2019
Comparison of Active Substance Losses and Total Weight Losses of Tablets Administered Via Feeding Tube
PAPIEŽ, Adriána, Klara ODEHNALOVA, Vladimír ŠRÁMEK a Pavel SUKZákladní údaje
Originální název
Comparison of Active Substance Losses and Total Weight Losses of Tablets Administered Via Feeding Tube
Autoři
PAPIEŽ, Adriána (703 Slovensko, domácí), Klara ODEHNALOVA (203 Česká republika), Vladimír ŠRÁMEK (203 Česká republika, domácí) a Pavel SUK (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí)
Vydání
PHARMACOLOGY, BASEL, KARGER, 2019, 0031-7012
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
30104 Pharmacology and pharmacy
Stát vydavatele
Švýcarsko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 1.625
Kód RIV
RIV/00216224:14110/19:00109118
Organizační jednotka
Lékařská fakulta
UT WoS
000464384500004
Klíčová slova anglicky
Dosage forms; Drug administration routes; Nasogastric tube; Intensive care; High-pressure liquid chromatography
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 18. 12. 2019 14:26, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová
Anotace
V originále
Background/Aims: Administration of tablets via feeding tube (FT) is often associated with significant drug losses, as was confirmed by weighing. The aim of this study was to measure the proportion of active substance losses (ASLs) in an in vitro model. Methods: A film-coated tablet (FilmCT) containing clopidogrel (Trombex (R)) and a tablet with enteric coating (EntericCT) containing pantoprazole (Controloc (R)) were crushed in a mortar and transferred by method A (tablet powder was transferred into the beaker, poured into the syringe and water added) and method B (water was added into the mortar, suspension drawn into the syringe) and administered via FT in an in vitro model. Total losses were measured with analytical balance and, simultaneously, ASL were analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography UV-detection (HPLC-UV). Results: ASL was different to weighing only in the case of EntericCT prepared by method B (2.0 +/- 4.2 and 10.7 +/- 0.8% for HPLC-UV and weighing, respectively; p = 0.004). HPLC-UV confirmed significantly lower ASL when method B was used for either EntericCT (34.3 +/- 7.2 vs. 2.0 +/- 4.2%; p < 0.001) or FilmCT (14.1 +/- 2.2 vs. 7.7 +/- 4.1%; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Drug loss analysis with analytical balance may overestimate ASL, as was proved for EntericCT in this study. ASL were significantly lower when method B was used.