This morning, I read a press release about a new inhaled medication delivery system that wouldn’t require a propellant. As you guys already know, the CFC-based propellant in the older inhalers is officially banned on December 31, prompting the need for the more expensive HFA-propelled models we have now.
The new delivery system from Next Safety uses a pump to squirt the medicine through the air instead, meaning no propellant = slower delivery. In fact, the pump delivers the medicine as the patient breathes, and according to Next Safety this method will eliminate the problems kids–and often adults–have with using an inhaler properly.
Now, spacers also keep people from spraying the backs of their throats with medicine or getting the incorrect dosage by not inhaling the medicine at exactly the right time, but they still involve inhaling propellants while Next Safety’s platform doesn’t. Still, I read this release half-awake and half-engaged, thinking Awesome. It would be cool not to need spacers anymore. And getting rid of the propellants so my kid doesn’t breathe them in anymore would be nice, too.
But what would this cost?
Less than the inhalers and spacers?
And how much of a benefit is eliminating the propellant, anyway?
Was it a health concern in the first place?
This device looks impressive but I am also curious about the cost. There are two image links on the release. One is an illustration of the device and a second shows the device hooked up to a mask and being applied to an infant.
The illustration of the device also shows that it takes peak flow measurements and delivers them on a digital – possibly LCD – display.
Nifty gadget. Won’t come cheap. And with insurance companies working their butts off to make sure they can continue to raise premiums and drop coverages, I’m worried that insurance carriers will question the effectiveness of the ‘experimental’ device and not cover it. Much like many carriers did when they refused to cover ‘experimental’ bone marrow transplants in leukemia patients.
As to the question of inhaling refrigerants/propellants, that’s a good question. I would hope that the FDA banned CFCs for the environment and passed HFA replacements with both the environment and patients in mind.
Amy, thanks for the link to the release. I’m trying to link the images but don’t know if you allow html in your comments:
That’s an awesome looking development. I hope it gets to the people who need it.
HTML’s fine. I actually meant to include the links but–well, it’s been that kind of week. I don’t know if you went to the actual company website, but what’s really interesting is that–if I’m reading this right–the device was originally a nicotine delivery system, like a substitute for the patch.
Thousands of patients KNOW that HFA-134a MDIs are not as safe as CFC MDIs are. Most patients may be able to handle HFA inhalers (or MDIs) but many can’t tolerate them, including MDs, PhDs, RNs etc., no matter what the FDA says. I happen to be one of them.
To get the FACTS and help us FIGHT to save CFC MDIs:
Go here: http://www.savecfcinhalers.org
Or here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveCFCinhalers/
or just google: ‘save cfc’
Cheri Modrow
The National Campaign to Save CFC Asthma Inhalers