ReviewAAPS PharmSciTech2026
Palatability-by-Design for Oral Drug Products: A Unified Framework for Evaluation and Optimization.
Review in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Palatability is a critical determinant of acceptability and adherence for oral drug products, especially in pediatric and geriatric populations, yet its evaluation remains fragmented across dosage forms and often disconnected from formulation-development decisions. In this review, we propose Palatability-by-Design (PbD) as a unified framework that treats palatability not as a loosely defined sensory outcome, but as a development variable with identifiable failure modes, measurable sensory critical quality attributes (CQAs), and controllable formulation/process levers. We first define a two-dimensional framework comprising swallowability (oral physical comfort) and palatability (sensory appreciation), and then outline major sensory failure modes that are relevant to oral drug development. Next, we compare subjective and objective evaluation methods using a fit-for-purpose logic, emphasizing decision relevance, surrogate calibration, and the need to anchor instrumental readouts to perception-relevant endpoints. We further integrate these elements into a PbD workflow that links sensory CQAs to risk assessment, formulation/process variables, acceptance criteria, and verification. Finally, we summarize failure-mode-guided optimization strategies, including taste masking and dosage-form modification, and discuss future needs for data standardization, translational calibration, and patient-centred implementation. By aligning sensory science with pharmaceutical quality and control logic, PbD provides a more practical basis for rational, patient-focused oral product development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42120627What 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.