Search

Particulate contamination, the unintentional presence of particles in parenteral fluids, is associated with potential risks such as phlebitis and thrombophlebitis. Recent guidelines recommend the use of filter needles when withdrawing parenteral fluid from vials with a rubber stopper. However, the literature is limited and lacks clarity regarding the advantages of filter needles over conventional needles. The aim of this study was to assess the compliance of parenteral fluids regarding particulate contamination after withdrawing fluid using both conventional needles and filter needles, following the guidelines of European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) and United States Pharmacopoeia (USP). Visible particles were counted through visual inspection and sub-visible particles were quantified utilizing the light obscuration particle count test. Particle counts for both types of needles were compared to Ph. Eur. and USP standards and differences in particle contamination were assessed using a Mann-Whitney U test. Both types of needles demonstrated compliance with Ph. Eur. and USP standards regarding particulate contamination of visible and sub-visible particles. However, filter needles exhibited a significantly higher particle count for particles with a size of ≥25 µm compared to conventional needles (p = 0.0029). In conclusion, both types of needles demonstrate suitability for aspirating fluid from vials featuring rubber stoppers regarding particulate contamination. Nevertheless, non-filter needles are preferred for withdrawing fluid from vials with a rubber stopper over filter needles due to their lower cost., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dry powder inhalation (DPI) may be an alternative to nebulisation of drugs in the treatment of chest infections in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. In a pilot study the feasibility of a colistin dry powder inhaler (prototype Twincer) by a single dose in CF-patients was assessed and compared to nebulised colistin., Methods: Ten CF-patients, chronically infected with P. aeruginosa, participated in a randomised cross over study. On two visits to the outpatient clinic, patients inhaled colistin sulphomethate as 25 mg dry powder (Twincer) or as 158 mg nebulised solution (Ventstream nebuliser, PortaNeb compressor). Pulmonary function tests were performed before, 5 and 30 min after inhalation. Serum samples were drawn prior to each dose and at 15, 45 min, 1.5; 2.5; 3.5 and 5.5 h after inhalation., Results: The DPI was well tolerated by the patients: no significant reduction in FEV1 was observed. Relative bioavailability of DPI to nebulisation was approx. 140% based on actual dose and approx. 270% based on drug dose label claim., Conclusions: The colistin DPI (Twincer inhaler) is well tolerated and appreciated by CF-patients. Optimisation with respect to particle size and internal resistance of the inhaler is necessary to attain equivalent pulmonary deposition to liquid nebulisation.

Background: Pulmonary administration of colistin is one of the antimicrobial treatments used in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients chronically infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Dry powder inhalation of colistin may be an attractive alternative to nebulization of colistin. However, nebulized colistin can cause bronchoconstriction in CF patients. Therefore, in the progress of developing a dry powder formula, the choice of the inhaler and its contents should be guided by optimal efficacy and the least possible side effects. To investigate the side effects, a study was initiated to compare the tolerability of colistin sulphate to colistin sulphomethate per nebulization in CF-patients., Methods: Nine CF-patients chronically infected with P. aeruginosa participated in a double blind, randomized cross over study. On two visits to the outpatient clinic, patients were submitted to either nebulized colistin sulphate or colistin sulphomethate solution. Lung function tests were performed immediately before and 15 and 30 min after nebulization., Results: Nebulization of colistin sulphate caused a significant larger mean decrease in lung function compared to nebulized colistin sulphomethate. A significant decrease in mean changes (SD) in FEV1 at 30 min and FVC at 15 and 30 min after nebulization compared to baseline of -7.3% (8.6%), -5.7% (7.3%) and -8.4% (7.5%) respectively was seen after colistin sulphate nebulization compared to colistin sulphomethate (P < 0.05). Seven patients were not able to complete the nebulization of colistin sulphate because of throat irritation and severe cough., Conclusion: Based on these results it was concluded that inhalation with nebulized colistin sulphate is not suitable for treatment of CF patients chronically infected with P. aeruginosa. Colistin sulphomethate is the drug of choice for pulmonary administration of colistin.