AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 3296–3306 | Cite as

Discriminating Ability of Abbreviated Impactor Measurement Approach (AIM) to Detect Changes in Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD) of an Albuterol/Salbutamol pMDI Aerosol

  • J . David Christopher
  • Rajni B. Patel
  • Jolyon P. Mitchell
  • Terrence P. Tougas
  • Adrian P. Goodey
  • Jorge Quiroz
  • Patrik U. Andersson
  • Svetlana Lyapustina
Research Article
  • 100 Downloads

Abstract

This article reports on results from a two-lab, multiple impactor experiment evaluating the abbreviated impactor measurement (AIM) concept, conducted by the Cascade Impaction Working Group of the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS). The goal of this experiment was to expand understanding of the performance of an AIM-type apparatus based on the Andersen eight-stage non-viable cascade impactor (ACI) for the assessment of inhalation aerosols and sprays, compared with the full-resolution version of that impactor described in the pharmacopeial compendia. The experiment was conducted at two centers with a representative commercially available pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) containing albuterol (salbutamol) as active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). Metrics of interest were total mass (TM) emitted from the inhaler, impactor-sized mass (ISM), as well as the ratio of large particle mass (LPM) to small particle mass (SPM). ISM and the LPM/SPM ratio together comprise the efficient data analysis (EDA) metrics. The results of the comparison demonstrated that in this study, the AIM approach had adequate discrimination to detect changes in the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of the ACI-sampled aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD), and therefore could be employed for routine product quality control (QC). As with any test method considered for inclusion in a regulatory filing, the transition from an ACI (used in development) to an appropriate AIM/EDA methodology (used in QC) should be evaluated and supported by data on a product-by-product basis.

KEY WORDS

oral inhaler testing abbreviated impactor measurement mass median aerodynamic diameter efficient data analysis method sensitivity 

Abbreviations

ACI

Andersen cascade impactor (full-resolution, 8-stage)

AIM

Abbreviated impactor measurement

API

Active pharmaceutical ingredient

APSD

Aerodynamic particle size distribution

CI

Cascade impactor

EDA

Efficient data analysis

EPAG

European pharmaceutical aerosol group

FPD

Fine particle dose

IPAC-RS

International pharmaceutical aerosol consortium on regulation and science

ISM

Impactor-sized mass (i.e., API mass collected from impactor stages with a defined upper cut-off)

LPM

Large particle mass

MMAD

Mass median aerodynamic diameter

OIP

Orally inhaled product

pHRT

Potential human respiratory tract (when referring to aerosol deposition sites)

pMDI

Pressurized metered dose inhaler

QC

Quality control

RMSE/b

Root mean square error divided by slope (from regression analysis)

SPM

Small particle mass

TM

Total mass (i.e., API mass collected from actuator and all of the impactor stages)

USP

United States pharmacopeia

References

  1. 1.
    Heyder J, Svartengren MU. Basic principles of particle behavior in the human respiratory tract. In: Bisgaard H, O’Callaghan C, Smaldone GC, editors. Drug delivery to the lung. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2002. p. 21–45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    FDA, CDER. Draft guidance for industry. metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) drug products chemistry, manufacturing, and controls documentation. 1998. www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070573.pdf Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
  3. 3.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW. Cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers. Their uses and limitations. J Aerosol med. 2003;16(4):341–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marple VA, Liu BYH. Characteristics of laminar jet impactors. Environ Sci Technol. 1974;8:648–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopher D, Curry P, Doub W, Furnkranz K, Lavery M, Lin K, et al. Considerations for the development and practice of cascade impaction testing including a mass balance failure investigation tree. J Aerosol med. 2003;16(3):235–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Directorate for Quality in Medicines (EDQM). European pharmacopeia 8.0, monograph 2.9.18. Preparations for inhalations: Aerodynamic assessment of fine particles. Strasburg, France EDQM; 2014 (January).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Pharmacopeial Convention. United States Pharmacopeia 39/National Formulary 34, Chapter <601> Aerosols, nasal sprays, metered-dose inhalers, and dry powder inhalers. Rockville, MD; 2016.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell JP, Tougas T. The AIM and EDA concepts: why they are needed and how they fit together. In: Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Lyapustina SA, editors. Good cascade impactor practices, AIM and EDA for orally inhaled products. USA: Springer N.Y; 2013. p. 119–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonam M, Christopher D, Cipolla D, Donovan B, Goodwin D, Holmes S, et al. Minimizing variability of cascade impaction measurements in inhalers and nebulizers. AAPS PharmSciTechnol. 2008;9(2):404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell JP, Tougas T, Christopher JD, Lyapustina S, Glaab V. The abbreviated impactor measurement and efficient data analysis concepts: why use them and when. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Young PM, editors. Respiratory drug delivery 2012. River Grove: Davis Healthcare International; 2012. p. 731–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tougas TP, Christopher D, Mitchell JP, Strickland H, Wyka B, Van Oort M, et al. Improved quality control metrics for cascade impaction measurements of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs). AAPS PharmSciTech. 2009;10(4):1276–85.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Wiersema KJ, Doyle CC. Aerodynamic particle size analysis of aerosols from pressurized metered-dose inhalers: Comparison of Andersen 8-stage cascade impactor, Next Generation pharmaceutical Impactor, and model 3321 Aerodynamic Particle Sizer aerosol spectrometer. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2003;4(4):425–433.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell JP, Tougas T, Lyapustina S. The abbreviated impactor measurement (AIM) and effective data analysis (EDA) concepts: why they are important and how to go about working with them. Inhalation. 2012;6(6):13–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the pharmaceutical quality of inhalation and nasal products. EMEA/CHMP/QWP/49313/2005 Corr., London, UK; 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Copley M, Mitchell JP, Svensson M, Christopher JD, Quiroz J, Daniels G, et al. Validating AIM-based instrumentation and associated measurement techniques. In: Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Lyapustina SL, editors. Orally inhaled products: good cascade impaction practices, AIM and EDA. N.Y: Springer; 2013. p. 283–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Doyle C, Ali RS, Avvakoumova V, Christopher D, et al. Relative precision of inhaler aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) metrics by full-resolution and abbreviated Andersen cascade impactors (ACIs): part 1. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(2):843–51. doi:10.1208/s12249-010-9452-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Doyle C, Ali RS, Avvakoumova V, Christopher D, et al. Relative precision of inhaler aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) metrics by full-resolution and abbreviated Andersen cascade impactors (ACIs): part 2—investigation of bias in extra-fine mass fraction with AIM-HRT impactor. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(3):1115–8. doi:10.1208/s12249-010-9473-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Avvakoumova V, MacKay H, Ali R. The abbreviated impactor measurement (AIM) concept: part 1—influence of particle bounce and re-entrainment—evaluation with a “dry” pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI)-based formulation. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2009;10(1):243–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nichols S, Sandell D, Mitchell J. A multi-laboratory in vitro study to compare data from abbreviated and pharmacopeial impactor measurements for orally inhaled products: a report of the European Pharmaceutical Aerosol Group (EPAG). AAPS PharmSciTech. 2016; On-line First; doi:10.1208/S12249-015-0476-9.
  20. 20.
    Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Morgan B, Strickland H. Introduction. In: Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Lyapustina S, editors. Good cascade impactor practices, AIM and EDA for orally inhaled products. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tougas TP, Goodey AP, Hardwell G, Mitchell J, Lyapustina S. A comparison of the performance of efficient data analysis versus fine particle dose as metrics for the quality control of aerodynamic particle size distributions of orally inhaled pharmaceuticals. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2016; doi:10.1208/s12249-016-0508-0.
  22. 22.
    Christopher D, Dey M, Lyapustina S, Mitchell J, Tougas T, Van Oort M, et al. Generalized simplified approaches for MMAD determination. USP Pharm Forum. 2010;36(3):812–23.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Christopher D, Quiroz J. Statistical analysis package for the article: ‘Discriminating Ability of Abbreviated Impactor Measurement Approach (AIM) to Detect Changes in Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD) of Inhaler Aerosols’, 2016. http://ipacrs.org/assets/uploads/outputs/Statistical_Supplement_%28IPAC-RS_CIWG_2nd_Expt_Paper%29.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
  24. 24.
    IPAC-RS. Data package for the article: ‘Discriminating Ability of Abbreviated Impactor Measurement Approach (AIM) to Detect Changes in Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD) of Inhaler Aerosols’, 2016. http://ipacrs.org/assets/uploads/outputs/Data_Supplement_%28%28IPAC-RS_CIWG_2nd_Expt_Paper%29.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
  25. 25.
    Tougas T, Christopher D, Mitchell J, Lyapustina S, Van Oort M, Bauer R, et al. Product lifecycle approach to cascade impaction measurements. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2011:312–22. doi:10.1208/s12249-011-9590-5.
  26. 26.
    Mitchell JP, Christopher J, Tougas TP, Glaab V, Lyapustina S. When could efficient data analysis (EDA) fail? Theoretical considerations. RDD Europe 2011. 2011;1:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tougas TP, Mitchell JP. Theoretical basis for the EDA concept. In: Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Lyapustina S, editors. Good cascade impactor practices, AIM and EDA for orally inhaled products. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 151–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Canavos GC. Applied probability and statistical methods. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1984.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wheeler DJ, EMP III. (Evaluating the measurement process): using imperfect data. Knoxville: SPC Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    AIAG. Measurement system analysis, Reference manual, 4th Ed., Southfield, MI, USA. ISBN#: 978-1-60-534211-5. June 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montgomery D. Introduction to statistical quality control. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Christopher JD, Strickland H, Morgan B, Dey M, Silcock A, Tougas TP, et al. Performance characterization of EDA and its potential to improve decision making in product batch release. In: Tougas TP, Mitchell JP, Lyapustina S, editors. Good cascade impactor practices, AIM and EDA for orally inhaled products. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 173–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J . David Christopher
    • 1
  • Rajni B. Patel
    • 2
  • Jolyon P. Mitchell
    • 3
  • Terrence P. Tougas
    • 4
  • Adrian P. Goodey
    • 5
  • Jorge Quiroz
    • 1
  • Patrik U. Andersson
    • 6
  • Svetlana Lyapustina
    • 7
  1. 1.Research CMC StatisticsMerck Research LaboratoriesWest PointUSA
  2. 2.Independent consultantBrookfieldUSA
  3. 3.Jolyon Mitchel Inhaler Consulting Services, Inc.LondonCanada
  4. 4.Independent ConsultantNew MilfordUSA
  5. 5.Biopharmaceutics and Specialty Dosage FormsMerck & Co., Inc.RahwayUSA
  6. 6.Pharmaceutical Technology & DevelopmentAstraZenecaGothenburgSweden
  7. 7.Pharmaceutical Practice GroupDrinker Biddle & Reath LLPWashington DCUSA

Personalised recommendations