4.7 Article

The use of scintigraphy to demonstrate the rapid esophageal transit of the oval film-coated placebo risedronate tablet compared to a round uncoated placebo tablet when administered with minimal volumes of water

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 222, Issue 2, Pages 295-303

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00722-0

Keywords

risedronate; esophageal transit; scintigraphy; film-coating; tablet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As our population ages, and the consumption of pharmaceutical products rises, the incidence of solid oral dosage forms lodging in the esophagus is likely to increase and may be formulation dependent. The aim of this study was to compare the esophageal transit of the commercial film-coated risedronate tablet and a round uncoated tablet resembling the alendronate 10 mg tablet which is reported to cause esophagitis if ingested with little to no water. Water volumes of 30 ml and 50 ml were selected as these volumes can detect formulations prone to esophageal adhesion and a habits and practice study showed that these volumes are within the range preferred by women (7-385 ml). A total of 28 healthy postmenopausal women completed the four-way crossover scintigraphy study. For both volumes of water, the film-coated placebo risedronate tablet had a statistically significant faster esophageal transit time than the uncoated placebo tablet (P = 0.002 for 30 ml water and P < 0.001 for 50 ml water). Among those taking the round, flat, uncoated tablet, five subjects had esophageal stasis (transit > 20 s) and in three subjects the tablet remained in the esophagus at the end of the 10-min imaging period. No stasis was observed for the oval film-coated placebo risedronate tablet. This study demonstrates that tablet size, shape and coating are pharmaceutical parameters which can be controlled to minimize esophageal contact of a dosage form with esophageal tissue. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available