D. Wademan, H. R. Draper, S. Purchase, M. Palmer, A. Hesseling, L. E. van der Laan, A. Garcia-Prats
{"title":"接受结核病预防治疗的儿童对左氧氟沙星分散片和非分散片制剂的接受度","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":"{\"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}","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}
Acceptability of levofloxacin dispersible and non-dispersible tablet formulations in children receiving TB preventive treatment
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.