Jump to content

Talk:Metered-dose inhaler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger needed

[edit]

It seems to me that this article, Inhaler, and Asthma inhaler should be merged. They are all covering the same topic. Aleta 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose They are not all the same. Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) deliver, as the name says, a metered dose of medication in aerosol form. A large number of inhalers however - Accuhalers, Diskhalers, Turbohalers, and Clickhalers to give a non-exhaustive list of examples - deliver their contained medication in the form of a fine powder. While certainly the dose delivered is regulated closely by the design and operation of the device, dry powder devices are never, ever referrd to as Metered Dose Inhalers, and to merge as suggested will degrade the value of the article. A total re-write, to explain and expand on the differences which I outline here would, however, be reasonable. If any editor chooses to take this up, it is important in doing so to be very aware of the fact that medications often have totally different names on either side of the Atlantic.--Anthony.bradbury 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree merger of Asthma inhaler to the non-disease specififc Inhaler.
    • A suggestion was made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Should Inhaler Become A Disambiguation Page? for inhaler to also cover nasal sprays, which I would strongly oppose - inhalers are, by common understanding & definition, drugs inhaled into the lung. NasalCrom etc are sprays sprayed into the nose whilst sniffing and delivers their drugs to the nose, not the lungs. Nasal sprays require just partial respiratory effort (to sniff in), whereas all inhalers used for asthma should be with full effort (from a deliberate fully expired lung to full total capacity). Furthermore with inhalers the breath should ideally be held for 10 seconds to allow drug deposition (use of spacers as secondary volume is a side issue here), whereas once a nasal spray has been sniffed-in, a person is free to immediately exhale through their mouth.
    • I therefore would view "inhaler" as currently being synonymous with drugs for respiratory conditions.
    • Virtually the same range of inhaled drugs are used in both asthma and COPD, so the direction of merging should be Asthma inhaler into Inhaler.
    • Not all asthma inhalers are aerosol, having instead dry powder in many products and whilst all inhalers deliver a pre-defined fixed dose for each activation, Meter Dose Inhaler (MDI) is a term exclusively reserved in clinical usage for aerosol inhalers. My British National Formulary actually never uses the term "Metered-dose inhaler" on its own, but instead is clearer by stating "Pressurised metered-dose inhaler" or "aerosol inhaler", to distinguish from "dry powder inhaler". Therefore Inhaler (with merged in Asthma inhaler) should remain the main article and Metered-dose inhaler being a smaller subtopic article. David Ruben Talk 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points have been made. I have no problem with David Ruben's suggestion. (When I made my original proposal, all three articles were talking pretty exclusively about metered-dose inhalers.) Aleta 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: I support a merger of the articles into one with a suitable title. Currently the merger tag says to fold them into MDI, which refers (as far as I know) only to "puffers" (ie: pressurised ones) and wouldn't include things such as Turbuhalers. (Turbuhaler) - 156.34.233.218 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)[reply]
  • Oppose. The MDI is only one type of asthma inhaler. The "asthma inhaler" article should contain a brief overview of the different types, with more thorough descriptions at the specific inhaler namespaces. Axl 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that to the contrary, MDI and Asthma Inhaler should both be merged in to inhaler Owain.davies 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MDI and DPIs are different, yes, but that isn't the issue. The discussion here is comparable to whether 'fruit' and 'orange' should be considered for a merge.ThrustinJ 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed oppose/support. My suggestion is that a new article asthma inhalent therapy is broken out of the asthma article as a see main article section. The new AIT article would offer more opportunity to discuss issues associated with inhalers as a drug-delivery system in conjuction with asthma as a medical condition, which constitutes in its own right a substantial field of concern for pharma, clinical practice, and end users. The mechanics of inhalers would be consolidated to a single article. The asthma article as it stands is not well placed to put forward material arising from the question "how much is the successful treatment (delivery of chosen medication) aided or compromised by the use of inhalent technology as the drug delivery system?" and neither would a merged inhaler article be a suitable forum for this material. I'm also thinking of a person recently diagnosed with asthma who is sent off to the pharmacy to purchase his/her first inhaler, and thus has to learn to live with this strange object. For this person the disesase condition of asthma is rather abstract compared to practicalities of living life within this world-unto-itself treatment regime. MaxEnt 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the word inhalator nebulizer and atomizer has wide range of meaning in several technical field. Therefor it is good idea to leave the pages as it is now , in the future some body will enlarge this pages . Rubin joseph 10 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications needed

[edit]

I was thinking... And thinking... "Asthma Inhaler" is to pinpointed. I think "Respiratory Inhaler" is more appropriate. Anyone else?

--RonEJ 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No (sorry did not see this subsequent thread) - for reasons stated above, "inhaler" is reserved in its use for respiratory conditions and the "Respiratory" prefix is neither required nor commonly used. "Respiratory inhaler" as a term never appears in the BNF or any clinical literature I have ever seen, a quick review of Google (a poor measure true) gives 605 hits for "respiratory inhaler" vs "inhaler" getting 2,810,000. But I do agree that the "asthma" of Asthma inhaler is disease specific and hence I agree with the direction of merging Asthma inhaler into Inhaler. David Ruben Talk 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, I am still leary by putting all known inhalers into the same basket. I was thinking too much out loud in my quoting of Respiratory Inhaler when my brain did a flip-flop I was thinking more along as "Inhaler (Respiratory)" as a title. Either way it will be difficult to keep the nose detached from the inhaler section, as it is part of the respiratory system and some spacers use masks.
--RonEJ 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact

[edit]

I recall seeing something on one of my father's inhalers that said it was being "discontinued due to environmental impact". Is there any information on this? James Callahan 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I updated Inhaler with more information.

Up until December, 2007, inhalers may have contained chlorofluorocarbonss as a form of propellant to deliver the medication. Under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, all inhalers that contain CFCs are being discontinued[1] for hydro-fluoroalkane-pressurized metered dose inhalers (HFA p MDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs)[2].

ThrustinJ 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine

[edit]

The article claims that nicotine inhalers can effectively replicate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes. That sounds to me as if the nicotine is being delivered to the lungs, but all the designs I've heard of are absorbed through the mouth + pharynx like other NRT methods. Do they have that kind of technology yet or is it just too good to be true? - cyclosarin (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article seems to be confusing two different things: nonelectronic nicotine inhalers that are approved/marketed as nicotine replacement therapy are NOT the same thing as vapor-producing electronic cigarettes. Sssoul (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: here's a press release about the nonelectronic inhaler that's marketed as nicotine replacement therapy: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=53182 i'm going ahead and amending that section of the article, since it's extremely misleading as it now stands. Sssoul (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nicotine in the "e-cigarettes" is delivered through the bucal mucosa. The primary manufacturer (Ruyan) has not claimed differently. It is possible that the vaporized PG carries more nicotine than the Nicotrol/Favor mechanism but this has not been shown.Diurnate (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diurnate, lack of statement is not a statement. Especially from a Chinese company not wanting to rock any boats. Nicotine in a liquid vehicle is vaporized while touching a heating element hot enough to vaporize it, while the user sucks it into their lungs. Big pharmaceuticals can do research; entrepeneurs can sell a product. If memory serves, the buccal cavity is the mouth. Agreed though, ecigs are not metered doses in a medical sense, for many reasons. -RedKnight7 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be the correct place for information on "nicotine inhalers". As noted these inhalers (Nicotrol or e-cigs) are not true metered dose inhalers as a) they deliver through the mouth and proximal trachea (not pulmonary), and b) they are not metered by inhalation dose. Diurnate (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presspart

[edit]

I removed the link for Presspart from the external links page. I had a look but didn't really think that it added anything to the article. It certainly wouldn't add as much as a link for 3M, GlaxoSmithKline, or AstraZeneca (none of which are present) not to mention all of the other companies that manufacture complete MDI units rather than merely their components. -Noosentaal·talk· 11:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrofluroalkane Vehicles

[edit]

The MDI page mentions chlorofluorocarbons as a past vehicle (with all due links), then mentions hydrofluoralkanes as the current vehicle, without links of any kind. We all know the problem of the perfluoroalkane POPs. Could some kind chemist step forward with a link to what "Hydrofluoroalkanes" means. Almost a PFA except for one position? Please delete this section if you provide clarification. -RedKnight7 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalisms and other text

[edit]

cleaned up some vandalism and removed this text:

my name is Katrina Mcmillan and i am a victim of asthma i had asthma sense i was 11 months and i am now 16 and i just want to say wen u use an inhaler in helps bt it also makes u use it more and more even wen u dont need it and sometimes it the reason why your having the asthma attacks the best thing u should do is boil some water and inhale the steam from the water.

Pulmonological (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding? Really?

[edit]

I disagree - of three brands of albuterol (salbutamol) inhalers I know of in the USA, one is indeed light blue, Glaxo's Ventolin, which has been light blue in its CFC and HFA versions; one is red (ProAir) and one is yellow/gold (Proventil). I don't think there is any established color coding beyond whatever the manufacturer decides to do. --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling

[edit]

For sometime now Glaxo Smith Kline have been offering a recycling service for used inhalers of this type produced by any manufacturer [1] 95.147.113.224 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metered-dose inhaler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2024

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 31 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Halcharbonneau (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Halcharbonneau (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metered-dose_inhaler&oldid=1219060826"