Assessment of the Acid Neutralizing Capacity and Other Properties of Antacid Formulations Marketed in the Gaza Strip

M. Ramadan, S. Turk
{"title":"Assessment of the Acid Neutralizing Capacity and Other Properties of Antacid Formulations Marketed in the Gaza Strip","authors":"M. Ramadan, S. Turk","doi":"10.52865/qchr1551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antacids are frequently used as over-the-counter (OTC) medications to reduce symptoms of dyspepsia and to neutralize stomach acidity. Evaluation of antacids efficacy depends on in vitro testing like acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and acid neutralization potential (ANP). The purpose of this study was to examine ANC, ANP, and other characteristics of commercially available antacid formulations (both liquid and solid formulations) in the Gaza Strip. Methods: Both liquid (n=2) and solid (n=4) antacid formulations were acquired from the Gaza Strip’s central community pharmacies. Preliminary antacid test (PAT) was carried out to determine if the tested formulation is classified as antacid. The general monograph <301> in USP34/NF29 was used for the estimation of ANC, while ANP was investigated using Rossett Rice procedure. Both tests were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of antacid. In addition, cost effectiveness per formulation and statistical analysis test of data were calculated. Results: All formulations were classified as antacids because they all passed the PAT test (pH of antacid-HCl over 3.5). The ANC of antacids (n=6) varied from 8.74±0.37 to 29.14±0.84 mEq per minimum labeled dose (MLD). The ANC/MLD ratios for solid formulations were higher than those of liquid formulations. No statistically significant difference in ANC/MLD between the two groups was estimated (P˃.0.05). ANP test - the time duration during which an antacid formulation maintains pH above 3.5 - ranged from 43 to 90 minutes. According to this study liquids were inefficient in acid neutralization and expensive as a result. Conclusions: The ANC and ANP results indicated the better neutralizing efficacy and duration of solid antacids in comparison to liquids. A1 and A2 formulations– calcium and magnesium salt based solid antacids had the most appropriate properties in terms of efficacy, onset and duration of neutralizing activity. Antacids in the form of chewable tablets were the most cost-effective formulations. It is recommended to examine more batches of the same antacids and to add ANC data on the label of antacids.","PeriodicalId":223912,"journal":{"name":"Israa University Journal for Applied Science","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israa University Journal for Applied Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52865/qchr1551","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antacids are frequently used as over-the-counter (OTC) medications to reduce symptoms of dyspepsia and to neutralize stomach acidity. Evaluation of antacids efficacy depends on in vitro testing like acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and acid neutralization potential (ANP). The purpose of this study was to examine ANC, ANP, and other characteristics of commercially available antacid formulations (both liquid and solid formulations) in the Gaza Strip. Methods: Both liquid (n=2) and solid (n=4) antacid formulations were acquired from the Gaza Strip’s central community pharmacies. Preliminary antacid test (PAT) was carried out to determine if the tested formulation is classified as antacid. The general monograph <301> in USP34/NF29 was used for the estimation of ANC, while ANP was investigated using Rossett Rice procedure. Both tests were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of antacid. In addition, cost effectiveness per formulation and statistical analysis test of data were calculated. Results: All formulations were classified as antacids because they all passed the PAT test (pH of antacid-HCl over 3.5). The ANC of antacids (n=6) varied from 8.74±0.37 to 29.14±0.84 mEq per minimum labeled dose (MLD). The ANC/MLD ratios for solid formulations were higher than those of liquid formulations. No statistically significant difference in ANC/MLD between the two groups was estimated (P˃.0.05). ANP test - the time duration during which an antacid formulation maintains pH above 3.5 - ranged from 43 to 90 minutes. According to this study liquids were inefficient in acid neutralization and expensive as a result. Conclusions: The ANC and ANP results indicated the better neutralizing efficacy and duration of solid antacids in comparison to liquids. A1 and A2 formulations– calcium and magnesium salt based solid antacids had the most appropriate properties in terms of efficacy, onset and duration of neutralizing activity. Antacids in the form of chewable tablets were the most cost-effective formulations. It is recommended to examine more batches of the same antacids and to add ANC data on the label of antacids.
评估在加沙地带销售的抗酸制剂的中和酸能力和其他性能
背景:抗酸药经常被用作非处方(OTC)药物,以减轻消化不良症状和中和胃酸。抗酸效果的评价依赖于酸中和能力(ANC)和酸中和电位(ANP)等体外测试。本研究的目的是检查加沙地带市售抗酸制剂(液体和固体制剂)的ANC、ANP和其他特性。方法:从加沙地带中心社区药房购买液体(n=2)和固体(n=4)抗酸制剂。进行初步抗酸试验(PAT)以确定所试制剂是否属于抗酸剂。采用USP34/NF29的通用专论估计ANC,而ANP采用Rossett Rice程序研究。两项试验都是为了评价抗酸剂的疗效。并计算了各配方的成本效益和数据的统计分析检验。结果:所有制剂均通过PAT试验(抗酸剂-盐酸pH值大于3.5),均归为抗酸剂。抗酸剂(n=6)的ANC为8.74±0.37 ~ 29.14±0.84 mEq /最小标记剂量(MLD)。固体制剂的ANC/MLD比高于液体制剂。两组患者ANC/MLD比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。ANP测试——抗酸制剂保持pH值在3.5以上的持续时间——范围从43分钟到90分钟。研究结果表明,液体酸中和效率低,价格昂贵。结论:ANC和ANP结果表明,固体抗酸剂的中和效果和持续时间优于液体抗酸剂。钙镁盐基固体抗酸剂A1和A2剂型在中和活性的有效性、起效和持续时间方面具有最合适的性能。抗酸剂以咀嚼片剂的形式是最具成本效益的配方。建议检查更多批次相同的抗酸剂,并在抗酸剂标签上添加ANC数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信