Development and optimization of fluoxetine orally disintegrating tablets using Box-Behnken design

Purpose: To develop and optimise some variables that influence fluoxetine orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs) formulation. Methods: Fluoxetine ODTs tablets were prepared using direct compression method. Three-factor, 3- level Box-Behnken design was used to optimize and develop fluoxetine ODT formulation. The design suggested 15 formulations of different lubricant concentration (X1), lubricant mixing time (X2), and compression force (X3) and then their effect was monitored on tablet weight (Y1), thickness (Y2), hardness (Y3), % friability (Y4), and disintegration time (Y5). Results: All powder blends showed acceptable flow properties, ranging from good to excellent. The disintegration time (Y5) was affected directly by lubricant concentration (X1). Lubricant mixing time (X2) had a direct effect on tablet thickness (Y2) and hardness (Y3), while compression force (X3) had a direct impact on tablet hardness (Y3), % friability (Y4) and disintegration time (Y5). Accordingly, Box-Behnken design suggested an optimized formula of 0.86 mg (X1), 15.3 min (X2), and 10.6 KN (X3). Finally, the prediction error percentage responses of Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4, and Y5 were 0.31, 0.52, 2.13, 3.92 and 3.75 %, respectively. Formula 4 and 8 achieved 90 % of drug release within the first 5 min of dissolution test. Conclusion: Fluoxetine ODT formulation has been developed and optimized successfully using Box- Behnken design and has also been manufactured efficiently using direct compression technique.

Knowledge and use of asthma control measurement tools in the management of asthma: a survey of doctors working in family and internal medicine practice in Nigeria.

Objective: To investigate the knowledge and use of asthma control measurement (ACM) tools in the management of asthma among doctors working in family and internal medicine practice in Nigeria. Method: A questionnaire based on the global initiative on asthma (GINA) guideline was self-administered by 194 doctors. It contains 12 test items on knowledge of ACM tools and its application. The knowledge score was obtained by adding the correct answers and classified as good if the score ≥ 9, satisfactory if score was 6-8 and poor if < 6. Results: The overall doctors knowledge score of ACM tools was 4.49±2.14 (maximum of 12). Pulmonologists recorded the highest knowledge score of 10.75±1.85. The majority (69.6%) had poor knowledge score of ACM tools. Fifty (25.8%) assessed their patients’ level of asthma control and 34(17.5%) at every visit. Thirty-nine (20.1%) used ACM tools in their consultation, 29 (15.0%) of them used GINA defined control while 10 (5.2 %) used asthma control test (ACT). The use of the tools was associated with pulmonologists, having attended CME within six months and graduated within five years prior to the survey. Conclusion: The results highlight the poor knowledge and use of ACM tools and the need to address the knowledge gap.