Aerosol drug delivery to the lungs during nasal high flow therapy: an in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerosol delivery through a nasal high flow (NHF) system is attractive for clinicians as it allows for simultaneous administration of oxygen and inhalable drugs. However, delivering a fine particle fraction (FPF, particle wt. fraction < 5.0 μm) of drugs into the lungs has been very challenging, with highest value of only 8%. Here, we aim to develop an efficient nose-to-lung delivery system capable of delivering improved quantities (FPF > 16%) of dry powder aerosols to the lungs via an NHF system. METHODS: We evaluated the FPF of spray-dried mannitol with leucine with a next generation impactor connected to a nasopharyngeal outlet of an adult nasal airway replica. In addition, we investigated the influence of different dispersion (20-30 L/min) and inspiratory (20-40 L/min) flow rates, on FPF. RESULTS: We found an FPF of 32% with dispersion flow rate at 25 L/min and inspiratory flow rate at 40 L/min. The lowest FPF (21%) obtained was at the dispersion flow rate at 30 L/min and inspiratory flow rate at 30 L/min. A higher inspiratory flow rate was generally associated with a higher FPF. The nasal cannula accounted for most loss of aerosols. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, delivering a third of inhalable powder to the lungs is possible in vitro through an NHF system using a low dispersion airflow and a highly dispersible powder. Our results may lay the foundation for clinical evaluation of powder aerosol delivery to the lungs during NHF therapy in humans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".