犬用兽药口服咀嚼片的适口性试验

Michelle M. Aleo, S. Ross, C. Becskei, E. Coscarelli, V. King, M. Darling, Julie K. Lorenz
{"title":"犬用兽药口服咀嚼片的适口性试验","authors":"Michelle M. Aleo, S. Ross, C. Becskei, E. Coscarelli, V. King, M. Darling, Julie K. Lorenz","doi":"10.4236/OJVM.2018.88011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For veterinary medications administered per os, animal health companies strive to develop highly palatable dosage forms that are voluntarily accepted by animals to improve compliance and convenience. Achieving high palatability is often complex and difficult even without the presence of an active ingredient. This work compared acceptance and preference studies, as standardized methods are not established for informing formulation development or for more routine testing. Formulation development was followed by an acceptance study completed with laboratory Beagle dogs. One acceptance study and one preference study were completed in mixed breed dogs, also laboratory-housed, to gain wider representation of dog breed and age. Through these studies, we have evaluated both formulation parameters and palatability study conduct. In general, more complex palatants that have appealing taste, smell, and mouth feel enhance voluntary uptake. However, dosage forms that are too chewy may not be freely consumed even with complex palatants. The addition of aroma can entice dogs to prehend the tablet, as observed in one preference study. Preference studies in the veterinary pharmaceutical field identify the preferred first choice or first prehend, but not which product will be routinely voluntarily and fully consumed. Acceptance studies with cross-over treatment groups are used to quantify the full consumption of a dosage form when a dog is not given two choices at once. Since all dogs in acceptance studies are offered all treatment groups throughout the study, a comparison between degrees of consumption could suggest that one formulation might be preferred over another.","PeriodicalId":61886,"journal":{"name":"兽医学(英文)","volume":"08 1","pages":"107-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Palatability Testing of Oral Chewables in Veterinary Medicine for Dogs\",\"authors\":\"Michelle M. Aleo, S. Ross, C. Becskei, E. Coscarelli, V. King, M. Darling, Julie K. Lorenz\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/OJVM.2018.88011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For veterinary medications administered per os, animal health companies strive to develop highly palatable dosage forms that are voluntarily accepted by animals to improve compliance and convenience. Achieving high palatability is often complex and difficult even without the presence of an active ingredient. This work compared acceptance and preference studies, as standardized methods are not established for informing formulation development or for more routine testing. Formulation development was followed by an acceptance study completed with laboratory Beagle dogs. One acceptance study and one preference study were completed in mixed breed dogs, also laboratory-housed, to gain wider representation of dog breed and age. Through these studies, we have evaluated both formulation parameters and palatability study conduct. In general, more complex palatants that have appealing taste, smell, and mouth feel enhance voluntary uptake. However, dosage forms that are too chewy may not be freely consumed even with complex palatants. The addition of aroma can entice dogs to prehend the tablet, as observed in one preference study. Preference studies in the veterinary pharmaceutical field identify the preferred first choice or first prehend, but not which product will be routinely voluntarily and fully consumed. Acceptance studies with cross-over treatment groups are used to quantify the full consumption of a dosage form when a dog is not given two choices at once. Since all dogs in acceptance studies are offered all treatment groups throughout the study, a comparison between degrees of consumption could suggest that one formulation might be preferred over another.\",\"PeriodicalId\":61886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"兽医学(英文)\",\"volume\":\"08 1\",\"pages\":\"107-118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"兽医学(英文)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1091\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/OJVM.2018.88011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"兽医学(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1091","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/OJVM.2018.88011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

对于口服兽药,动物健康公司努力开发动物自愿接受的高度适口的剂型,以提高依从性和便利性。即使没有活性成分,实现高适口性通常也是复杂和困难的。这项工作比较了接受度和偏好研究,因为没有建立标准化方法来为配方开发或更常规的测试提供信息。配方开发之后,对实验室比格犬进行了验收研究。在实验室饲养的混合品种狗中完成了一项接受研究和一项偏好研究,以获得更广泛的犬种和年龄代表性。通过这些研究,我们对配方参数和适口性研究进行了评估。一般来说,具有吸引力的味觉、嗅觉和口腔感觉的更复杂的腭能增强自主吸收。然而,太有嚼劲的剂型可能无法自由食用,即使是复杂的腭。正如一项偏好研究所观察到的那样,添加香气可以诱使狗预先咀嚼药片。兽医药学领域的偏好研究确定了首选或第一次预处理,但没有确定哪种产品将被常规自愿和完全消费。交叉治疗组的接受度研究用于量化当狗没有同时得到两种选择时,剂型的全部消耗量。由于在整个研究过程中,所有接受研究的狗都接受了所有治疗组的治疗,因此,食用程度之间的比较可能表明,一种配方可能比另一种配方更受欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Palatability Testing of Oral Chewables in Veterinary Medicine for Dogs
For veterinary medications administered per os, animal health companies strive to develop highly palatable dosage forms that are voluntarily accepted by animals to improve compliance and convenience. Achieving high palatability is often complex and difficult even without the presence of an active ingredient. This work compared acceptance and preference studies, as standardized methods are not established for informing formulation development or for more routine testing. Formulation development was followed by an acceptance study completed with laboratory Beagle dogs. One acceptance study and one preference study were completed in mixed breed dogs, also laboratory-housed, to gain wider representation of dog breed and age. Through these studies, we have evaluated both formulation parameters and palatability study conduct. In general, more complex palatants that have appealing taste, smell, and mouth feel enhance voluntary uptake. However, dosage forms that are too chewy may not be freely consumed even with complex palatants. The addition of aroma can entice dogs to prehend the tablet, as observed in one preference study. Preference studies in the veterinary pharmaceutical field identify the preferred first choice or first prehend, but not which product will be routinely voluntarily and fully consumed. Acceptance studies with cross-over treatment groups are used to quantify the full consumption of a dosage form when a dog is not given two choices at once. Since all dogs in acceptance studies are offered all treatment groups throughout the study, a comparison between degrees of consumption could suggest that one formulation might be preferred over another.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
244
期刊最新文献
Causes and Effects of Stillbirths on Days Open and Cow Herd Survival in Holstein Friesian Cows Effect of a Commercially Available Electrolyte Solution on Acute, Non-Specific Diarrhea in Dogs Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Its Utility in Cattle Reproduction The Effects of Using a Specially Designed Stirrup on Kinetic Energy Absorption by the Knee Joint of 12 Show Jumping/Eventing Riders Development and Validation of an Indirect Whole-Virus ELISA Using a Predominant Genotype VI Velogenic NewCastle Disease Virus Isolated from Lebanese Poultry
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1