MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Systemic Exposure of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate With Hydrofluoroolefin-1234ze Versus Hydrofluoroalkane-134a Propellants Administered Via Metered-Dose Inhaler With a Spacer in Healthy Adults

2025· article· en· W4410272725 on OpenAlexaff
Mandeep Jassal, David W. Boulton, Joshua P. Reddy, Artur Bednarczyk, M. Kokot, Yuyong Tan, Margareta Puu, David Petullo, Hitesh Pandya, Mishal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycopyrrolateMetered-dose inhalerFormoterol FumarateBudesonideInhalerAnesthesiaPropellantAsthmaPharmacologyInhalationInternal medicineFormoterolOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Hydrofluoroolefin-1234ze (HFO-1234ze) propellant is in development for pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), having >99.9% lower global warming potential (GWP) versus hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA-134a) propellant. Spacers are used with pMDIs to improve drug exposure. We assessed total systemic exposure of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) pMDI components with a spacer for HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a, and for HFO-1234ze with versus without a spacer. Methods: This Phase 1, randomized, partial double-blind, single-dose, single-center, 3-way crossover study (NCT06297668) included healthy participants aged 18-60 years with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥80% predicted normal value and a ratio of FEV1/forced vital capacity >70%. The study included a screening period, three treatment periods with 3- to 7-day between-period washouts, and a follow-up period. Randomized participants received BGF (4 inhalations of 160/9/4.8 µg as a single-dose) with reference (HFA-134a with spacer; treatment A) and test (HFO-1234ze with spacer; treatment B) formulations and HFO-1234ze without a spacer (open label; treatment C) in 1 of 6 treatment sequences (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA). The primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) for each BGF component. If the upper 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for treatment B versus A was <125% for both primary endpoints across components, exposure with HFO-1234ze was considered not to exceed that of HFA-134a. BGF components’ relative bioavailabilities with HFO-1234ze with versus without a spacer were assessed using similar methods. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results: 42 participants were randomized (mean age, 44.5 years; male, 57.1%). With a spacer, the upper 90% CI of the GMRs for Cmax and AUClast were <125% for each BGF component for HFO-1234ze versus HFA-134a (Table). Cmax was increased for all BGF components for HFO-1234ze with versus without a spacer, with no increase observed for AUClast. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 7.3% (HFA-134a with spacer), 14.3% (HFO-1234ze with spacer), and 14.3% (HFO-1234ze without spacer) of participants. No serious AEs or deaths were reported. Conclusion: With a spacer, total systemic exposure to BGF components with HFO-1234ze propellant did not exceed that of HFA-134a propellant, with no new safety findings. With HFO-1234ze, all BGF components had improved bioavailability with versus without a spacer based on Cmax, while similar relative bioavailability was observed for AUClast. These data support use of HFO-1234ze in BGF pMDIs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery→French-language works237,207→