Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2000
Reducing electrostatic charge on spacer devices and bronchodilator response.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone propionate via chambers/masks in young children.The European respiratory journal · 2012Trial
- Impact of Ethanol on Electrostatic Behaviour of Fluorocarbon Pharmaceutical Propellants.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pulmonary inhalation for disease treatment: Basic research and clinical translations.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Spacer devices for inhaled therapy: why use them, and how?ERJ open research · 2018Review
- Inhaler technique: facts and fantasies. A view from the Aerosol Drug Management Improvement Team (ADMIT).NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2016Review
- Inhalation drug delivery devices: technology update.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Review
- Drug delivery systems in children.Paediatric drugs · 2008Article
- Effect of oropharyngeal length in drug lung delivery via suspension pressurized metered dose inhalers.Pharmaceutical research · 2006Article
- Spacer devices for metered dose inhalers.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPlastic spacers are widely used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI). Reducing electrostatic charge by washing spacers with detergent has been shown to greatly improve in vitro and in vivo drug delivery. We assessed whether this finding is associated with an improved bronchodilator response in adult asthmatics.
methodsTwenty subjects (age 18-65 years) with a known bronchodilator response inhaled in random order salbutamol from a pMDI (Ventolin) through an untreated new spacer (Volumatic) and through a detergent washed spacer. Patients received the following doses of salbutamol via pMDI at 20 min intervals: 100 microg, 100 microg, 200 microg, 400 microg, 800 microg. Spirometry, heart rate and blood pressure were checked prior to each dose and 20 min after the last dose.
resultsThere were no differences between baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) using either spacer (2.61+/-0.56 and 2.52+/-0.45 l, untreated and treated with detergent, respectively; mean +/- s.d.). The provocation dose required to cause a clinically significant improvement of 10% in FEV1 (PD10) was significantly lower when the detergent treated spacer was used (1505 +/-1335 and 430+/-732 microg, untreated and treated, respectively, P<0.002).
conclusionsWe have demonstrated an improvement in bronchodilator response, in adult asthmatics, after reducing the electrostatic charge in a spacer device by washing it with ordinary household detergent. This finding stresses the importance of an optimal choice of delivery device for asthma medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.