Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Department of Pharmaceutics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2019 Dec;32(6):374-385. doi: 10.1089/jamp.2019.1523. Epub 2019 Aug 29.
The majority of current nasal delivery devices, commercialized for children, are developed for adults. Differences in the dose reaching the target are expected due to significant differences between the pediatric and adult nasal airway geometries and their inhalation patterns. This study aims to compare the efficacy of most common nasal drug delivery devices in terms of regional delivery of suspension and solution formulations in pediatric and adult subjects. Anatomically correct nasal models of 2-, 5-, and 50-year old subjects were developed to evaluate regional nasal delivery of suspensions of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone furoate delivered with Flonase and Flonase Sensimist™, respectively, and the delivery of an aqueous solution of a model drug, administered with MAD Nasal™. Relevant inhalation patterns were considered for each nasal airway geometry. Controlled administration methods were used, and all contributing parameters, including particle size, velocity, and plume geometry, are reported. Regional deposition patterns resulting from Flonase Sensimist™ and Flonase were not significantly different in each replica ( > 0.05), despite their different plume geometry and droplet size distributions. However, there was a significant difference in deposition of nasal sprays between the pediatric (2- and 5-year old) and adult models ( < 0.05), while no statistical differences were found between the two pediatric models ( > 0.05). The MAD atomizer resulted in different deposition patterns in all three subjects ( < 0.05). Nasal sprays are not adequate delivery devices for pediatric population, due to the narrower nasal passage and greater anterior deposition (∼60%). MAD atomizer resulted in significantly less anterior deposition (∼10%-15%) compared to the nasal pumps, but there was ∼30% run off to the throat. An platform incorporating anatomically correct nasal geometries and inhalation patterns can guide the development of age-appropriate nasal drug delivery devices.
目前大多数商业化的用于儿童的鼻腔给药装置都是为成人开发的。由于儿科和成人鼻腔气道几何形状及其吸入模式存在显著差异,预计到达目标的剂量会有所不同。本研究旨在比较最常见的鼻腔药物输送装置在儿科和成年受试者中悬浮液和溶液制剂的局部输送方面的效果。 为了评估氟替卡松丙酸酯和氟替卡松糠酸酯混悬剂分别用 Flonase 和 Flonase SensimistTM 输送以及用 MAD NasalTM 输送模型药物水溶液的局部鼻腔输送,开发了 2 岁、5 岁和 50 岁受试者的解剖学正确的鼻腔模型。考虑到每种鼻腔气道几何形状的相关吸入模式。使用了受控的给药方法,并报告了所有相关参数,包括粒径、速度和射流几何形状。尽管 Flonase SensimistTM 和 Flonase 的射流几何形状和液滴尺寸分布不同,但在每个复制品中( > 0.05),它们的局部沉积模式没有显着差异。然而,在儿科(2 岁和 5 岁)和成人模型( < 0.05)之间,鼻腔喷雾剂的沉积存在显着差异,而在两个儿科模型之间( > 0.05)没有发现统计学差异。MAD 雾化器在所有三个受试者中( < 0.05)导致不同的沉积模式。 由于鼻腔通道更窄且前沉积(∼60%)更大,鼻腔喷雾剂对于儿科人群来说不是合适的输送装置。与鼻腔泵相比,MAD 雾化器导致前沉积明显减少(∼10%-15%),但有∼30%的药物流到喉咙。一个包含解剖学正确的鼻腔几何形状和吸入模式的平台可以指导适合年龄的鼻腔药物输送装置的开发。