D. Wademan, H. R. Draper, S. Purchase, M. Palmer, A. Hesseling, L. E. van der Laan, A. Garcia-Prats
{"title":"Acceptability of levofloxacin dispersible and non-dispersible tablet formulations in children receiving TB preventive treatment","authors":"D. Wademan, H. R. Draper, S. Purchase, M. Palmer, A. Hesseling, L. E. van der Laan, A. Garcia-Prats","doi":"10.5588/ijtldopen.23.0462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDWe evaluated the palatability and acceptability of a 100 mg dispersible and a non-dispersible 250 mg levofloxacin (LVX) tablet formulation in children.METHODSPerform was a randomised,\n open-label, cross-over trial of the relative bioavailability of LVX dispersible vs. crushed non-dispersible tablets in children aged <6 years routinely receiving TB preventive treatment. Children and caregivers completed Likert- and ranking-type measures on the acceptability of both formulations.\n We used summary, comparative and ranking statistics to characterise formulation acceptability.RESULTSA total of 25 children were enrolled (median age: 2.6 years, IQR 1.6–4.0). Caregivers reported frequent challenges with preventive\n therapy in routine care prior to study entry, including taste of tablets (n = 14, 56%), vomiting/spitting out medicines (n = 11, 44%), and children refusing medicines (n = 10, 40%). Caregivers reported that the dispersible formulation was easier for their child to take\n than the non-dispersible formulation (P = 0.0253). Mean ranks for caregiver’s formulation preferences (dispersible tablets: 1.48, SD ±0.71; non-dispersible tablets: 2.12, SD ±0.67; routinely available formulations: 2.40 SD ±0.82) differed significantly (Friedman’s\n F 11.120; P < 0.0038); post-hoc testing showed dispersible tablets were preferred over non-dispersible (P = 0.018) and routinely available LVX formulations (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSThe dispersible LVX 100\n mg tablet formulation was preferred and should be prioritised for integration into routine care.","PeriodicalId":516613,"journal":{"name":"IJTLD OPEN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IJTLD OPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtldopen.23.0462","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
BACKGROUNDWe evaluated the palatability and acceptability of a 100 mg dispersible and a non-dispersible 250 mg levofloxacin (LVX) tablet formulation in children.METHODSPerform was a randomised,
open-label, cross-over trial of the relative bioavailability of LVX dispersible vs. crushed non-dispersible tablets in children aged <6 years routinely receiving TB preventive treatment. Children and caregivers completed Likert- and ranking-type measures on the acceptability of both formulations.
We used summary, comparative and ranking statistics to characterise formulation acceptability.RESULTSA total of 25 children were enrolled (median age: 2.6 years, IQR 1.6–4.0). Caregivers reported frequent challenges with preventive
therapy in routine care prior to study entry, including taste of tablets (n = 14, 56%), vomiting/spitting out medicines (n = 11, 44%), and children refusing medicines (n = 10, 40%). Caregivers reported that the dispersible formulation was easier for their child to take
than the non-dispersible formulation (P = 0.0253). Mean ranks for caregiver’s formulation preferences (dispersible tablets: 1.48, SD ±0.71; non-dispersible tablets: 2.12, SD ±0.67; routinely available formulations: 2.40 SD ±0.82) differed significantly (Friedman’s
F 11.120; P < 0.0038); post-hoc testing showed dispersible tablets were preferred over non-dispersible (P = 0.018) and routinely available LVX formulations (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSThe dispersible LVX 100
mg tablet formulation was preferred and should be prioritised for integration into routine care.