Volumatic discontinued but do not switch devices, says CSM chairman
Patients should continue with Volumatics |
The Volumatic spacer device is being discontinued but GlaxoSmithKline will continue to supply the AeroChamber Plus spacer device as a replacement, Gordon Duff, chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, announced this week in a letter to health professionals.
The Volumatic is unlikely to be available on prescription from the end
of this month. However, Professor Duff advised that patients who already
have a Volumatic spacer device should retain it and continue to use it
as per the manufacturer’s instructions. He warned that, since there
are limited data available to support the AeroChamber Plus spacer, it
is unclear what effect it has on drug delivery. Patients starting on
this device should be monitored frequently for the emergence or worsening
of symptoms of disease or adverse effects. The dose of inhaled drug may
need to be titrated against signs and symptoms, he said.
Symptoms indicating possible beta-2 agonist toxicity include headache,
tremor and palpitations. For inhaled corticosteroids the most serious
concern is adrenal suppression, particularly in children and adolescents.
Professor Duff said that a study is currently ongoing that may provide
further data on the effect of spacer devices on drug delivery and the
CSM expert working group will evaluate it as soon as it is available.
Further information will be published on the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency website next week.
Helen Knight, senior respiratory pharmacist at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester,
told The Journal that the pharmacy at Glenfield currently dispenses more
AeroChamber Plus devices than Volumatics. “From the patients’ perspective
they prefer the AeroChamber Plus because of its portability — it
can fit in a handbag. However, I haven’t yet read the evidence
on the AeroChamber’s impact on drug deposition — that is
something we will be discussing at the Leicestershire respiratory prescribing
group to see what implications it will have for the unit at Glenfield.” |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader