2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.118905
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decoding the small size challenges of mini-tablets for enhanced dose flexibility and micro-dosing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The QTPP shown in Table II was established by the authors after a thorough review of the published papers on minitablets and ODMTs. Minitablets or ODMTs were feasible at diameters between 1 mm and 3 mm, although Tissen et al reported processability issues for the 1 mm tablets as tablet bisection by the scraper affecting 25% of the batch [15,26]. Acceptable mechanical properties of the tablets were reported at crushing strengths above 7 N or tensile strengths over 2 MPa [15,24].…”
Section: Risk Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The QTPP shown in Table II was established by the authors after a thorough review of the published papers on minitablets and ODMTs. Minitablets or ODMTs were feasible at diameters between 1 mm and 3 mm, although Tissen et al reported processability issues for the 1 mm tablets as tablet bisection by the scraper affecting 25% of the batch [15,26]. Acceptable mechanical properties of the tablets were reported at crushing strengths above 7 N or tensile strengths over 2 MPa [15,24].…”
Section: Risk Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Minitablets or ODMTs were feasible at diameters between 1 mm and 3 mm, although Tissen et al reported processability issues for the 1 mm tablets as tablet bisection by the scraper affecting 25% of the batch [15,26]. Acceptable mechanical properties of the tablets were reported at crushing strengths above 7 N or tensile strengths over 2 MPa [15,24]. The development and manufacturing of ODTs are often challenging tasks because of the need to establish a balance between the good disintegration properties in small volumes of liquid and sufficient mechanical resistance to withstand packaging, transport and administration.…”
Section: Risk Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Content uniformity risk at low doses is well-known in the pharmaceutical industry, 3,5 and this risk further aggravates as the tablet size decreases from a conventional tablet to a mini-tablet (2−3 mm) or a micro-tablet (1.2 and 1.5 mm). [6][7][8] Micro-/mini-tablets offer many advantages, such as enhanced patient compliance, reduced excipient burden, and enhanced dose titration flexibility (especially low dose micro-/mini-tablets) in the clinic to establish the dose range [6][7][8][9] concurrently retaining the specific benefits associated with conventional tablets, such as downstream process flexibility, cost of manufacturing, and product stability. 6 To alleviate the CU related challenges associated with low dose solid oral drug products, investigators have focused their research on achieving uniform distribution of API amongst the formulation components by various approaches like reduction in API particle size via dry and wet-milling methods, efficient mixing of API with other formulation components, and use of dry granulation/fluid-bed granulation/high shear wet granulation technology, etc.. 3,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Though the approaches mentioned above offer reasonable solutions to overcome the CU issues, sometimes there might be practical issues that limit their application.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lowest reported API loading with acceptable individual micro-tablet CU variability by direct compression was 14% w/w (i.e., 0.16 mg dose). 6 Further reduction in API loading will enhance the dose titration flexibility achieved by micro-tablets and reduce the excipient burden in the pediatric population. 6,8 In our previous study, we demonstrated that high shear wet granulation of micronized API with proper selection of process parameters helps in achieving acceptable CU variability at even low API loadings (0.67% w/w and 3.33% w/w).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the purpose of this article, these distinctions are denoted, in order of decreasing size, as product (dosage form) > module > component. Modular pharmaceutical product archetypes already exist both on the market and in academic research [ 17 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ], including, for example, granules, pellets, mini tablets, layered dosage forms, and compartmentalized structures, as well as the more recently demonstrated combined API and flexible dose product architectures [ 22 , 52 , 58 ]. However, these are currently designed to either promote process flexibility within the currently dominant mass production paradigm or potentially product variety within a full customization context.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%