Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 25–33 | Cite as

In vitro Comparison of Three Salbutamol-Containing Multidose Dry Powder Inhalers

Buventol Easyhaler®, Inspiryl Turbuhaler® and Ventoline Diskus®
  • Anne Palander
  • Terhi Mattila
  • Mika Karhu
  • Esa Muttonen
Clinical Pharmacokinetics


Objective: To compare the in vitro drug delivery characteristics of three salbutamol-containing multidose dry powder inhalers, Buventol Easyhaler®, Inspiryl Turbuhaler® and Ventoline Diskus®.

Materials and Methods: Dose accuracy and consistency, fine particle dose (FPD)/fine particle fraction (FPF), and mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) [measured by Multi-Stage Liquid Impinger] were determined for each inhaler at variable airflow rates (30 and 60 L/min) and at ‘equivalent’ flow rates (corresponding to a 4kPa pressure drop).

Results: Dose accuracy and consistency (expressed as percentage of label claim) of Easyhaler® (mean 95%, SD <4.5% at 30 to 60 L/min) compared favourably with that of Turbuhaler® (mean 88%, SD 19% at 60 L/min) and Diskus® (mean 93%, SD 8% at 90 L/min). The FPF at an ‘equivalent’ flow rate was 21% for Easyhaler®, 24% for Turbuhaler® and 20% for Diskus®. The FPF of Turbuhaler® was strongly influenced by flow rate (12 to 24% at 30 to 60 L/min), whereas the FPF of Easyhaler® (16 to 23% at 30 to 60 L/min) and Diskus® (15 to 21% at 30 to 90 L/min) was less variable. MMAD values for Easyhaler® and Turbuhaler® were stable at flow rates of 30 to 60 L/min, whereas the particle size distribution for Diskus® was more dependent on flow rate. Easyhaler® had a considerably lower MMAD than Turbuhaler® at flow rates of 30 to 60 L/min.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated favourable dose delivery and consistency with Buventol Easyhaler® compared with Inspiryl Turbuhaler® and Ventoline Diskus®. Delivered dose and FPF showed less flow dependency with Easyhaler® and Diskus® than with Turbuhaler®.


  1. 1.
    Woodcock A. CFCs and inhalers. Lancet 1994; 334: 182–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Timsina MP, Martin GP, Marriott C, et al. Drug delivery to the respiratory tract using dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm 1994; 101: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vidgren M, Kärkkainen A, Karjalainen P, et al. Effect of powder inhaler design on drug deposition in the respiratory tract. Int J Pharm 1988; 42: 211–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark AR, Hollingworth AM. The relationship between powder inhaler resistance and peak inspiratory conditions in healthy volunteers: implications for in vitro testing. J Aerosol Med 1993; 6: 99–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hallworth GN, Andrews UG. Size analysis of suspension inhalation aerosols by inertial separation methods. J Pharm Pharmacol 1976; 28: 898–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickey AJ, Concessio NM, Van Oort MM, et al. Factors influencing the dispersion of dry powder as aerosols. Pharm Technol 1994; 8: 58–64Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moren F. Towards satisfactory in vitro testing requirements for single and multi-dose powder inhalers. J Pharm Sci 1992; 3: 123–9Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers DF, Ganderton D. Determining the equivalence of inhaled medications. Respir Med 1995; 89: 253–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Pharmacopoeia. 3rd ed. Supplement. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1999Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vidgren M, Silvasti M, Vidgren P, et al. Easyhaler® multiple dose powder inhaler —practical and effective alternative to the pressurized MDI. Aerosol Sci Technol 1995; 22: 335–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wetterlin K. Turbuhaler: a new powder inhaler for administration of drugs to the airways. Pharm Res 1988; 5: 506–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brindley A, Sumby BS, Smith IJ, et al. Design, manufacture and dose consistency of the Serevent Diskus inhaler. Pharm Technol Eur 1995; 7: 14–22Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persson G, Wiren JE. The bronchodilator response from inhaled terbutaline is influenced by the mass of small particles: a study on a dry powder inhaler (Turbohaler). Eur Respir J 1989; 2: 253–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palander A, Halme A, Kananen M, et al. In vitro performance of inhalers: salbutamol-containing dry powder products. J Aerosol Med 1999; 12: 113Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bisgaard H. What dose fraction represents the respirable dose? Respir Med 1997; 91Suppl. A: 20–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hill LS, Slater AL. A comparison of the performance of two modern multidose dry powder asthma inhalers. Respir Med 1998; 92: 105–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hindle M, Byron PR. Dose emissions from marketed dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm 1995; 116: 169–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malton A, Sumby BS, Smith IJ. A comparison of in vitro drug delivery from two multidose powder inhalation devices. Eur J Clin Res 1995; 7: 177–93Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prime D, Slater AL, Haywood PA, et al. Assessing dose delivery from the Flixotide Diskus inhaler —a multidose powder inhaler. Pharm Technol Eur 1996; 8: 23–8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steckel H, Müller BW. In vitro evaluation of dry powder inhalers I: drug deposition of commonly used devices. Int J Pharm 1997; 154: 19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olsson B, Asking L. Critical aspects of the function of inspiratory flow driven inhalers. J Aerosol Med 1994; 7Suppl. 1: S43–7PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Palander
    • 1
  • Terhi Mattila
    • 1
  • Mika Karhu
    • 1
  • Esa Muttonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Product DevelopmentOrion Corporation, Orion PharmaKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Orion PharmaEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations