Evidence Hub

Acceptability of levofloxacin dispersible and non-dispersible tablet formulations in children receiving TB preventive treatment

Dillon T. Wademan, Heather R. Draper, Susan E. Purchase, Megan Palmer, Anneke Catharina Hesseling, L. Van der Laan, Anthony J. Garcia‐Prats

IJTLD OPEN, 2024

25 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

SUMMARY BACKGROUND We evaluated the palatability and acceptability of a 100 mg dispersible and a non-dispersible 250 mg levofloxacin (LVX) tablet formulation in children. METHODS Perform 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. RESULTS A 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). CONCLUSIONS The dispersible LVX 100 mg tablet…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 25 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free