This research demonstrates targeted intestinal drug delivery using multiparticulates in ODTs, suggesting improved therapeutic outcomes for patients with dysphagia.
Background/Objectives: Enteric coating protects active pharmaceutical ingredients from gastric degradation, but conventional tablets may present swallowing difficulties in geriatric and pediatric patients. Hence, this study intended to develop pH-responsive multiparticulates, formulated into orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs), for targeted intestinal drug delivery in individuals with dysphagia. Methods: Multiparticulates were developed via sequential seal coating, drug layering, sub-coating, and enteric coating on inert cores using a fluidized bed coater (Pam Glatt, India; bottom spray). Selected enteric-coated batches were directly compressed into ODTs using microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel PH102) and mannitol (Pearlitol SD 160) as fillers, with Explotab®, Ac-Di-Sol®, or crospovidone M® as superdisintegrants. Results: Multiparticulates exhibited mean diameters of 197.671–529.511 μm and span values of 0.603–0.838. Span value < 1, indicating a narrow size distribution. Electron microscopy confirmed the spherical morphology of Batches 7a and b. Enteric-coated batches (5b, 6, 7a, 7b) released ≤10% of the drug in 0.1 N HCl at 2 h. Optimized formulation ODT 7b released 7.904% of the drug under gastric conditions and 79.749% in phosphate buffer (pH 6.8) within 2.5 h, following first-order drug release kinetics. ODT 7b demonstrated hardness (2.538 ± 0.144 kg/cm2), wetting time (11.17 ± 1.051 s), friability (0.712%), and drug content (99.81 ± 1.01%) within acceptable limits. Conclusions: The pH-dependent multiparticulates provided sustained intestinal drug release and, when incorporated into ODTs, yielded a dosage form with a rapid wetting time and acceptable mechanical properties. This dosage form can offer a promising approach for improving compliance and therapeutic efficacy in patients with swallowing difficulties (dysphagia).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: