ArticleDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2011
Formulation development and rheological studies of palatable cefetamet pivoxil hydrochloride dry powder suspension.
Article in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and the purpose of the studyBecause of its intense bitter taste and susceptibility to moisture Cefetamet Pivoxil (CPH) is presently available only in the form of tablet. The aim of this study was to develop taste masked CPH dry powder suspension.
methodsMETHODS EMPLOYED FOR FORMULATIONS WERE: a) Film coating of CPH using Eudragit E100 and subsequent adsorption on different carriers such as spray-dried lactose, sodium starch glycolate and spray-dried mannitol and b) Complexation of CPH with three different ion exchange resins indion 234 amberlite IRP64 and amberlite IRP69.
resultsTaste viz evaluation as recognized by volunteers revealed that coating with Eudragit E100 and subsequent adsorption on different carriers do not mask the bitter taste of the drug. Suspensions prepared using amberlite IRP64 and amberlite IRP69 were extremely palatable with no bitter after taste. They showed pseudoplastic flow behavior and were too viscous even after shearing for sufficient duration of time and exhibited poor pourability. The suspension made with indion 234 was palatable with slight or no bitter after taste. It demonstrated plastic flow with negligible thixotropy. It had moderate viscosity at rest and could be poured after a reasonable amount of shaking. CPH dry powder suspensions were very unstable under different conditions except under refrigeration. A 5% degradation of drug was occurred in reconstituted suspension in 4 days period when stored at room temperature.
conclusionDry powder suspension prepared with indion 234 having 5% overages was stable even after 4th day of reconstitution and palatable with slight or no bitter after taste.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22615648PMC3232094What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.