Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Emergency-use spacers improve salbutamol delivery in asthmatics compared to pMDI aloneSpacers boost asthma drug delivery over inhaler alone

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider using emergency-use spacers to improve salbutamol delivery and lung function in asthmatics when conventional spacers are unavailable.

This randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of several emergency-use spacers (Aerochamber, Able, Tips-Haler, DispozABLE, Lite-Air, Atomizer) compared with pMDI alone in 108 asthmatics. The primary outcomes assessed included ex vivo filter deposition, urinary salbutamol at 0.5 h (USAL0.5), and spirometry changes (FEV1, FVC).

For ex vivo filter deposition, pMDI alone delivered 325.4 µg, while Aerochamber delivered 207.1 µg, Able 181.1 µg, and Tips-Haler 167.5 µg. DispozABLE and Lite-Air showed moderate efficacy, and Atomizer the lowest. Differences between pMDI alone and spacers were significant (P <0.001), as were differences among spacers (P <0.001-0.02).

USAL0.5 was lowest with pMDI alone (4.13 µg) and significantly higher with Aerochamber (11.61 µg), Able (11.15 µg), and Tips-Haler (10.73 µg) (P <0.001-0.032). Similarly, ΔFEV1 was 0.12 L with pMDI alone versus 0.32 L with Aerochamber, 0.29 L with Able, and 0.31 L with Tips-Haler (P <0.001-0.06).

Safety and tolerability were not reported. Limitations include lack of explicit primary outcome, short follow-up (0.5 h), and no reporting of adverse events or funding. Despite these, the results support the use of validated emergency-use spacers in low-resource or emergency settings where conventional devices are not available.

If you have asthma, you know the drill: puff on your inhaler and hope the medicine reaches your lungs. But a new study suggests you might get more out of each puff by using a spacer a simple tube that attaches to your inhaler.

Researchers tested six different emergency-use spacers against using a puffer alone in 108 people with asthma. They measured how much medication reached the lungs and how well it improved breathing. The results were clear: every spacer delivered more medicine and led to better lung function than the puffer alone.

The best performer was the Aerochamber, which nearly tripled the amount of medication reaching the lungs compared to using no spacer. Other spacers like the Able and Tips-Haler also worked well, while the Atomizer was the least effective. The study was short, looking only at effects 30 minutes after a single dose, so we don't know about long-term use.

Still, for people in low-resource or emergency settings where standard spacers aren't available, these findings offer a practical option. Just remember: not all spacers are equal, and the Aerochamber came out on top.

What this means for you:
Using a spacer with your asthma inhaler boosts drug delivery and lung function.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedJan 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) spacers improve delivery by reducing hand-breath coordination requirements. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of emergency-use and conventional spacers. METHOD: a multi-arm, parallel-group, randomized trial in which 108 asthmatics were randomized to 9 groups (pMDI alone and various spacers); each received 400 µg salbutamol. Emitted dose on the ex vivo filter was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Pulmonary absorption was assessed via urinary salbutamol at 0.5 h post-dose (USAL0.5) and spirometry changes was assessed via forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and its percent of predicted (∆FEV₁ and ∆FEV₁% predicted), and forced vital capacity (∆FVC). RESULTS: While the pMDI alone group yielded the highest ex vivo deposition (325.4 µg, P ˂0.001), it showed the lowest USAL0.5 (4.13 µg, P ˂0.001-0.032) and ∆FEV₁ (0.12 L, P ˂0.001). Among all tested devices, the Aerochamber, Able, and Tips-Haler spacers demonstrated superior performance (ex vivo filter: 207.1, 181.1, 167.5 µg, P ˂0.001-0.02; USAL0.5: 11.61, 11.15, 10.73 µg, P ˂0.001-0.09), ∆FEV₁: 0.32, 0.29, 0.31 L, respectively, P ˂0.001-0.06), with no significant difference between the three spacers, except the Aerochamber showed a significantly higher ex vivo result (P ˂0.001-0.02). DispozABLE and Lite-Air showed moderate efficacy, whereas the Atomizer, showed the lowest pulmonary function performance with varied significance across devices. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the significance of spacer design. It supports the use of validated emergency-use spacers in low-resource or emergency settings where conventional devices are not available. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT06816342.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.