4.5 Article

Validating CFD Predictions of Pharmaceutical Aerosol Deposition with In Vivo Data

Journal

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 3170-3187

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-015-1695-1

Keywords

airway dosimetry predictions; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); pharmaceutical aerosols; predictions of aerosol deposition; respiratory drug delivery

Funding

  1. US FDA [U01 FD004570]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01 HL107333]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CFD provides a powerful approach to evaluate the deposition of pharmaceutical aerosols; however, previous studies have not compared CFD results of deposition throughout the lungs with in vivo data. The in vivo datasets selected for comparison with CFD predictions included fast and slow clearance of monodisperse aerosols as well as 2D gamma scintigraphy measurements for a dry powder inhaler (DPI) and softmist inhaler (SMI). The CFD model included the inhaler, a characteristic model of the mouth-throat (MT) and upper tracheobronchial (TB) airways, stochastic individual pathways (SIPs) representing the remaining TB region, and recent CFD-based correlations to predict pharmaceutical aerosol deposition in the alveolar airways. For the monodisperse aerosol, CFD predictions of total lung deposition agreed with in vivo data providing a percent relative error of 6% averaged across aerosol sizes of 1-7 mu m. With the DPI and SMI, deposition was evaluated in the MT, central airways (bifurcations B1-B7), and intermediate plus peripheral airways (B8 through alveoli). Across these regions, CFD predictions produced an average relative error < 10% for each inhaler. CFD simulations with the SIP modeling approach were shown to accurately predict regional deposition throughout the lungs for multiple aerosol types and different in vivo assessment methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available