Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2002
Effect of plastic spacer handling on salbutamol lung deposition in asthmatic children.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commercial versus home-made spacers in delivering bronchodilator therapy for acute therapy in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone propionate via chambers/masks in young children.The European respiratory journal · 2012Trial
- Respirable dose delivery of fluticasone propionate from a small valved holding chamber, a compact breath actuated integrated vortex device and a metered dose inhaler.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2008Trial
- The influence of flow rate on the aerosol deposition profile and electrostatic charge of single and combination metered dose inhalers.Pharmaceutical research · 2009Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo study the effects of electrostatics in a plastic spacer on the lung deposition of salbutamol in asthmatic children.
methodsTwenty-five children (5-12 years) with mild asthma were given salbutamol hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered dose inhaler 400 micro g via a 750 ml plastic spacer on separate days. Blood samples were taken for plasma salbutamol at 5, 10, 15 and 20 min after inhalation to measure lung bioavailability as a surrogate for relative lung dose. With immediate inhalation following actuation, a new rinsed spacer (NewRinsed ) was compared with a used spacer after repeated daily use (Used ), a spacer rinsed after repeated use (UsedRinsed ) and a spacer primed with benzalkonium chloride to avoid electrostatics (Primed1). In addition, spacers were evaluated using a 15 s inhalation delay following actuation with primed (PrimedDelay) and rinsed (RinsedDelay) spacers. Data were log transformed and expressed as geometric mean fold difference for the average plasma salbutamol concentration (Cav) over 20 min.
resultsThere were significant differences (P < 0.05) in Cav (as geometric mean fold difference and 95% CI) between Primed1 vs NewRinsed 1.92 fold (95% CI 1.15, 3.20) and between Used vs NewRinsed 1.75 fold (1.11, 2.76). There were no significant differences comparing Primed1, Used or UsedRinsed. There were also significant differences (P < 0.05) between Primed1 vs PrimedDelay 2.34 fold (1.31, 4.19), or vs RinsedDelay 3.59 fold (2.15, 5.99); and for Used vs PrimedDelay 2.14 fold (1.24, 3.69), or vs RinsedDelay 3.28 fold (2.13, 5.04).
conclusionsThe relative lung dose of salbutamol from a plastic spacer may differ considerably depending on spacer handling suggesting that nonelectrostatic spacers may be the best way forward.
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.