Ilowite J S, Baskin M I, Sheetz M S, Abd A G
Pulmonary Division, St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York.
Chest. 1991 May;99(5):1139-44. doi: 10.1378/chest.99.5.1139.
Aerosolized pentamidine has gained acceptance as a form of treatment for the prevention of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. However, different studies have used different delivery systems, making comparison of results difficult. This study was designed to determine the dose to the lung, regional distribution, extrapulmonary deposition, and side effects using four different delivery systems: the Respirgard II, the Aero Tech II, the Portasonic, and the Fisoneb. Ten homosexual subjects who were infected with HIV virus were studied. Particle size, as determined by cascade impaction, varied among nebulizers. Mass median aerodynamic diameter was 0.90 mu for the Respirgard II, 1.30 mu for the Aero Tech II, 1.40 mu for the Portasonic, and 3.90 mu for the Fisoneb. Subjects inhaled a solution containing 60 mg pentamidine in 3 ml of sterile water, and 1 ml of 99mTc bound to human serum albumin for each nebulizer system. Regional distribution was determined by comparing each deposition scan obtained by a posteriorly positioned gamma camera to the subjects' equilibrium xeon scan. The deposition scan was used to quantitate lung dose and extrapulmonary deposition. Marked differences were seen among delivery systems. Dose to the lung varied fivefold. The deposition in the lung, expressed as a percentage of the amount placed in the nebulizer, was 5.3 percent in the Respirgard II, 15.7 percent in the Aero Tech II, 17.30 percent in the Portasonic, and 26.4 percent in the Fisoneb (p less than 0.0001 by ANOVA). Wide differences in extrapulmonary deposition and side effects were noted among nebulizers (Fisoneb greater than Portasonic, Aero Tech II greater than Respirgard II). Regional distribution in the lung as measured by the AI, also showed differences, with the Respirgard having the most homogeneous distribution of aerosol (Respirgard greater than Portasonic, Aero Tech greater than Fisoneb). Regional distribution and extrapulmonary deposition varied in a manner consistent with the particle size of the nebulizers. These data should provide a framework for the comparison and design of future clinical studies using these delivery systems.
雾化喷他脒已被认可为预防卡氏肺孢子虫肺炎的一种治疗方式。然而,不同的研究采用了不同的给药系统,使得结果比较变得困难。本研究旨在使用四种不同的给药系统:Respirgard II、Aero Tech II、Portasonic和Fisoneb,来确定肺部剂量、区域分布、肺外沉积以及副作用。对10名感染了HIV病毒的同性恋受试者进行了研究。通过多级冲击法测定的颗粒大小在不同雾化器之间有所不同。Respirgard II的质量中位空气动力学直径为0.90微米,Aero Tech II为1.30微米,Portasonic为1.40微米,Fisoneb为3.90微米。受试者吸入一种溶液,其中每种雾化器系统含有3毫升无菌水中的60毫克喷他脒以及1毫升与人类血清白蛋白结合的99mTc。通过将后置γ相机获得的每次沉积扫描与受试者的平衡氙扫描进行比较来确定区域分布。沉积扫描用于定量肺部剂量和肺外沉积。不同给药系统之间存在显著差异。肺部剂量相差五倍。以放入雾化器中的量的百分比表示的肺部沉积,Respirgard II中为5.3%,Aero Tech II中为15.7%,Portasonic中为17.30%,Fisoneb中为26.4%(方差分析p<0.0001)。不同雾化器之间在肺外沉积和副作用方面存在很大差异(Fisoneb大于Portasonic,Aero Tech II大于Respirgard II)。通过AI测量的肺部区域分布也显示出差异,Respirgard的气溶胶分布最均匀(Respirgard大于Portasonic,Aero Tech大于Fisoneb)。区域分布和肺外沉积的变化方式与雾化器的颗粒大小一致。这些数据应为使用这些给药系统的未来临床研究的比较和设计提供一个框架。