Patient Acceptability and Preferences for Solid Oral Dosage Form Drug Product Attributes: A Scoping Review

Overview

Journal Patient Prefer Adherence

Date 2024 Jun 26

PMID 38919378

Authors

Brett Hauber

Mark V Hand

Bruno C Hancock

Joseph Zarrella

Ljiljana Harding

Michaela Ogden-Barker

Amy S Antipas

Stephen J Watt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There is no consistent framework for patient-centric drug product design, despite the common understanding that drug product acceptability and preferences influence adherence and, therefore, drug product effectiveness. The aim of this review was to assess current understanding of patient acceptability and preferences for solid oral dosage form (SODF) drug product attributes, and the potential impact of these attributes on patient behaviors and outcomes.

Patients And Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched for full-text articles published between January 2013 and May 2023. Following screening and assessment against predefined inclusion criteria, data were analyzed thematically.

Results: Nineteen studies were included. Four overarching domains of drug product attributes were identified and summarized in a framework: appearance, swallowability, palatability, and handling. Each domain was informed by specific drug product attributes: texture, form, size, shape, color, marking, taste, mouthfeel, and smell. The most frequently studied domains were swallowability and appearance, while the most studied attributes were size, shape, and texture. Smell, marking, and mouthfeel were the least studied attributes. Texture intersected all domains, while form, shape, and size intersected appearance, swallowability, and handling. Swallowability and size appeared to be the key domain and attribute, respectively, to consider when designing drug products. Few studies explored the impact of drug product attributes on behaviors and outcomes.

Conclusion: While existing studies of drug product attributes have focused on appearance and swallowability, this review highlighted the importance of two less well-understood domains-palatability and handling-in understanding patients' acceptability and preferences for SODF drug products. The framework provides a tool to facilitate patient-centric design of drug products, organizing and categorizing physical drug product attributes into four overarching domains (appearance, swallowability, palatability, and handling), encouraging researchers to comprehensively assess the impact of drug product attributes on patient acceptability, preferences, and outcomes.

Citing Articles

Net Promoter Score Model for Evaluating Paediatric Medicine Acceptability: Validation and Feasibility Study.

Yoo O, Stanford D, von Ungern-Sternberg B, Lim L Pharmaceutics. 2025; 16(12.

PMID: 39771493 PMC: 11678215. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics16121513.

Perspectives on Drug Product Design Among Patients with Lung Cancer in the United Kingdom.

Coulter J, Baig L, Antipas A, Montague D, Terry A, Dews S Pulm Ther. 2024; 10(4):469-482.

PMID: 39466588 PMC: 11573933. DOI: 10.1007/s41030-024-00279-7.

References

McGrady M, Pai A . A Systematic Review of Rates, Outcomes, and Predictors of Medication Non-Adherence Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2019; 8(5):485-494. PMC: 6791468. DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2018.0160. View

McHugh M . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-82. PMC: 3900052. View

Kurczewska-Michalak M, Kardas P, Czajkowski M . Patients' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Solid Forms of Oral Medications-Results of the Discrete Choice Experiment in Polish Outpatients. Pharmaceutics. 2020; 12(3). PMC: 7150858. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12030236. View

Kozarewicz P . Regulatory perspectives on acceptability testing of dosage forms in children. Int J Pharm. 2014; 469(2):245-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.03.057. View

Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):143. PMC: 6245623. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. View

de Craen A, Roos P, de Vries A, Kleijnen J . Effect of colour of drugs: systematic review of perceived effect of drugs and of their effectiveness. BMJ. 1996; 313(7072):1624-6. PMC: 2359128. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7072.1624. View

Helter T, Boehler C . Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions. J Subst Use. 2016; 21(6):662-668. PMC: 5022136. DOI: 10.3109/14659891.2015.1118563. View

Tao D, Wang T, Wang T, Qu X . Influence of drug colour on perceived drug effects and efficacy. Ergonomics. 2017; 61(2):284-294. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1349935. View

Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, OBrien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D . PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467-473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850. View

10.

Wargenau M, Reidemeister S, Klingmann I, Klingmann V . A Composite Endpoint for Acceptability Evaluation of Oral Drug Formulations in the Pediatric Population. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022; 56(6):903-909. PMC: 9492601. DOI: 10.1007/s43441-022-00406-z. View

11.

Smith M, Janssens R, Jimenez-Moreno A, Cleemput I, Muller M, Oliveri S . Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER. Res Involv Engagem. 2023; 9(1):21. PMC: 10080166. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9. View

12.

Stegemann S, Ternik R, Onder G, Khan M, van Riet-Nales D . Defining Patient Centric Pharmaceutical Drug Product Design. AAPS J. 2016; 18(5):1047-1055. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-016-9938-6. View

13.

Alessandrini E, Gonakova M, Batchelor H, Gizurarson S, Iurian S, Klein S . Colour of Medicines and Children's Acceptability? A Systematic Literature Review of Children's Perceptions about Colours of Oral Dosage Forms. Pharmaceutics. 2023; 15(7). PMC: 10384887. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071992. View

14.

Goyanes A, Scarpa M, Kamlow M, Gaisford S, Basit A, Orlu M . Patient acceptability of 3D printed medicines. Int J Pharm. 2017; 530(1-2):71-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.07.064. View

15.

Burke M, Keeney M, Kleinberg R, Burlage R . Challenges and Opportunities for Patient Centric Drug Product Design: Industry Perspectives. Pharm Res. 2019; 36(6):85. DOI: 10.1007/s11095-019-2616-5. View

16.

Algorri M, Cauchon N, Christian T, OConnell C, Vaidya P . Patient-Centric Product Development: A Summary of Select Regulatory CMC and Device Considerations. J Pharm Sci. 2023; 112(4):922-936. DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2023.01.029. View

17.

Venables R, Batchelor H, Hodson J, Stirling H, Marriott J . Determination of formulation factors that affect oral medicines acceptability in a domiciliary paediatric population. Int J Pharm. 2015; 480(1-2):55-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.01.023. View

18.

Menditto E, Orlando V, De Rosa G, Minghetti P, Musazzi U, Cahir C . Patient Centric Pharmaceutical Drug Product Design-The Impact on Medication Adherence. Pharmaceutics. 2020; 12(1). PMC: 7023035. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12010044. View

19.

Bracken L, Habashy R, McDonough E, Wilson F, Shakeshaft J, Ohia U . Creating Acceptable Tablets 3D (CAT 3D): A Feasibility Study to Evaluate the Acceptability of 3D Printed Tablets in Children and Young People. Pharmaceutics. 2022; 14(3). PMC: 8954179. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14030516. View

20.

Wallace K, Middleton S, Cook I . Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 2000; 118(4):678-87. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70137-5. View