| Literature DB >> 27379290 |
Yasmeen Taj1, Roopa S Pai1, V Kusum Devi1, Gurinder Singh1.
Abstract
The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential of orally disintegrating pellets (ODPs) as an approach for taste masking of bitter drugs, namely, Ambroxol hydrochloride (A-HCl) and Cetirizine dihydrochloride (C-DHCl). Pellets were prepared by extrusion/spheronization with Eudragit EPO, kyron T-134, Kyron T-314, mannitol, sorbitol, MCC (Avicel PH-101), sucralose, chocolate flavor, and 5% xanthum gum. The prepared pellets were characterized for percentage yield, drug content, particle size, in vitro drug release, and in vivo evaluation on humans for taste, mouth feel, and in vivo disintegration time. The results revealed that the average size of pellets was influenced greatly by the percentage of binder and extrusion speed. The optimized ODPs disintegrated in less than 20 s and showed more than 98% of drugs in ODPs dissolved within 15 min. Taste perception study was carried out on human volunteers to evaluate the taste masking ability of ODPs for taste, mouth feel, and in vivo disintegration time. Crystalline state evaluation of drugs in the optimized ODPs was conducted for X-ray powder diffraction. In conclusion, the study confirmed that ODPs can be utilized as an alternative approach for effective taste masking and rapid disintegration in the oral cavity.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 27379290 PMCID: PMC4897477 DOI: 10.1155/2014/504536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Sch Res Notices ISSN: 2356-7872
Formulation design for ODPs containing A-HCL and C-DHCL.
| Composition (mg) | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambroxol hydrochloride | 3 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Cetirizine Dihydrochloride | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Kyron T-134 (polacrillin potassium) | 120 | 70 | — | 140 |
| Eudragit EPO | 20 | 70 | 140 | — |
| Mannitol | 55.24 | 55.24 | 55.24 | 55.24 |
| Sorbitol | 27.66 | 27.66 | 27.66 | 27.66 |
| MCC | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Kyron T-314 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Sucralose | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Chocolate flavor | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s |
| Xanthum gum | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Angle of repose, percentage of drug content, and disintegration time of taste masked ODPs formulations P1–P4.
| PF-code | Particle size ( | Span value | AOR | Drug content (%) | DT (sec) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-HCl | C-DHCl | |||||
| P1 | 736 | 0.62 | 24.72 ± 1.67 | 93.82 ± 0.40 | 90.92 ± 0.257 | 14.33 ± 0.57 |
| P2 | 729 | 0.59 | 26.08 ± 2.53 | 94.91 ± 0.20 | 93.01 ± 0.344 | 16.67 ± 0.56 |
| P3 | 723 | 0.67 | 22.62 ± 2.40 | 96.18 ± 0.26 | 97.22 ± 0.301 | 15.00 ± 0.0 |
| P4 | 728 | 0.63 | 25.19 ± 1.88 | 98.09 ± .146 | 98.18 ± 0.136 | 12.33 ± 0.57 |
PF = pellet formulation, AOR = angle of repose, and DT = disintegration time.
Hedonic rating scale for taste perception study.
| Rating | Description |
|---|---|
| 7 | Excellent |
| 6 | Very good |
| 5 | Good |
| 4 | Fair |
| 3 | Poor |
| 2 | Very poor |
| 1 | Extremely poor |
Ratings were used to categorized the taste perception of the samples ranging from 1 = extremely poor to 7 = excellent.
Figure 1(a) Comparison of in vitro dissolution study of taste masked ODPs P1 to P4 containing A-HCl. (b) Comparison of in vitro dissolution study of taste masked orally disintegrating pellets P1 to P4 containing C-DHCl.
Figure 2In vitro dissolution study of capsules containing taste masked ODPs formulation (P4).
Figure 3In vitro drug release comparison with marketed formulation.
Figure 4Comparison of powder X-ray diffractometry of A-HCl, C-DHCl, and ODPs formulation P4.
Statistical analysis for evaluation of disintegration time in mouth of healthy adult human volunteers.
| Sl. No. | Groups ( | Mean disintegration time ± SEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Conventional marketed formulation (CMF) | 87.8 ± 3.26 |
| 2. | Capsule containing taste masked disintegrating pellets (CCTMDPs) | 14.5 ± 2.32*** |
P value < 0.05 = *significant; P value < 0.01 = **highly significant; P value < 0.001 = ***extremely significant.
Statistical analysis of disintegration time in mouth of healthy adult human volunteers by Dunnett's multiple comparison tTest.
| Sl. No. | Dunnett's multiple comparison test | Significant? | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 1 | CMF vs CCTMDP | Yes | ∗∗∗ |
Figure 5Comparison of mean disintegration time of different formulations for statistical analysis.