Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025

Rapid Viscoelastic Characterization of Airway Mucus Using a Benchtop Rheometer
Published on: April 21, 2022
The low global warming potential propellant HFA-152a does not induce bronchoconstriction or impair mucociliary
Michela Salvadori1, Dave Singh2, Kusum Mathews1
1Global Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA, Parma, Italy.
Introduction:
Use of propellants with high global warming potential (e.g., HFA-134a) for pressurised metered-dose inhalers is being phased down. An alternative is reformulation using propellants with low global warming potential (e.g., HFA-152a), which requires evaluation of the propellant's safety, in particular whether it induces bronchoconstriction or impairs mucociliary clearance (MCC). In this manuscript, we describe two studies, the first comparing the bronchoconstriction potential of HFA-152a vs HFA-134a, the second comparing their effect on MCC.
Methods:
The bronchoconstriction study was single-dose, randomised, double-blind, controlled, crossover, in adults with asthma. The primary endpoint was relative change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 15 min post-dose. The MCC study was multiple-dose (8 days), randomised, open-label, controlled, crossover, in healthy volunteers. The primary endpoint was percent particle retention in the right whole lung at 2 and 4 h after inhalation of radiolabelled particles (PPR2 and PPR4).
Results:
For the bronchoconstriction study (N = 25), the 95 % CI of the adjusted mean FEV1 difference between HFA-152a vs HFA-134a at 15 min post-dose was within the -10 % to +10 % equivalence limit (1.86 % [95 % CI -0.48 %, 4.20 %]; p = 0.113). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 4.0 % (HFA-152a) and 12.0 % (HFA-134a) patients, all mild or moderate in intensity, and none serious. For the MCC study (N = 20), the 95 % CIs for the adjusted mean differences between HFA-152a vs HFA-134a at Day 8 contained 0 for both PPR2 (1.36 [-2.28, 4.99]%; p = 0.442) and PPR4 (0.70 [-1.73, 3.12]%; p = 0.553). A similar proportion of subjects had treatment-emergent adverse events (25.0 % vs 35.0 %), all mild in intensity, and none serious.
Conclusions:
These two studies suggest a switch in propellant from HFA-134a to HFA-152a is unlikely to induce post-dose bronchoconstriction in asthma or impact lung MCC, and is not accompanied by any safety concerns.
Related Concept Videos
Antiasthma Drugs: β2-Adrenoceptor Agonists
One class of bronchodilators includes β2-adrenoceptor agonists. These agents target the β2-adrenoceptors located on bronchial smooth muscle cells. By stimulating these receptors, β2-agonists induce...
Antiasthma Drugs: Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists
Antimuscarinic agents compete with ACh for the same binding site on the muscarinic receptors. By binding to these receptors, they inhibit the downstream effects of ACh and block the parasympathetic...
Upper Respiratory Drugs: Antitussives, Expectorants, and Mucolytics
Antitussives include codeine, dextromethorphan (Robitussin), and benzonatate (Tessalon). Codeine and dextromethorphan exert their effects centrally by suppressing the cough reflex center in the medulla. Benzonatate operates peripherally within the respiratory tract by...
Antiasthma Drugs: Leukotriene Modifiers
Leukotriene modifiers work through two distinct mechanisms:
Asthma: Pathogenesis and Management
Asthma is classified as allergic and non-allergic. Allergens such as dust mites, pollen, and pet dander trigger allergic asthma, while factors like cold air, intense emotions, or exercise can induce non-allergic asthma.
Antiasthma Drugs: Methylxanthines
Theophylline is thought to inhibit phosphodiesterase enzymes, increasing intracellular levels of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). This rise in cAMP and cGMP concentrations stimulates cardiac function,...

