| Literature DB >> 25274536 |
Fang Liu1, Sejal Ranmal2, Hannah K Batchelor3, Mine Orlu-Gul2, Terry B Ernest4, Iwan W Thomas5, Talia Flanagan6, Catherine Tuleu2.
Abstract
Patient acceptability of a medicinal product is a key aspect in the development and prescribing of medicines. Children and older adults differ in many aspects from the other age subsets of population and require particular considerations in medication acceptability. This review highlights the similarities and differences in these two age groups in relation to factors affecting acceptability of medicines. New and conventional formulations of medicines are considered regarding their appropriateness for use in children and older people. Aspects of a formulation that impact acceptability in these patient groups are discussed, including, for example, taste/smell/viscosity of a liquid and size/shape of a tablet. A better understanding of the acceptability of existing formulations highlights opportunities for the development of new and more acceptable medicines and facilitates safe and effective prescribing for the young and older populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25274536 PMCID: PMC4210646 DOI: 10.1007/s40265-014-0297-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drugs ISSN: 0012-6667 Impact factor: 9.546
The most important patient-related factors affecting acceptability of oral medications in children and older adults
| Factors | Children | Older adults |
|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | ||
| Age | 0–18 years; divided into subgroups according to age [ | >65 years; age alone is not the only determinant affecting patients’ health conditions and ability to take medicines; frailty could be more important than age |
| Health conditions | A single condition is more common than the presence of co-morbidities in paediatric populations | Co-morbidities are common; medication handling and administration can be affected by many diseases that are highly prevalent such as dementia, Parkinson’s disease, head and neck cancer, and stroke, and common functional conditions, e.g. visual and cognitive impairments and neuromuscular degeneration |
| Disease status | Acute conditions and long-term illnesses are both present although acute conditions are more common | Acute conditions and long-term illnesses are both present although chronic conditions are more common |
| Ability to swallow | Very young children may have difficulties swallowing conventional tablets and capsules | Dysphagia is common and affects ability to take oral medicines; many age-related conditions can cause swallowing difficulties |
| Drug therapy-associated factors | ||
| Duration of therapy | Short- and long-term treatments are both required although short-term treatments are more common | Long-term treatments are common; acceptability to medicines can be affected by treatment outcomes of long-term therapy |
| Concomitant medications | A single medication for the treatment of a single disease is more common than multiple medications due to the prevalence of acute rather than chronic illness | Polypharmacy (taking more than 5 medicines at the same time) has high prevalence; the number of medicines taken can affect the preference of dosage forms, e.g. patients taking numerous tablets may prefer fixed-dose combinations |
| Social factors | ||
| Responsibility for medication administration | Young children are usually helped by caregivers; older children can self-administer medicines | Independent-living older adults can self-administer medicines; in other cases they can be helped by caregivers |
| Caregivers | Usually adults including parents/guardians, nursery practitioners and school teachers | A mixture of different characteristics; could be older-age partners or nursing home/hospital nurses |
| Environments where oral medication administration occurs | Home, nursery, school, hospital | Home, residential home, nursing home, hospital |
Literature reports on the ability of children to swallow tablets in relation to age and tablet size
| Age of children | Sample size | Tablet size | Study outcomes | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–9 years | 555 | 7 mm ketoprofen tablets | 80 % of parents reported that their children had no problems with swallowing, although administration problems were three times more common in those under 2 years of age than in older children | [ |
| 2–11 years | 96 | 5 and 8 mm | 1–7 tablets were taken by children over several months. No reports of swallowing difficulties or adverse events | [ |
| 6–11 years | 113 | 7 mm | 91 % of children aged 6–11 years were able to swallow the tablet; 46 % without training, 38 % trained with an ordinary plastic cup and 7 % with the assistance of a patented pill cup | [ |
| 2–6 years | 100 | 3 mm mini-tablets | 46 % of 2-year-olds and 87 % of 5-year-olds were able to swallow a single mini-tablet | [ |
| From 6 months | 306 | 2 mm coated and uncoated mini-tablets | Children as young as 6 months old were capable of swallowing the mini-tablets, with acceptability of the mini-tablets superior to 3 mL glucose syrup. Some instances of chewing before deglutition were observed across the various age groups, with around half of children aged 1–3 years swallowing the mini-tablets intact. Two incidences of coughing were reported for coated mini-tablets, both in children below 1 year of age | [ |
| 6–30 months | 16 | 2 mm enteric-coated pancrelipase mini-tablets | The mini-tablets were administered with applesauce to the children. Ease of swallowing was rated by parents on a 4-point scale (with 0 corresponding to poor and 3 as excellent). The mean score of the mini-tablets was 1 (fair) to 2 (good) | [ |
| 1–4 years | 183 | 4 mm uncoated mini-tablets | The mini-tablets were significantly better accepted than 3 other dosage forms (a powder, suspension and syrup) | [ |
Factors affecting swallowability and oesophageal transit of tablets and capsules
| Study population | Outcome measure | Summary of outcomes | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tablet size | |||
| Male adults aged 24–33 years | Ease of swallowing | Swallowing larger tablets required significantly more swallows and more effort in swallowing than smaller tablets | [ |
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Smaller tablets have shown faster oesophageal transit than larger tablets | [ |
| Adults (age range 23–77 years) | Oesophageal transit | Large tablets (11 mm) showed significantly longer oesophageal transition time than small (5.5 mm) and medium (8 mm) size tablets | [ |
| Older adults (aged 59–80 years) | Oesophageal transit | Oesophageal transit of tablets as small as 4 mm in diameter can be prolonged | [ |
| Tablet shape | |||
| 84 % participants aged 23–64 years and 15 % aged 65 years or older | Ease of swallowing | Arched (curved), oval and oblong tablets were generally easier to swallow than flat round tablets. Oblong tablets were considered difficult to swallow for small tablets | [ |
| Male adults aged 24–33 years | Ease of swallowing | Medium or large tablets were preferred to be oblong or oval, while small round tablets were considered as easy to swallow as other shapes | [ |
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Oval tablets were easier to pass through the oesophagus than round tablets, especially when the tablet is large | [ |
| Film coating | |||
| Male adults aged 24–33 years | Ease of swallowing | A film coating applied to the surface of the tablet was found to make swallowing easier | [ |
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Film coatings improve oesophageal transit of both large and small tablets compared to uncoated tablets | [ |
| Density | |||
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Heavy large capsules passed through the oesophagus significantly faster than light large capsules in a standing position | [ |
| Type of formulation | |||
| Older adults (mean age 66, range 50–79 years) | Oesophageal transit | The oesophageal transit time of gelatine capsules was significantly longer than enteric-coated and cellulose-based film-coated tablets | [ |
| Adults (age not specified) | Oesophageal transit | Barium sulphate tablets were more likely to stick to the oesophagus than capsules of the same drug | [ |
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Large capsules passed through the oesophagus significantly faster than uncoated oval tablets and their transit was less affected by the posture of the patient than tablets | [ |
| Adults (age range 19–80 years) | Oesophageal transit | Oesophageal passage of capsules was not affected either by capsule size or the amount of water taken at the same time, both of which had significant influence on the transit of tablets | [ |
| Body position of the patient | |||
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Oesophageal transit of tablets and capsules are significantly faster in patients in the standing position than in the supine position | [ |
| Fluid taken | |||
| Adults (age range 17–82 years) | Oesophageal transit | Tablets and capsules pass through the oesophagus faster when a large quantity of fluid is taken with the medication | [ |
| Adults (age range 19–80 years) | Oesophageal transit | The most common cause of oesophageal retention of tablets and capsules was the combination of a small volume of water (25 mL) and the supine position. When a large quantity of water (100 mL) was taken, the transit time was significantly shorter for small and large tablets in the supine position and for large tablets in the standing position | [ |
Factors affecting the swallowability and acceptability of liquid medicines
| Study population | Outcome measures | Summary of outcomes | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taste | |||
| Healthy young adults | Swallowing speed | Sweet, sour and salty tastes reduced the swallowing speed and prolonged oral and pharyngeal swallowing durations compared with neutral tastes | [ |
| Healthy young adults | Swallow physiology | Sweet, sour and salty tastes generated stronger muscle contractions and shorter activation onset times during swallowing than the no-taste conditions | [ |
| Older adults (aged 65–85 years) | Swallow physiology | The effects of sweet, sour and salty tastes on swallow physiology reduced in older adults | [ |
| Patients with neurogenic dysphagia | Oropharyngeal swallowing | A sour bolus reduced the swallow onset time, shortened the pharyngeal delay and transit time, and improved oropharyngeal swallow efficiency | [ |
| Palatability | |||
| Healthy young adults | Swallowing physiology | Palatability of the ingested liquid had little effect on swallowing physiology and performances | [ |
| Adults aged 23–71 years | Oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal transit | No difference was found on the duration of oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal phases of swallowing between an unpleasant bitter bolus and a pleasant sweet bolus | [ |
| Older patients with neurogenic dysphagia | Swallowing performance | A pleasant sweet–sour mixture did not significantly improve swallowing performances compared with water | [ |
| Oral stimuli | |||
| Patients with stroke (aged 41–88 years) | Pharyngeal transit | The combination of sour taste and cold stimuli was able to improve pharyngeal transit time | [ |
| Healthy young adults | Swallow performance | Carbonated water was able to improve swallowing performances | [ |
| Adult patients with neurogenic dysphagia | Pharyngeal transit and aspiration risk | Carbonated water significantly improved pharyngeal transit and reduced aspiration and penetration risk scores compared with non-carbonated thin liquid | [ |
| Smell | |||
| Adults | 5-Point scale on smell (5 being most positive score) | The smell of different liquid corticosteroid products (prednisolone 1 mg/mL; prednisolone sodium phosphate 1 mg/mL and dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL) was measured. Dexamethasone scored most positively; this may be attributed to the lower concentration, as the taste was not scored more positively than prednisolone | [ |
| Texture | |||
| Adults | Effects on palatability | The texture of liquids was included in a study on the palatability of liquid anti-infectives with acknowledgement that texture can influence palatability of a liquid, although there were no additional details on what textures are acceptable or otherwise | [ |
| Adults | 5-Point scale on texture (5 being most positive score) | The texture of different liquid corticosteroid products (prednisolone 1 mg/mL; prednisolone sodium phosphate 1 mg/mL and dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL) was measured. Prednisolone sodium phosphate 1 mg/mL was scored most positively; this may be due to the higher solubility of the salt form making the particle size smaller within the product | [ |
| Children aged 1–4 years | Acceptability | Syrup was more acceptable to children than a suspension using placebo formulation and this is likely related to the taste or texture difference between these formulations | [ |
| Viscosity | |||
| Healthy young adults | Oropharyngeal transit | Increasing the viscosity of the liquid slowed the oropharyngeal transit of the bolus | [ |
| Patients with Parkinson’s disease | Timing and safety of swallow | Increasing the viscosity of the liquid slowed the oropharyngeal transit of the bolus and reduced aspiration/penetration risk scores by preventing the premature emptying from the mouth before the pharyngeal swallow response | [ |
| Dysphagia patients with dementia or Parkinson’s disease | Oesophageal transit | Both honey-thick and nectar-thick liquids were able to significantly reduce the risk of aspiration in dysphagia patients compared with thin liquids | [ |
| Volume | |||
| Healthy older adults (aged 61–70 years) | PAS score | Increasing the liquid bolus volume increased the risk of aspiration. The PAS score increased significantly with a 20 mL bolus volume compared with 5, 10 and 15 mL volumes | [ |
| Healthy male adults | Oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing | Higher liquid bolus volumes (2–20 mL) increased difficulty in swallowing, including a longer oral retention time and increased magnitude of structural movement for oropharyngeal clearance | [ |
| Patients with neurogenic dysphagia | Ease of swallowing | A liquid volume of 1 mL was more difficult to swallow by stroke patients than 5 mL volume | [ |
| Administration devices | |||
| Healthy older adults (aged 61–70 years) | PAS score | No difference in PAS scores between cup and straw drinking | [ |
| Older patients with neurogenic dysphagia | PAS score | Drinking from a teaspoon resulted in significantly lower PAS scores than cup drinking | [ |
| Patient posture | |||
| Patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia; head and neck surgical patients | Prevention of aspiration | Head or body postural changes (chin down, chin up, head rotated, head tilted and lying down) eliminated aspiration in 77 % of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia and 60 % patients who had head and neck surgery | [ |
| Dysphagia patients | Prevention of aspiration | Chin down posture was effective to prevent 55–64 % of aspiration | [ |
| Dysphagia patients | Prevention of aspiration | Head rotation was useful in 29 % of patients to prevent aspiration | [ |
| Healthy adults | Pharyngeal clearance | Head rotation reduced the UES resting pressure and prolongs the UES opening, and thus improved pharyngeal clearance during swallowing | [ |
PAS Penetration-Aspiration Scale, UES upper oesophageal sphincter
Acceptability studies of oral flexible formulations in children and older adults
| Study population | Summary of outcomes | References |
|---|---|---|
| Multiparticulates | ||
| Children (aged 5–16 years) | In the crossover study comparing a valproate sprinkle formulation with syrup, 9 of 12 parents preferred sprinkles due to their ease of use, while 9 children preferred them due to enhanced palatability, despite the authors reporting a gritty texture | [ |
| Children (aged 3–14 years) | Neutral-tasting sodium valproate microgranules were well-accepted and adhered to over 90 days of treatment, although one-fifth of parents reported difficulty administering the drug to their child due to the consistency or mouthfeel of the drug | [ |
| Children (from 6 months old) | Microencapsulated iron sprinkles and other micronutrient powders were superior in terms of ease of use, acceptance and adherence compared with other forms such as drops and crushable tablets | [ |
| Infants (5–7 months) | Adherence to ferrous fumarate sprinkles was slightly poorer than for drops, with some parents expressing concerns about the new product and its safety | [ |
| Adults and older adults (mean age 66 years, range 34–83 years) | The majority of patients (67 %) preferred chewable tablets compared with sachet for calcium and vitamin D supplements. Sachet was considered to be more time-consuming and more difficult to take than chewable tablets | [ |
| Children and adults with phenylketonuria (aged 8–49 years) | 11 of 12 participants preferred a ‘ready to drink’ liquid protein substitute formulation over powder. The liquid formulation was considered easy to take and more convenient to use in different environments than the powder | [ |
| Dispersible and effervescent tablets | ||
| Infants and children (aged 3 months to 5 years) | 90 % of caregivers reported that zinc dispersible tablets were as acceptable to their children, or more so, as other medicines, while 84 % were willing to use the medicine again in the future | [ |
| Children (aged 0–5 years) | Acceptability and adherence to diarrhoea treatment was more favourable using zinc dispersible tablets. Almost 90 % of children received 10 days’ treatment and two-thirds completed the full 14 days, while only 6.5 % of caregivers reported administration problems (4 % reported vomiting and 2.5 % refusal to take) | [ |
| Children (aged 4–8 years) | A citrus-flavoured effervescent tablet was preferred over peppermint-flavoured syrup by more than two-thirds of the children and their caregivers | [ |
| Parkinson’s disease patients with dysphagia | The acceptability of a dispersible tablet containing levodopa-benserazide was considered advantageous with regard to ease of administration | [ |
| ODTs | ||
| Children (aged 6–11 years) | More than 90 % of the children preferred strawberry-flavoured lansoprazole ODTs over peppermint-flavoured ranitidine syrup | [ |
| Children (aged 5–11 years) | The taste of the ondansetron ODTs scored lower than placebo; however, none of the children rejected or spat out the tablet and 87 % were reportedly willing to take it again in the future | [ |
| Children (aged 6 months to 10 years) | A randomised clinical trial involved administration of ondansetron ODTs or placebo to children; however, patient acceptability was not assessed as part of the study | [ |
| Adult patients with depression | More than 80 % of patients preferred ODTs over conventional tablets | [ |
| Older patients with schizophrenia | Olanzapine ODTs have been shown to improve medication compliance in acutely ill non-compliant patients in nursing homes | [ |
| Depressed patients older than 85 years | Mirtazapine ODTs were used for the treatment of depression in these ‘old–old’ patients, and were found to be acceptable and well-tolerated | [ |
| Older patients with Parkinson’s disease | In a multicentre, open-label study, more than twice as many patients preferred carbidopa–levodopa ODTs (45 %) compared with conventional tablets (20 %) | [ |
| Chewable tablets | ||
| Children from the age of 2 years | The review summarised chewable tablets to be safe and well-tolerated in children from this age | [ |
| Children (aged 6–11 years) | 82 % of the children and 87 % of their parents preferred a cherry-flavoured chewable montelukast tablet over inhaled therapy, and this formulation resulted in better self-reported adherence | [ |
ODTs orally disintegrating tablets
Advantages and challenges of using flexible oral solid formulations in children and older adults
| Advantages | Challenges |
|---|---|
| Multiparticulates | |
| 1. Infants can start to swallow thick, semi-solid foods from the age of 6 months and administration of multiparticulates mixed with semi-solid food is considered appropriate for children above this age [ | 1. Grittiness and poor mouth feel [ 2. Lack of knowledge and experience in the use and safety of this formulation amongst parents and carers [ 3. Multiparticulates are considered to be more time-consuming and more difficult to take than liquid formulations and chewable tablets due to the requirement of handling (mixing with food and drink) before administration [ |
| 2. Multiparticulates can be mixed with semi-solid food for administration to older patients. Swallowing is considered safer with a lower risk of aspiration in dysphagia patients when semi-solid food, such as paste, pudding and rice is swallowed than with liquids [ | |
| Dispersible and effervescent tablets | |
| 1. These tablets are potentially suitable to be administered to infants under 6 months of age for drug substances and excipients that are compatible with breast milk [ | 1. These formulations usually require the application of a large volume of water, which could be problematic for both children and older patients who find swallowing a large amount of liquid difficult, especially in patients with dysphagia [ 2. The risk of aspiration in dysphagia patients for swallowing thin liquids resulted from these formulations would need to be considered 3. Effervescent formulations showed high capacity for tooth erosion, even more so than sugar-containing medicines, which should be considered for long-term use in children and older people [ 4. Soluble and dispersible formulations often contain a high quantity of sodium and the maximum daily dose of these medications could exceed the recommended daily dietary intake of sodium [ |
| 2. Carbonated water generated by effervescent formulations could potentially improve safe swallowing in dysphagia patients [ | |
| ODTs | |
| 1. ODTs are generally acceptable in children and older patients, which is normally associated with their taste, texture, ease of use and reduced concern about difficulties in swallowing [ | 1. The risk of aspiration remains the same in swallowing ODTs as conventional tablets in dysphagia patients [ |
| 2. ODTs are easier to swallow than conventional tablets in dysphagia patients [ | |
| 3. The use of ODTs can be beneficial for patients who are purposely non-adherent, particularly in relation to antipsychotic treatments, as it is more difficult to spit the tablet out or hide the formulation in the mouth [ | |
| 4. The ease of administration of ODTs can be advantageous to reduce the work burden on nursing staff and caregivers who assist the administration of medicines in older patients [ | |
| Chewable tablets | |
| 1. Many chewable formulations are licensed for use in children from the age of 2 years and were found to be safe and well-tolerated in children from this age [ | 1. Chewable tablets have the potential for tooth erosion over long-term use [ 2. Use in older patients could be limited due to the decline in chewing ability 3. Adverse events are associated with the swallowing of intact or partially chewed chewable tablets, such as intestinal obstruction, ischaemia and perforation [ |
ODTs orally disintegrating tablets
Fig. 1Schematic structure of the easy-swallowing film formulation (reproduced from Okabe et al. [170], with permission)
Fig. 2The swelling behaviour of the film formulation in purified water (reproduced from Okabe et al. [170], with permission)
| Appropriate pharmaceutical design of oral medicines can improve acceptability and patient outcomes in paediatric and geriatric populations. |
| Similar considerations should be given to physical characteristics affecting swallowability of tablets and capsules for use in children and older patients. |
| Whilst formulation factors such as taste and smell are important features for paediatric medicines, safe swallowing is the key formulation factor in designing medicines for older patients. |