Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 739–742 | Cite as

Comparative efficacy of different methods of nebulising terbutaline

  • J. Z. Pedersen
  • A. Bundgaard
Originals

Summary

The efficacy of terbutaline inhaled from different aerosol systems was studied in 13 adult asthmatics. Terbutaline 1 mg was delivered from a pressurised aerosol, 1 and 4 mg were inhaled from a nebuliser, 1 mg was inhaled through a pressurised aerosol with a pear-shaped, 750 ml spacer, and 1 mg was inhaled from a nebuliser with Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (I.P.P.V.). An open, randomized, cross-over design was used. The bronchodilator effect was evaluated by recording hourly flow-volume curves and the FEV1.0 for 5 h after treatment. No significant difference in bronchodilatation was observed after inhalation of 1 mg terbutaline from different aerosol systems, except following use of the nebuliser, which required approximately four times as much terbutaline to obtain the same effect as the ordinary spray.

Key words

terbutaline pressurised aerosol bronchial asthma pear-shaped extender IPPV bronchodilatation drug efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leifer KN, Wittig HJ (1975) The beta-2 sympatomimetic aerosols in the treatment of asthma. Ann Allergy 35: 69–80Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellul-Micallef R, Morén F, Wetterlin K, Hidinger KC (1980) Use of a special inhaler attachment in asthmatic children. Thorax 35: 620–623Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindgren SB, Formgren H, Morén F (1980) Improved aerosol therapy of asthma: effect of actuator tube size on drug availability. Eur J Respir Dis 61: 56–61Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomm SA, Keaney NP, Winsey NJP, Stretton TB (1980) Effect of an extention tube on the bronchodilator efficacy of terbutaline delivered from a metered dose inhaler. Thorax 35: 552–556Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang N, Levison H (1972) The effect of a nebulised bronchodilator administered with or without intermittent positive pressure breathing on ventilatory function in children with cystic fibrosis and asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 106: 867–872Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petty TL (1974) A critical look at IPPB. Chest 66: 1–3Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cayton RM, Webber B, Paterson JW, Clark LJH (1978) A comparison of salbutamol given by pressure-packed aerosol or nebulization via IPPB in acute asthma. Br J Dis Chest 72: 222–224Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman SP, Pavia D, Clarke SW (1980) Simple instructions for using pressurized aerosol bronchodilators. J Roy Soc Med 73: 776–779Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choo-Kang YFJ, Grant IWB (1975) Comparison of two methods of administering bronchodilator aerosol to asthmatic patients. Br Med J 2: 119–120Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolfsdorf J, Swift DL, Avery ME (1969) Mist tent therapy reconsidered; an evaluation of the respiratory deposition of labelled water aerosols produced by jet and ultrasonic nebulisers. Pediatrics 43: 799–808Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman SP, Pavia D, Sheahan NF, Morén F, Clarke SW (1980) Deposition of pressurized aerosols in the lung using radiolabelled particles. Thorax 35: 234Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Z. Pedersen
    • 1
  • A. Bundgaard
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Respiratory Physiology, Medical Department BRigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations