ArticleThe AAPS journal2017
The Delivery of High-Dose Dry Powder Antibiotics by a Low-Cost Generic Inhaler.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Spray-Dried Porous Particles for High Dose Delivery with a Portable Dry Powder Inhaler.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Administration of dry powders during respiratory supports.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Inhalation delivery technology for genome-editing of respiratory diseases.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021Review
- Dry powder aerosols to co-deliver antibiotics and nutrient dispersion compounds for enhanced bacterial biofilm eradication.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The routine of loading multiple capsules for delivery of high-dose antibiotics is time consuming, which may reduce patient adherence to inhaled treatment. To overcome this limitation, an investigation was carried out using four modified versions of the Aerolizer® that accommodate a size 0 capsule for delivery of high payload formulations. In some prototypes, four piercing pins of 0.6 mm each were replaced with a single centrally located 1.2-mm pin and one-third reduced air inlet of the original design. The performance of these inhalers was evaluated using spray-dried antibiotic powders with distinct morphologies: spherical particles with a highly corrugated surface (colistin and tobramycin) and needle-like particles (rifapentine). The inhalers were tested at capsule loadings of 50 mg (colistin), 30 mg (rifapentine) and 100 mg (tobramycin) using a multistage liquid impinger (MSLI) operating at 60 L/min. The device with a single pin and reduced air inlet showed a superior performance than the other prototypes in dispersing colistin and rifapentine powders, with a fine particle fraction (FPF wt% <5 μm in the aerosol) between 62 and 68%. Subsequently, an Aerolizer® with the same configuration (single pin and one-third air inlet) that accommodates a size 00 capsule was designed to increase the payload of colistin and rifapentine. The performance of the device at various inspiratory flow rates and air volumes achievable by most cystic fibrosis (CF) patients was examined at the maximum capsule loading of 100 mg. The device showed optimal performance at 45 L/min with an air volume of 1.5-2.0 L for colistin and 60 L/min with an air volume of 2.0 L for rifapentine. In conclusion, the modified size 00 Aerolizer® inhaler as a low-cost generic device demonstrated promising results for delivery of various high-dose formulations for treatment of lung infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27679516What 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.