Pharmaceutical, Clinical, and Regulatory Challenges of Reformulating Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhalers to Reduce Their Environmental Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used as propellants in early pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) had substantial ozone-depleting potential. Following the Montreal Protocol in 1987, the manufacture of a range of ozone-depleting substances, including CFCs, was gradually phased out, which required the propellants used in pMDIs to be replaced. Current pMDIs use hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) as propellants, such as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA-134a). Although these HFAs have no ozone-depleting potential, they have a high global warming potential (GWP), and consequently, their use is being phased down. One option for the discontinuation of HFA use in inhalers would be to discontinue all pMDIs, switching patients to dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, a switch from pMDIs to DPIs may not be a clinically appropriate option for some patients; furthermore, the full lifecycle carbon footprint and the overall environmental impact of different inhalers should be considered. An alternative is therefore to reformulate the current HFA pMDIs to use low-GWP propellants, such as 1,1-difluoroethane (HFA-152a). This article summarizes the various steps and challenges associated with this change, illustrated using data from the inhaled triple combination of beclomethasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium bromide, a complex formulation of three molecules in a solution that contains liquid-phase propellant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".