Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology1998
Lung delivery of non-CFC salbutamol via small volume metal spacer and large volume plastic spacer devices compared with an open vent jet nebulizer.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a novel one-nostril mask-spacer device to evaluate airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in horses after chronic administration of albuterol.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2014Trial
- Assessment of different methods of inhalation from salbutamol metered dose inhalers by urinary drug excretion and methacholine challenge.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005Trial
- Pharmacokinetics and systemic beta2-adrenoceptor-mediated responses to inhaled salbutamol.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2001Trial
- Relative bioavailability of salbutamol to the lung following inhalation when administration is prolonged.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2000Trial
- Effect of electrostatic charge in plastic spacers on the lung delivery of HFA-salbutamol in children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 1999Trial
- Spacers and Valved Holding Chambers.Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2025Review
- Methods to identify drug deposition in the lungs following inhalation.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2001Review
- A review of the in vitro and in vivo valved holding chamber (VHC) literature with a focus on the AeroChamber Plus Flow-Vu Anti-static VHC.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the lung delivery of salbutamol from a commonly used constant output open vent jet nebuliser (Sidestream) with use of both a conventional large volume plastic spacer (Volumatic) and a novel small volume metal spacer (NebuChamber). This was assessed using the early lung absorption profile of salbutamol over the first 20 min after inhalation.
methodsTwelve healthy volunteers were studied in a randomized single (investigator) blind crossover design. Single 1200 microg nominal doses salbutamol from a CFC-free metered-dose inhaler (12 sequential 100 microg puffs of Airomir) were delivered via the Volumatic and NebuChamber spacers. A single 1200 microg nominal dose of salbutamol was given as a 4 ml fill volume from a Sidestream nebuliser with mouthpiece. Mouth rinsing was performed after each drug sequence. Plasma salbutamol was measured at 5, 10, 15 and 20 min after the last dose of each inhalation sequence, with calculation of maximal concentration (Cmax) and average concentration over 20 min (C[av]). Systemic beta2-responses were measured as plasma potassium, tremor and heart rate.
resultsBoth the Volumatic and the NebuChamber spacers produced significantly greater salbutamol concentration than the Sidestream nebuliser. For C(av) this amounted to a 7.34-fold difference (95%CI 5.31 to 9.38) between Volumatic vs Sidestream, and a 7.04-fold difference (95%CI 4.91 to 9.17) for NebuChamber vs Sidestream. Similar differences were found for the extrapulmonary beta2-responses. There were no significant differences in either salbutamol concentration or extrapulmonary beta2-responses between the Volumatic and NebuChamber spacers.
conclusionsWe found that, in vivo, both the Volumatic and the NebuChamber spacers produced seven-fold greater lung delivery of salbutamol than the Sidestream nebuliser when comparing microgram equivalent nominal doses, in terms of the early lung absorption profile.
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.