A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber for Asthma Control

Burudpakdee, Chakkarin; Kushnarev, Vladimir; Coppolo, Dominic; Suggett, Jason

doi:10.1007/s41030-017-0047-1

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used the Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® for comparison because it is commonly used. It has also been widely studied in patients of different ages, with different respiratory diseases, and whose characteristics are well known both in vitro and in vivo with different inhalers [19][20][21][22][23][24]. We found excellent agreement according to the intraclass correlation coefficient.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Comparison of bronchodilator response between Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers in patients with bronchial hyperreactivity

2023

J Clin Transl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Aerochambers are used for the administration of inhaled drugs. Dosivent ® is a previously unstudied chamber. This study aimed to validate the Dosivent ® chamber against the widely used Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® . Methods: We conducted a non-randomized, open-label, cross-over-controlled, and clinical trial (NCT05821868) in 50 patients with a known positive bronchodilator test. Bronchodilator washout was performed according to standard recommendations. Fifteen minutes after the administration of 400 µg of salbutamol with either chamber, the changes in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured. The agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis. Participants' satisfaction with the chamber was assessed with the FSI-10 questionnaire. Results: The mean participant age was 58.0 (SD = 18.5) years, half were women, and only 31 (62%) participants had an FEV1/FVC of <0.7. The median increases in FEV1 obtained with the Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® and Dosivent ® were 0.28 L (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.21 -0.38) and 0.29 L (IQR: 0.20 -0.43), respectively, and the median increases in FVC were 0.29 L (IQR: 0.19 -0.37) and 0.28 L (IQR: 0.19 -0.45). The intraclass correlation coefficient for increases in FEV1 was 0.865, and it was 0.820 for increases in FVC. The median FSI-10 questionnaire score was 42 (IQR: 37 -47) with Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® and 44 (39 -48) with Dosivent ® (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our study revealed a strong agreement between salbutamol responses when utilizing both the Dosivent ® and Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® chambers. This suggests that these devices are interchangeable and can be effectively employed in routine clinical practice. Relevance for Patients: For patients using inhaled medications, this study provides reassurance regarding the equivalence of the Dosivent ® chamber with the widely used Aerochamber Plus ® Flow-Vu ® . This provides patients with more options for device selection, potentially improving convenience and satisfaction with their inhalation therapy. Patients and healthcare providers can consider the Dosivent ® chamber as a viable alternative, which may positively impact treatment adherence and overall respiratory health management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Comparison of bronchodilator response between Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers in patients with bronchial hyperreactivity

2023

J Clin Transl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over 12 months, compared to the ‘any non-anti-static VHC’ cohort, in the AC+FV aVHC cohort the annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (defined as claims for oral corticosteroids, emergency room visits or in-patient admission for asthma) was reduced by 10% ( p = 0.067), the time to first moderate to severe exacerbation was prolonged ( p = 0.0005) and the incidences of ER visits (relative reduction 13%; p = 0.017) and hospitalizations (relative reduction 19%; p = 0.072) were reduced. 96 This study thus appears to link the in vitro VHC differences discussed earlier (such as the impact upon FPD of using untreated non-conducting VHCs) and clinical outcomes. In the light of these promising results, it is of note that compliance with spacer usage is reported to be poor, 97 , 98 which would be expected to bias towards equivalence between VHCs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…It would be of considerable interest therefore to evaluate treatment differences between the AC+FV aVHC and non-conducting VHCs in a setting in which satisfactory levels of compliance could be assured, and in a population with more frequent exacerbations, as exacerbation frequency in the primarily paediatric/adolescent population evaluated by Burudpakdee and colleagues was relatively low. 96 Under such circumstances it is plausible the differences between anti-static and non-conducting VHCs would be amplified.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dissanayake¹,

Suggett

2018

Ther Adv Respir Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valved holding chambers (VHCs) reduce the need for inhalation-actuation coordination with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), reduce oropharyngeal drug deposition and may improve lung deposition and clinical outcomes compared to pMDIs used alone. While VHCs are thus widely advocated for use in vulnerable patient groups within clinical and regulatory guidelines, there is less consensus as to whether the performance differences between different VHCs have clinical implications. This review evaluates the VHC literature, in particular the data pertaining to large- versus small-volume chambers, aerosol performance with a VHC adjunct versus a pMDI alone, charge dissipative/conducting versus non-conducting VHCs, and facemasks, to ascertain whether potentially meaningful differences between VHCs exist. Inconsistencies in the literature are examined and explained, and relationships between in vitro and in vivo data are discussed. A particular focus of this review is the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® Anti-static VHC, the most recent iteration of the AeroChamber VHC family.

show abstract

“…VHCs have been proven to improve pMDI medication delivery to the lungs, reduce oropharyngeal deposition, and help users overcome challenges in coordinating pMDI actuation with inhalation [ 8 ]. Moreover, newer VHCs with multiple advances (antistatic chamber and inhalation indicators) have been reported to improve asthma control, reduce the rate of exacerbations, and improve quality of life [ 36 , 54 ]. VHCs are not all the same, and also are not interchangeable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers found that forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increased by 21–25% when using an antistatic chamber and concluded that delivery of albuterol through an antistatic chamber provides a clinically relevant improvement in bronchodilator response during acute, reversible bronchospasm [ 35 ]. More recently, Burudpakdee et al [ 36 ] examined a retrospective study database and identified 9325 patients with asthma in each of two groups: those using a pMDI with the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber (AC-FV AVHC) and those using pMDI with any nonantistatic VHC (control group). The use of the AC-FV AVHC was associated with lower exacerbation rates, delayed time to first exacerbation, and lower exacerbation-related costs when compared to control nonantistatic VHCs.…”

Section: Valved Holding Chambers (Vhcs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing the Delivery of Inhaled Medication for Respiratory Patients: The Role of Valved Holding Chambers

McIvor

Devlin²,

Kaplan

2018

Canadian Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valved holding chambers (VHCs) have been used with pressurized metered-dose inhalers since the early 1980s. They have been shown to increase fine particle delivery to the lungs, decrease oropharyngeal deposition, and reduce side effects such as throat irritation, dysphonia, and oral candidiasis that are common with use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) alone. VHCs act as aerosol reservoirs, allowing the user to actuate the pMDI device and then inhale the medication in a two-step process that helps users overcome challenges in coordinating pMDI actuation with inhalation. The design of VHC devices can have an impact on performance. Features such as antistatic properties, effective face-to-facemask seal feedback whistles indicating correct inhalation speed, and inhalation indicators all help improve function and performance, and have been demonstrated to improve asthma control, reduce the rate of exacerbations, and improve quality of life. Not all VHCs are the same, and they are not interchangeable. Each pairing of a pMDI device plus VHC should be considered as a unique delivery system.

show abstract

A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber for Asthma Control

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of bronchodilator response between Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers in patients with bronchial hyperreactivity

Comparison of bronchodilator response between Dosivent® and Aerochamber Plus® Flow-Vu® chambers in patients with bronchial hyperreactivity

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

Optimizing the Delivery of Inhaled Medication for Respiratory Patients: The Role of Valved Holding Chambers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About