Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T21:41:46.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

179 Palatability Assessment of a New Amphetamine Extended-Release Tablet Formulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2020

Barry K. Herman
Affiliation:
SVP/CMO, Tris Pharma, Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ
Thomas R. King
Affiliation:
Tris Pharma, Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ
Judith C. Kando
Affiliation:
Tris Pharma, Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ
Antonio Pardo
Affiliation:
Tris Pharma, Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

In 2016, the US FDA issued an industry guidance document “Quality Attribute Considerations for Chewable Tablets” which describes the quality attributes to be considered when developing chewable tablets. It includes recommendations on selection of acceptance criteria for measuring palatability (having a taste acceptable to the patient or has adequate masking). These data are now recommended as part of ANDA submissions. Palatability is a known positive contributing factor to drug adherence and persistence. We summarize here palatability data for a new amphetamine extended-release tablet (Dyanavel XR® Extended Release Tablet; AMPH ER TAB).

Methods:

This was a 2-arm preplanned secondary analysis from a comparative bioavailability study: single-dose AMPH ER TAB 20 mg chewed under fasting (Treatment A) and fed (Treatment B) conditions. Subjects rated the palatability of AMPH ER TAB (Treatments A+B) through a 5-question palatability questionnaire. The questions included in the palatability questionnaire were as follows:

  1. 1. Oral sensation/mouth feel of the drug product

  2. 2. Taste of the drug product

  3. 3. How strong is the taste?

  4. 4. Aftertaste of the product

  5. 5. How strong is the aftertaste?

Subjects completed the questionnaire within 10 minutes from the time of drug administration, which was evaluated and scored according to the rubric below:

Q1, Q2, Q4: palatability- Very unpleasant (score of 1), Unpleasant (2), No sensation or mouthfeel (3), Pleasant (4), and Very pleasant (5)

Q3, Q5 (Taste/aftertaste strength): Very strong (score of 1), Strong (2), Moderate (3), Mild (4), No aftertaste (5).

Scores of 1-2 for both categories were Negative; score of 3 was Neutral, and 4-5 were Positive.

Results:

35 subjects comprised the palatability dataset (completed one question on the questionnaire). In the palatability analysis, for treatments A and B, most of the subjects rated the oral sensation/mouth feel of AMPH ER TAB (Question 1) and the taste of AMPH ER TAB (Question 2) as positive (pleasant to very pleasant) (70.1% and 83.6%, respectively).

When evaluating taste strength (Question 3): 43.3% rated the strength as positive (mild/no taste) and 43.3% of subjects rated the strength as neutral (moderate taste). Also, 82.1% rated the aftertaste of AMPH ER TAB (Question 4) as positive (pleasant/very pleasant) and 52.2% rated the strength of the aftertaste as positive (mild/no taste).

Conclusion:

Most subjects rated the oral sensation and taste as pleasant or very pleasant, whether chewed under fasted conditions or after a meal. With respect to the taste strength, most subjects rated it as moderate (chewed under fasted conditions) or mild/no taste (chewed after a meal). Aftertaste was rated as pleasant or very pleasant in most subjects, with the strength as moderate (chewed under fasted conditions) or mild/no aftertaste (chewed after a meal). AMPH ER Tablets provided an overall pleasant taste and mouthfeel experience for patients.

Funding Acknowledgements: Tris Pharma, Inc.

Type
Abstracts
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020