Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 3 August 2000
- Published on: 31 July 2000
- Published on: 28 June 2000
- Published on: 3 August 2000Re: Spacers and holding chambers: Not the last word, we hopeShow More
Dear Editor
Dr Mitchell is concerned that the methodology used in our study does not simulate the release of aerosol from a metered dose inhaler (MDI). As discussed in the article, the method of aerosol delivery in our study differs from that of a MDI but as the delivery system was kept constant and the particular spacer varied, a valid comparison of the efficacy of different spacers could be made.[1] This deli...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 31 July 2000Spacers and holding chambers: Not the last word, we hopeShow More
Dear Editor:
Zar and colleagues[1] compared home-made spacers and two commercially available valved holding chambers (VHCs) for the treatment of children with acute asthma. We acknowledge that the practice of using empty drink bottles is common in some countries (by either necessity or choice). We, as a manufacturer of one of the VHCs that was evaluated, are highly concerned about the support to the hypothesi...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 28 June 2000Should use of home-made spacers be incorporated into guidelines for asthma management?Show More
Dear Editor
Zar et al[1] found that lung deposition of aerolised technetium-99DTPA inhaled via modified 500 ml plastic bottle was higher compared to a Babyhaler in both young and other children. There was no difference in lung deposition when a mask was used. Though other workers[2] have recommended the attachment of facemasks to treat patients of all ages.
In another study[3] children aged 5 to 13 years...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.