ArticlePharmaceutical research2025
In-vitro Evaluation of Solution Pressurised Metered Dose Inhaler Sprays with Low-GWP Propellants.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe transition from high Global Warming Potential (GWP) propellants such as HFA134a to low-GWP alternatives such as HFA152a and HFO1234ze(E) in pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) poses a number of challenges for inhaled pharmaceutical product development. Changes in chemicophysical properties will alter product performance, impacting in-vitro bioequivalence metrics. This study investigates those differences using equivalent pMDI hardware and formulations.
methodsAerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) measurements, laser diffraction and high-speed imaging were used to compare the performance of HFA134a, HFA152a and HFO1234ze(E) solution formulations of beclomethasone dipropionate. Propellant-only placebos, cosolvent-free solutions, and ethanol solutions at 8% and 15% w/w were investigated.
resultsHFA152a formulations had increased drug deposition on the actuator and throat while HFO1234ze(E) produced comparable APSD performance to HFA134a formulations. Plumes from HFA152a formulations spread more rapidly and were less stable and repeatable than those from HFA134a. HFO1234ze(E) plumes spread more slowly than HFA134a, but converged with HFA134a ex-mouthpiece. Differences between propellants were moderated by the addition of ethanol.
conclusionPlume stability is a driver of differences between formulations in the near-orifice region. Shot-to-shot repeatability differences are more pronounced ex-mouthpiece, where mixing with ambient air is dominant. Modifications to low-GWP pMDI product actuator orifice and mouthpiece geometries may provide a route to improved in-vitro product bioequivalence relative to current pMDIs. Differences between formulations are modest and may be managed through a combination of formulation, orifice and mouthpiece geometry changes. These generic formulations provide a database of benchmark data against which the performance of low-GWP products may be compared.
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.