# Improving Pulmonary Delivery of Budesonide Suspensions Nebulized with Constant-Output Vibrating Mesh Nebulizers by Using Valved Holding Chamber

## TL;DR

Adding a valved holding chamber to vibrating mesh nebulizers improves the delivery of budesonide to the lungs by reducing drug loss and filtering larger droplets.

## Contribution

This study demonstrates that using a valved holding chamber with vibrating mesh nebulizers enhances budesonide delivery and pulmonary availability.

## Key findings

- VMN + VHC systems increased total drug delivery by 30–300% and pulmonary availability by 50–350%.
- The VHC reduced aerosol loss during exhalation and filtered large droplets via coalescence and deposition.
- Both the VMN and budesonide formulation influenced the effectiveness of the VHC.

## Abstract

Background: Vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) are not only used to deliver typical pulmonary drugs but are also a promising platform for novel formulations and therapeutic applications. Typically, these devices operate continuously or on demand and are directly connected to the outflow interface (mouthpiece or mask) without valving systems that could spare the drug during exhalation. This paper examines the possibility of increasing the delivery of inhaled budesonide aerosol by attaching a valved holding chamber (VHC) to selected VMNs. Methods: A laboratory in vitro study was conducted for seven budesonide (BUD) nebulization products (0.25 mg/mL). The rates of aerosol delivery from VMNs alone or VMN + VHC systems were determined gravimetrically for a simulated breathing cycle, while droplet size distributions in mists were measured by laser diffraction. Results: The VMN + VHC systems increased the amount of aerosol available for inhalation and the fraction of fine particles that could penetrate the pulmonary region. Depending on the VMN and BUD product, a relative increase of 30–300% in the total drug delivery (T) and 50–350% in the pulmonary drug availability (P) was obtained. The results are explained by the reduction in aerosol losses during exhalation (the fugitive emission) by the VHC and the simultaneous elimination of the largest droplets due to coalescence and deposition in the chamber. Both VMN and BUD affected the aerosol’s properties and discharge mass and thus the actual benefits of the VHC. Conclusions: While the results confirm the superiority of VMN + VHC over VMNs alone in nebulizing BUD suspensions, they also show that it is difficult to predict the effects quantitatively without testing the individual nebulizer–chamber–drug combination.