A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Pharmaceutical Research
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-022-03388-7
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
In Vitro Regional Deposition ofNasal Sprays inanIdealized Nasal Inlet:
Comparison withIn Vivo Gamma Scintigraphy
JohnZ.Chen1· WarrenH.Finlay1· AndrewMartin1
Received: 24 June 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Abstract
Purpose To compare in vitro regional nasal deposition measurements using an idealized nasal airway geometry, the Alberta
Idealized Nasal Inlet (AINI), with in vivo regional deposition for nasal drug products.
Materials and Methods One aqueous solution formulation (NasalCrom), one aqueous suspension formulation (Nasonex) and
one nasal pressurized metered dose spray device (QNASL) were selected. Two spray orientation angles, 60° and 45° from
the horizontal, were selected. A steady inhalation flow rate of 7.5 L/min was selected to simulate slow inhalation through
a single nostril. After actuation, the AINI was disassembled. The mass of drug deposited in each region and a downstream
filter, representing penetration of drug to the lungs, was determined using ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) spectrophotometry.
Results No filter (lung) deposition was detected for NasalCrom or Nasonex. Filter deposition ranged from 6 to 11% for
QNASL. For NasalCrom, 45% to 69% of the dose deposited in the AINI was deposited in the vestibule and 31% to 55% was
deposited in the turbinates; for Nasonex, 66% to 74% (vestibule) and 26% to 34% (turbinates); for QNASL, 90% to 100%
(vestibule) and 0% to 10% (turbinates). No statistically significant difference was observed between regional deposition in
vivo and in vitro for any of the formulations, except that nasopharyngeal deposition with Nasonex differed by less than 1.56%
from in vivo, which while statistically significant, is unlikely to be clinically significant.
Conclusions The AINI was able to mimic regional in vivo deposition for nasal drug products, permitting differentiation
between devices based on regional deposition.
Keywords aerosols· in vitro-in vivo correlations· nasal sprays· regional deposition
Introduction
Benchtop in vitro test methods are vital to researchers and
drug developers seeking to understand or characterize the
performance of medical aerosols and nasal sprays. For
example, the United States Pharmacopeia General Chap-
ter < 601 > contains standardized in vitro procedures for the
measurement of properties of medical aerosol and nasal
spray products, such as delivered dose uniformity, aerody-
namic size distribution and fine particle fraction, that facili-
tate comparisons between different products and give some
indication of the possible behavior of the product in vivo [1].
For nasal spray drug products, FDA guidance recommends
additional in vitro tests, including characterization of spray
pattern and plume geometry [2]. Knowledge of the spray
characteristics of a test formulation can be particularly
valuable in the early stages of product development, where
parameter refinement based on early feedback from in vitro
experiments can save time later in the development process
when testing moves to an in vivo setting. Measured in vitro
parameters are also intended to provide a convenient way
to support assessment of bioavailability and bioequivalence
of different nasal spray products, and should ideally be
highly discriminating between products [2–4]. However, the
strength of correlation between in vitro measurement param-
eters for nasal spray products and relevant in vivo responses
remains uncertain and is a topic of frequent debate.
In the related field of aerosol drug delivery to the lungs,
researchers have described in vitro methods using idealized
or selected realistic airway geometries that mimic average
deposition measured in in vivo studies [5–13]. These geom-
etries can function as a reference for in vitro experiments
* Andrew Martin
andrew.martin@ualberta.ca
1 Department ofMechanical Engineering, Faculty
ofEngineering, University ofAlberta, 10-265 Donadeo
Innovation Centre for Engineering, Edmonton, Canada
/ Published online: 15 September 2022
Pharmaceutical Research (2022) 39:3021–3028
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.