switched to receive HFA albuterol in a yearlong safety and efficacy trial. Safety and efficacy were compared over the first 12 weeks of the yearlong trial between patients who had remained on CFC albuterol and those who had been switched to HFA albuterol. Bronchodilator efficacy was evaluated by serial spirometry for 6 hr after the patients self-administered the study drug in the clinic. Safety was assessed by measuring changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and electrocardiogram (ECG) intervals after dosing with study drug, monitoring adverse events, and performing prestudy and poststudy laboratory testing and physical examinations. No significant differences in bronchodilator efficacy between the patients continuing to receive CFC albuterol and those switched to HFA albuterol were found in the 12 weeks after the switch. No differences between the two products were found for changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and ECG intervals. Adverse event profiles were similar for the two products, except the patients remaining on CFC albuterol reported increased asthma symptoms and rhinitis significantly more often than the patients switched to HFA albuterol. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory tests or physical examinations were found in either treatment group. Patients with asthma switched from CFC albuterol to HFA albuterol receive comparable bronchodilation with a similar safety profile as those continuing to receive CFC albuterol.

Pharmacokinetic differences between chlorofluorocarbon and chlorofluorocarbon-free metered dose inhalers of beclomethasone dipropionate in adult asthmatics.

We have compared the serum pharmacokinetics of the metabolites of beclomethasone dipropionate after inhalation from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrofluoroalkane HFA-134a (HFA) formulations in asthmatic patients. Twenty-three patients completed this open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-period crossover study. Each patient received in separate periods 200 microg or 400 microg HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate, or 400 microg CFC-beclomethasone dipropionate. Venous blood samples were collected over 24 h for the determination of beclomethasone esters and beclomethasone in the serum. Significant differences in pharmacokinetics following HFA- and CFC-beclomethasone dipropionate were observed. Following a 400 microg beclomethasone dipropionate dose, the HFA formulation gave mean maximum concentrations (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) values of beclomethasone esters of 1153 pg mL(-1) and 4328 pg h mL(-1), respectively, and beclomethasone Cmax and AUC values of 69 pg mL(-1) and 682 pg h mL(-1), respectively. These values were approximately 2-3-fold those seen with the CFC formulation (beclomethasone esters Cmax and AUC of 380 pg mL(-1) and 1764 pg h mL(-1), respectively; beclomethasone Cmax and AUC of 41 pg ml(-1) and 366 pg h mL(-1), respectively). Beclomethasone esters, the major component of beclomethasone dipropionate in the serum, peaked significantly earlier for the HFA formulation (0.8 h) than for the CFC formulation (2 h). Tests for dose proportionality of beclomethasone esters pharmacokinetics following HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate showed that the two hydrofluoroalkane strengths were proportional. The more rapid and greater efficiency of systemic drug delivery of the HFA formulation compared with the CFC formulation can be explained if most of each inhalation from CFC-beclomethasone dipropionate is swallowed and absorbed orally, whereas most of each inhalation from HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate is absorbed through the lungs. There is a need for comprehensive dose-response efficacy trials, with the use of the steep portion of the dose-response relationship, to evaluate the significance of these pharmacokinetic differences.

Proventil HFA and ventolin have similar safety profiles during regular use.

OBJECTIVE: As a secondary objective to a long-term study evaluating the bronchodilator effectiveness of Proventil HFA (albuterol), to assess the safety of Proventil HFA, Ventolin, and hydrofluoroalkane 134a (HFA-134a) placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of asthmatics requiring inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilators for symptom control. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, or HFA-134a placebo, qid, for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events were reviewed at biweekly clinic visits. Between clinic visits, patients recorded morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom and nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and use of rescue beta-adrenergic bronchodilator on diary cards daily. Investigators provided a global assessment of asthma control at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Vital signs were recorded over 6 h after dosing with study drug at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Standard laboratory tests, CBC count, serum chemistries, and urinalysis were obtained at study start and end. RESULTS: Adverse event reporting rates were similar for the three treatment groups. The morning PEF tended to be lower for the Proventil HFA and Ventolin groups than the HFA-134a placebo group, but the evening PEF tended to be higher for the active treatment groups. Daytime asthma symptom scores tended to be lower (better) with active treatment than placebo, but nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores were similar for all three treatment groups. Use of Ventolin Rotacaps as rescue medication was significantly greater for the HFA-134a placebo group than the Proventil HFA and Ventolin groups. Diary card data did not change within groups over time. Investigator global assessments of asthma scores clustered between fair and good for all three treatment groups throughout the study. Changes in heart rate and BP were small after dosing with study drug and tended to be similar for the active treatments and HFA-134a placebo groups. No clinically meaningful changes in results of standard laboratory tests were found in any treatment group during this study. CONCLUSIONS: Proventil HFA had a similar safety profile as Ventolin during regular use. A dosage of 16 puffs per day of propellant HFA-134a was well tolerated by asthmatics. Regular use of either Proventil HFA or Ventolin did not cause asthma control to deteriorate.

Proventil HFA provides bronchodilation comparable to ventolin over 12 weeks of regular use in asthmatics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the bronchodilator effectiveness of albuterol reformulated in the chlorofluorocarbon-free propellant hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)134a (Proventil HFA) to that of Ventolin and HFA placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial of asthmatics requiring inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilators for symptom control. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment qid with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, or HFA-134a placebo for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, spirometry was performed predose and serially over 6 h after dosing with study drug. Bronchodilator efficacy variables, based on FEV1 response to study drug, were proportion of responders, time to onset of effect, peak percent change, time to peak effect, duration of effect, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for patients randomized to Proventil HFA (193), Ventolin (186), and HFA-134a placebo (186). No significant differences were found between the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups for any FEV1 efficacy variable, either predose or during 6 h of serial spirometry, at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. For all efficacy variables, except time to onset of effect, the Proventil HFA and Ventolin results were significantly greater than placebo. Time to onset of effect for the HFA-134a placebo group is misleading; only 13 patients (7%) were found to be responders in the intent-to-treat database. These efficacy results were found to be consistent across subgroup analyses of inhaled and nasal corticosteroid use, age (18 to 35 and 36 to 66 years), sex, race, weight (<60, 60 to 100, and >100 kg), and baseline FEV1 (< or =55% and >55% predicted). The peak FEV1 effect, duration of FEV1 effect, and AUC for FEV1 were all significantly smaller at weeks 4, 8, and 12 than week 0 for both the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Proventil HFA provided bronchodilation comparable to Ventolin and superior effects to HFA-134a placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. There was a diminution in bronchodilator response to both Proventil HFA and Ventolin after 4 weeks of use.

Cumulative dose response study comparing HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and conventional CFC albuterol in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the pending ban on chlorofluorocarbon production, the non-chlorofluorocarbon propellant 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA-134a) is being evaluated as a replacement for CFCs in metered-dose inhalers. OBJECTIVES: This cumulative dose response study compared the safety and bronchodilator efficacy of 16 cumulative inhalations of albuterol sulfate in an HFA-134a, CFC-free propellant system (108 microg of albuterol sulfate, equivalent to 90 microg of albuterol base) with that of equivalent doses of albuterol in a conventional CFC propellant system. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with at least a 12-month history of stable asthma, who were currently taken an inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilator, and who had a FEV1 between 40% and 80% of predicted, were enrolled in this randomized, modified-blind, two-period crossover study. One, 1, 2, 4, and 8 inhalations of study drug were self-administered at 30-minute intervals, resulting in 16 cumulative inhalations. Pulmonary function and safety measures were assessed after each dosing interval. RESULTS: A significant dose response was found for HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and CFC albuterol with regard to changes in FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and blood pressure after 16 cumulative inhalations. No significant differences were demonstrated between HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and CFC albuterol for any FEV1 or safety parameter at any cumulative dose level. No clinically meaningful laboratory or physical examination abnormalities were found with administration of either HFA-134a albuterol sulfate or CFC albuterol. CONCLUSIONS: HFA-134a albuterol sulfate provides bronchodilation comparable to CFC albuterol and has a similar safety profile.

Twenty-eight-day double-blind safety study of an HFA-134a inhalation aerosol system in healthy subjects.

A 28-day double-blind parallel group study has been conducted to compare the safety and tolerability of HFA-134a, a chlorofluorocarbon-free propellant in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (MDI A), with a chlorofluorocarbon propellant (MDI C). Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of the two MDIs, either four inhalations four times per day for 14 days or eight inhalations four times a day for 14 days, and were then crossed over to the alternative exposure regime with the same propellant for the next 14-day period. No clinically significant changes occurred in blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiograms, pulmonary function (FEV1, FVC, FEF25-75%), haematology or serum chemistry. One subject in the MDI A group had elevated eosinophil counts throughout the study; there were no other remarkable clinical laboratory data. Fifty six adverse events were related to the study propellants; 34 of these occurred in the MDI C group and 22 in the MDI A group. For each adverse event no statistically significant differences were detected between propellant systems or between exposure levels. The most frequent adverse event was headache, which was reported by four subjects with each propellant system. Blood samples for HFA-134a in the MDI A group were collected on day 28 to measure systemic absorption. Blood levels of HFA-134a were detected in all subjects given this propellant within 1 min post-exposure, and these levels decreased to one-tenth of the original value by 18 min after the start of exposure. The safety and tolerability of an HFA-134a chlorofluorocarbon-free system was demonstrated over 28 days of exposure in healthy subjects. These negative results are clinically important because they indicate it will be safe to proceed with the study of this chlorofluorocarbon-free system in asthmatic patients.

Systemic concentrations of salbutamol and HFA-134a after inhalation of salbutamol sulfate in a chlorofluorocarbon-free system.

The objective of this study was to determine if salbutamol was absorbed from a new salbutamol sulfate chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free metered-dose inhaler (MDI). Measurement of HFA-134a, the CFC-free propellant, was included to provide proof of delivery of this MDI. Eight healthy men received two inhalations (90 micrograms salbutamol base equivalents per inhalation ex adapter) from the CFC-free inhaler (MDI A) in period 1 and from a reference CFC inhaler (MDI V) in period 2. Eight postdose samples were collected for the determination of salbutamol serum levels over a 4-h period. Salbutamol levels were not quantifiable in most samples. Four subjects given MDI A and two given MDI V had a few transient salbutamol levels, which occurred in the first hour after dosing, within a narrow range of 1-2 ng/ml and close to the lower limit of detection (1 ng/ml). No pharmacokinetic analyses were possible. Blood samples were also collected after MDI A for propellant quantitation. HFA-134a levels were seen in all subjects, verifying absorption. We conclude that the transient salbutamol serum levels can be attributed to the two-inhalation dose and not to either propellant system.

Cumulative dose-response study of non-CFC propellant HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study compares the safety and efficacy of HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate (Airomir in the 3M CFC-free system [3M Pharmaceuticals]) and CFC 11/12 salbutamol (Ventolin [Allen & Hanburys]) in a cumulative dose-response (1, 1, 2, 4, 8 inhalations at 30-min intervals) study in asthmatic patients. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blind, two-period cross-over study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four stable mild to moderate asthmatics. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: At all cumulative inhalations, the changes in FEV1 (absolute, percent, and percent predicted) and FVC were equivalent. There was also no significant difference in heart rate, serum potassium level, BP, 12-lead ECG, Holter monitor recordings, or adverse events. Both HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate and CFC 11/12 salbutamol displayed a significant dose-response for FEV1, FEF25-75%, FVC, serum potassium, heart rate, and systolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate and CFC 11/12 salbutamol produced clinically and statistically similar airway responses and side effects. These results indicate that HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate would be a safe and effective substitute for CFC 11/12 salbutamol.

Clinical equivalence of a novel non-chlorofluorocarbon-containing salbutamol sulfate metered-dose inhaler and a conventional chlorofluorocarbon inhaler in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: New formulations of non-chlorofluorocarbon-containing propellants for pressurized metered-dose inhaler delivery systems must be developed in response to the forthcoming ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the bronchodilator effects of 100, 200, and 300 micrograms (base equivalent) of salbutamol in a novel CFC-free propellant system (Airomir in the 3M CFC-Free System; 3M Pharmaceuticals, St. Paul, Minn.; 108 micrograms of salbutamol sulfate or 90 micrograms of salbutamol base equivalent per inhalation) with that of 100 and 200 micrograms of salbutamol base in a conventional CFC propellant system (Ventolin, CFC-11/12; Allen and Hanburys, Division of Glaxo Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C.; 90 micrograms of salbutamol base per inhalation) and placebo. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with chronic, stable asthma, who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) between 50.0% and 75.0% of predicted normal value, entered this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 6-period, crossover study. FEV1 was measured before and at multiple time points (ranging from 10 to 480 minutes) after administration of one, two, and three inhalations of salbutamol/CFC-free (100, 200, and 300 micrograms); one and two inhalations of salbutamol/CFC (100 and 200 micrograms); and placebo. Safety parameters included adverse events, heart rate, blood pressure, physical examinations, electrocardiograms, and clinical laboratory tests. Parametric analysis of variance models appropriate for a 6-period crossover design were used, along with multiple comparisons according to Tukey's method. RESULTS: All active treatments produced significantly (p < 0.0001) greater bronchodilation than placebo. The bronchodilator effect, as measured by FEV1 (peak percent change, peak as a percent of predicted value, duration, and area under the curve) after two inhalations of salbutamol/CFC-free was clinically comprable to two inhalations of salbutamol/CFC, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety parameters between the two delivery systems or between different dose levels. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that salbutamol/CFC-free may offer a suitable alternative for salbutamol/CFC when the need arises to change from CFC-containing salbutamol products.

Acute safety of the CFC-free propellant HFA-134a from a pressurized metered dose inhaler.

The acute safety of the alternative chlorofluorocarbon-free (CFC-free) propellant HFA-134a from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was assessed in 12 healthy male subjects according to a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. On each of three consecutive days, cumulative doses of 1,2,4,8 and 16 inhalations were administered 30 min apart from one of three MDIs. The three MDIs contained either the HFA-134a CFC-free system without drug (HFA-Placebo), the CFC-free system with salbutamol sulphate (HFA-Salbutamol), or a conventional CFC propellant mixture without drug (CFC-Placebo). Pulmonary function (FEV1, FEF25-75%), cardiovascular performance (heart rate and blood pressure), objective tremor measurements and serum potassium were measured after each incremental dose. Similar responses for pulmonary function, cardiovascular performance, tremor and serum potassium were observed between the HFA-Placebo and CFC-Placebo groups. No statistically significant difference was seen in change from baseline of any parameter between the two propellant systems. The administration of HFA-Salbutamol produced statistically significant dose-related increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure and tremor and a significant dose-related decrease in serum potassium; these responses were expected based on cumulative doses of active drug. Blood samples for HFA-134a analysis were collected to measure systemic absorption of this propellant. Levels of HFA-134a between 200 and 700 ng.ml-1 were detected in all subjects given the CFC-free system. This study shows that acute inhalation of HFA-134a in a CFC-free system is as safe as a CFC propellant system. Salbutamol sulphate in the CFC-free system can be delivered in a dose-linear fashion, without any noticeable change in the safety profile of active drug.

A novel breath actuated device (Autohaler) consistently actuates during the early phase of inspiration.

OBJECTIVE: To establish and quantify the point during inspiration that the Autohaler (AH) inhalation system releases a metered dose of aerosol (placebo). The second objective was to determine if the Autohaler system actuates consistently, regardless of the canister life. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, two-period crossover, one-day trial. SETTING: Community based allergy and asthma clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve patients with mild to moderate asthma. RESULTS: Mean verbal training time for the AH which included the patient demonstrating their ability to correctly use the AH was approximately 6 minutes. The mean time for actuation for the AH early in its canister life ("new canister") was 195 msec compared to 205 msec for the AH late in its canister life ("old canister") (p = 0.589). This represented the early part of inspiration as patients had a mean inspiratory duration of 2231 msec for the "new" AH and 2343 msec for the "old" AH. The mean percentage of inspiration time required to actuate the "new" AH was 8.92% compared to 8.82% for the "old" AH. Patients rated the system as easier to much easier to use compared with their current standard press and breathe inhaler. CONCLUSIONS: The AH consistently actuates early during inspiration, which is considered the optimal time for drug delivery, regardless of the canister life.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of morning and evening doses of once-a-day theophylline capsules.

The objective of this study was to determine if the theophylline diurnal variation that has been observed primarily between morning and evening doses of twice-a-day products could be overcome by a once-a-day formulation. Eighteen healthy, nonsmoking, adult male subjects were given 900-mg theophylline doses as three 300-mg once-a-day theophylline capsules in the morning or evening for 5 days in a single-blind fashion. Matching placebo capsules were administered midway between each dose of active drug. Predose theophylline serum levels on day 3-6 were statistically equivalent within each treatment, indicating that approximate steady-state conditions were achieved by day 3. Mean serum level profiles over the 24-h interval following the active dose on day 5 were almost superimposable for the morning and evening treatments. All pharmacokinetic parameters were equivalent between the treatments, except for the time to peak serum level (Tmax), which was significantly shorter for the morning dose. Given the flatness of the serum level curves for both treatments, the Tmax difference was judged to be clinically unimportant. A small peak-trough level fluctuation of about 50% was seen with each treatment. We conclude that by designing a dose form in which drug release was the rate-limiting step in drug absorption, the diurnal variation commonly associated with theophylline formulations may be eliminated.

Double-blind, clinical efficacy study comparing 400 micrograms of pirbuterol versus placebo delivered by a breath-actuated aerosol inhaler.

Pirbuterol is a selective beta-2 adrenergic agonist that is indicated for the treatment of bronchospasm in patients with asthma. Traditionally, the most common form of administration of the beta-2 agonist is by inhalation from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. The purpose of this study was to compare the bronchodilator efficacy and safety of two inhalations (400 micrograms) of pirbuterol delivered by a breath-actuated aerosol (BAA) with that of two inhalations of a matching placebo. Patients were studied on each of two study days with a baseline electrocardiogram and sequential pulmonary function testing for 6 hr. Fourteen patients completed the study. The mean age was 32 years, with a range of 21-56 years. Most of these individuals had had asthma for more than 5 years. The mean percent increase in FEV1 was 41.2% for pirbuterol compared to 25.4% for placebo (p = 0.0038). The duration of improvement of > 15% over baseline was 4.5 hr for the pirbuterol group compared to 1.8 hr for the placebo group (p = 0.0022). There was no difference between the groups with respect to onset of action or time to reach peak effect. There was no significant difference between treatments with respect to any cardiovascular parameter. We conclude that pirbuterol in the BAA device produced significantly more bronchodilatation than did placebo with respect to its peak effect, duration of effect, and percentage change from baseline. Therefore, we feel that pirbuterol administered through the BAA device is a safe, effective means of treating both acute and chronic asthma.

Comparative absorption of atropine from a metered-dose inhaler and an intramuscular injection.

The inhalation of atropine sulfate from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler was investigated in a nonrandomized four-period rising-dose study. Eight healthy, nonsmoking subjects received 1.7, 3.4, and 5.2 mg of atropine sulfate by inhalation and 1.67 mg of atropine free base (equivalent to 2 mg of atropine sulfate) by intramuscular (i.m.) injection. Serum atropine sulfate concentrations were measured over a 24-h period by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Mean serum concentrations increased nonproportionally as the inhaled dose increased. Mean peak concentrations were 4.9, 6.1, and 7.9 ng/ml for the inhaled doses and 8.4 ng/ml for the i.m. dose. Typical anticholinergic effects were seen after all doses.

Effect of food on salsalate absorption.

To assess the effect of food on salsalate absorption, single 1500-mg oral doses of salsalate were administered to 17 men under fasted and fed conditions according to a randomized open-label crossover design. A 7-day washout separated treatment periods. Blood samples were drawn throughout the 48-h period following dose administration and the resulting plasma samples assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for unchanged drug, salsalate, and the major metabolite, salicylic acid. When results for the fasted and fed treatments were compared, no significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetic parameters for the major metabolite salicylic acid or in the extent of absorption of unchanged drug; however, the rate of salsalate absorption was affected. Although the time-to-peak for salsalate was significantly delayed by approximately 1 h in the presence of food, the peak level was not significantly affected. The lack of difference between the two treatments for the therapeutic moiety, salicylic acid, indicates a lack of a significant food effect on single doses of salsalate.