Taste Pathway
Ventral posterior
medial nucleus of
thalamus

or parietal
cerebral
cortex

(nuclei of tractus solitarius)
Epithelial cells
in taste buds
Supporting
cells

Gustatory
receptor cells

Basal cells
Papillae
for taste
Vallate
Papillae

Fungiform
Papillae

Foliate
Papillae
CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ageusia: Absence of sense of taste
Dysgeusia: Disturbed sense of taste
Hypogeusia: Diminshed sense of taste
Hypergeusia: increased sense of taste
Trends in Pharmaceutical Taste Masking
Technologies: A Patent Review
Z. Ayenew, V. Puri, L. Kumar and A. K. Bansal, Recent Patents on Drug
Delivery & Formulation 2009, 3, 26-39.

Department of Quality Assurance
ISF COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
MOGA – 142001
Presented by:- Saurav Bhandari
INTRODUCTION
• The flavor of a substance is attributed to its taste, sight, odor and qualities
such as mouth feel.
• Taste refers to a perception arising from the stimulation of taste buds
present on the surface of the tongue.

• Humans can distinguish among five components of taste:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sourness
Saltiness
Sweetness
Bitterness
Umami (savory)
INTRODUCTION
• The sweet, salty and the sour-taste receptors are concentrated on the tip
and both edges of the tongue.
• Bitter taste is perceived by the receptors at the back of the tongue.
• Umami taste receptors are located all over the tongue.
•

This article focuses on the current trends in the taste masking
technologies summarized from the state of art patents filed in the 10 year
span of 1997 to 2007 in this field.

• It discusses the reported taste masking technologies and the factors
governing the selection of taste masking strategies for a particular drug.
CURRENT TRENDS IN TASTE MASKING
TECHNOLOGIES
• The worldwide database of European patent office (http://
ep.espacenet.com) was used to search the taste masking patents and the
patent applications published in the period of year 1997 to 2007.
CURRENT TRENDS IN TASTE MASKING
TECHNOLOGIES
• Taste masking technologies are increasingly focussed on aggressively
bitter tasting drugs like
1.
2.
3.

Macrolide anti-biotics
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Peni-cillins

•

Taste masking of water soluble bitter drugs, especially those with a high
dose, is difficult to achieve by using sweeteners alone. As a
consequence, more efficient techniques such as coating,
microencapsulation and granulation have been used in combination with
the sweeteners.
CURRENT TRENDS IN TASTE MASKING
TECHNOLOGIES
•

Coating, which accounts for 27% of patents and patent applications, was
the most commonly used technique.

•

An almost equivalent percentage of patents were filed on the flavors and
sweeteners for taste masking.

•

Microencapsulation, granulation technologies, suppressants
potentiators also hold a prominent share of patents in this field.

•

Less commonly used taste masking technologies were viscosity
modifiers, solid dispersions, complexing agents, ion exchange resins, pH
modifiers these hold 5% share of the total taste masking patents.

and
TREND ANALYSIS
PERIODS

SWEETENERS

COATING

1997-2000

Prominent

2001-2004

41.6% Increase

133% Increase

2005-2007

No Increase

78.6% Increase
TASTE MASKING TECHNOLOGIES
COATING
•

Coating is one of the most efficient and commonly used taste masking
technologies.

•

It is classified based on the type of coating material, coating solvent system,
and the number of coating layers.

•

Hydrophobic polymers, lipids, sweeteners and hydrophilic polymers can be
used as coating materials, either alone or in combination, as a single or multilayer coat.

•

Hydrophobic polymers have been popularly used for coating bitter
medicaments to achieve taste masking. However, hydrophilic polymers may
also provide taste masking. For example, rotogranules containing ibuprofen,
polyvinylpyrrolidone, sodium starch glycolate and sodium lauryl sulfate were
coated with hydrophilic polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose or a mixture
of hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose to achieve taste
masking.
COATING
• Combinations of pH independent water insoluble polymers such as
cellulose ethers, cellulose ester, polyvinyl acetate and water soluble
polymers such as cellulose acetate butyrate, polyvinylpyrollidone,
hydroxyethyl cellulose have been used to attain a balance between the
taste masking and in vitro release.
• This approach may not be effective for the oral liquid dosage forms such
as suspensions due to a gradual loss of taste masking efficiency upon
storage in the liquid form. In such cases, pH independent water insoluble
polymers can be combined with the enteric or reverse enteric polymers to
increase the taste masking efficiency.
• The pH of formulation maintained between 3.5 and 5 by adding a
buffering agent to prevent the dissolution of polymers. This approach can
provide an efficient taste masked suspensions over a long storage time.
GRANULATION
• Mixture of bitter medicaments and sweeteners, hydrophobic polymers,
lipids or waxes can be processed by dry, wet and melt granulation
techniques to prepare taste masked oral solid or liquid dosage forms.
• Granulation is a less expensive, rapid operation and an easily scalable
taste masking technology.

• pH dependent and independent water insoluble polymers, especially the
swelling polymers such as MCC and polycarbophil have been employed.
• During granulation, particle coating may remain incomplete. However, a
swelling matrix phenomenon can reduce the overall diffusion of the
bitter active. Thus, swellable polymers can give a better taste masking in
granulation compared to non swellable polymers.
SWEETENERS
• Sweeteners are commonly used in combination with other taste masking
technologies. They can be mixed with bitter taste medicaments to
improve the taste of the core material which is prepared for further
coating or may be added to the coating liquid.
• Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose, aspartame and saccharin have
been used in combination with sugar alcohols such as lactitol, maltitol and
sorbitol to decrease the after-taste perception of artificial sweeteners.
Sucralose can be used with physiologically acceptable acids (e.g. citric
acid) to increase the taste masking efficiency of the sweetener.
Sweetener(s)
Sucralose and
acids(e.g. citric
acid)

Sucralose

Drug(s)

Acetaminophen,
guaifenesin and
dextromethorphan
hydrobromide
Amino acids(e.g. Lalanine and L-aspartic
acid and other
Amino acids except
arginine), protein
hydrolysates and
proteins

Comments

Citric acid Low pH(2 to 5) and use of
as a sweetener achieves
an unexpected synergy of bitter
taste masking effectiveness
Improved taste without an
unpleasant, bitter/metallic taste or
after-taste of ingestible products
MICROENCAPSULATION
• Coating by enteric polymers in combination with water insoluble and
gastrosoluble polymers have been used for masking the unpleasant taste
of medicaments. Combination of water soluble polymer like gelatin, and
water insoluble coating polymer like ethyl-cellulose was used to prepare
taste masked microcapsules by the phase separation method.
• pH independent water insoluble polymers have been used with enteric
polymers, to achieve taste masking by microencapsulation. Buffering
agents are also included in suspending medium to increase taste masking
efficiency of microcapsules in oral suspensions.
TASTE SUPPRESSANTS AND POTENTIATORS
• Taste suppressants compete with bitter substances to bind with the Gprotein coupled (GPCR) receptor sites.
• Lipoproteins are universal bitter taste blockers. Study on animal model
showed that lipoproteins composed of phosphatidic acid and β lactoglobulin inhibit the taste nerve responses to the bitter substances
without affecting those due to the sugars, amino acids, salts or acids.
• Mixture of cooling (e.g. eucalyptol) and warming agents (e.g. methyl
salicylate) was used for taste masking of thymol.
• Potentiators increase the perception of the taste of sweeteners and mask
the unpleasant after taste. Potentiators such as thaumatine,
neohesperidine dihydrochalcone(NHDC) and glycyrrhizin can increase the
perception of sodium or calcium saccharinates, saccharin, acesulfame
TASTE SUPPRESSANTS AND POTENTIATORS
• The recent trend of use of bitter taste blockers such as hydroxyflavanones,
adenosine monophosphate and gamma-aminobutanoic acid were found
to be effective to achieve the taste masking of bitter drugs.
SOLID DISPERSIONS
• Specific interactions between poorly soluble drugs and hydrophilic
polymers can increase the solubility of the drug
Solution of quinolone + the natural hydrophobic polymer shellac
solvent evaporation

Taste masked solid dispersion

This approach usually requires a higher concentration of excipients
compared to other taste masking techniques.

Natural polymers such as shellac and zein
Enteric poly-mers like derivatives of acrylic acid polymers and phthalate are
good choices to develop the taste masked solid dispersions.
ION EXCHANGE RESINS
• Ion exchange resins are high molecular weight polymers with cationic and
anionic functional groups.

Resins form insoluble resinates + oppositely charged drugs

Form weak ionic bonding & maintain low concentration of the free
drug in a suspension

After ingestion, the resinate exchange the drug with the counter ion
in gastrointestinal tract

The drug is eluted & get absorbed
VISCOSITY ENHANCERS

Viscosity Enhancers

Retard the migration of
dissolved medicament
from the surface of the
solid particle to the
suspending medium

Decrease the contact
between the bitter
medicament and the
taste receptors
VISCOSITY ENHANCERS
• Hypromellose was used as a viscosity modifier in taste masked azelastine
suspension consisting of sucralose as the sweetening agent
• Viscosity enhancers included in suspending vehicle to improve the taste
masking efficiency some examples include1. Xanthan gum
2. Microcrystalline cellulose
3. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
COMPLEX FORMATION

Complex Formation

Cyclodextrins wraps the
bad tasting molecule to
inhibit its interaction
with the taste buds

Interacts with the gatekeeper proteins of the
taste buds

Sweeteners such as acesulfame can form complex with medicaments to
achieve taste masking.
pH MODIFIERS
pH Modifying agents

Generate a specific pH microenvironment in aqueous media

Cause in situ precipitation of the bitter drug substance in saliva

Reduce the overall taste sensation for liquid dosage forms like suspension
ADSORBATES

Drug + Adsorbate

The drug may be adsorbed or/and entrapped in the matrix of the porous
component (Adsorbate)

Result in a delayed release of the bitter active during the transit through the
oral cavity
FACTORS AFFECTING SELECTION OF TASTE
MASKING TECHNOLOGY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Extent of Bitter Taste
Dose of Active Pharmaceuticals
Drug Particle Shape and Size Distribution
Dosage Forms
Drug Solubility
Ionic Characteristics of the Drug
EXTENT OF BITTER TASTE
With aggressively bad tasting medicaments even a little exposure is
sufficient to perceive the bad taste.
• Coating is more efficient technology for aggressively bitter drugs even
though coating imperfections, if present, reduce the efficiency of the
technique
• Microencapsulation of potent bitter active agents such as azithromycin is
insufficient to provide taste masking of liquid oral suspensions.
• Viscosity enhancers can complement the taste masking efficiency. Oral
suspension containing viscosity enhancers can mask the objectionable
taste.
DOSE OF ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS
• Dose of a drug may dictate whether a particular formulation strategy
would be suitable to achieve taste masking
• Low dose palatable pediatric aspirin oral formulation was developed by
adding sweeteners, but the same approach failed to address the problem
of drugs like acetaminophen because of its high dose
• Coating will be the preferred techinique if dose of drug is high
DRUG PARTICLE SHAPE AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION
• Core materials with irregular shapes and small particle size lead to poor
taste masking efficiency and varying dissolution of coated particles
Granules of irregular particles are prepared

Coating using internal spacing layer

Coating layer for taste masking to avoid any misperfection in coating
DOSAGE FORMS
• Chewable tablets and liquid oral formulations are preferable in case of
large dose drugs for an ease of intake.
• Taste masking technologies such as sweeteners, particulate coating,
microencapsulation and granulation can be employed for chewable
tablets and supported with techno-logies such as viscosity enhancers and
pH modifiers to achieve taste masking in liquid oral formulations

• Microencapsulation of the unpleasant tasting active agent with ethyl
cellulose or a mixture of ethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose or
other cellulose derivatives has been used to provide chewable tastemasked dosage forms. However, this approach is having disadvantage that
it also affect release of drug from the formulation. So this is not good for
drugs which are to be used for immediate release.
DRUG SOLUBILITY
• Physicochemical properties of the drug play an important role in the
selection of taste masking technology
• Ondansetron has a relatively lower water solubility at higher pH, based on
which a rapidly disintegrating taste masked composition of ondansetron
was formulated by adding an alkalizing agent (sodium bicarbonate) to
reduce the water solubility and also the taste perception
Water Insoluble drug

Water soluble drug

Coat with a Lipid

Formulated in aqueous media, so
Coating with a Lipid is difficult

Coat with polymeric binder
IONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRUG
• Ionic characteristics of drugs govern the selection of ion exchange resin
polymers
• Anionic polymers (e.g. Alginic acid) are good candidates for cationic drugs
like donepezil hydrochloride, and the cationic polymers are choice of
excipients for anionic drugs like sildenafil
CURRENT & FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
• Use of sweeteners is an age old and most popular tool for disguising
bitterness
• The combination of sweeteners with other taste masking technologies
including microencapsulation, particulate coating, bitterness blockers, ion
exchange resins and potentiators is found to be a more efficient strategy.
• Bitter taste blockers which specifically block the bitter taste but not the
pleasant taste of any additive are being explored as universal taste
masking alternatives. Presently, they are limited in number, and most of
them not being GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) listed.
REFERENCES
• Lindemann B. Umami taste receptor identified. Nature Neuro-science
2000. http://www.nature.com/neuro/press_release/nn0200.
html(accessed on May 01, 2008).
• Yonan J. Umami: Two cookbook authors hope to demystify the littleknown fifth taste. The Boston Globe 2006. http://www.
boston.com/ae/food/articles/2006/03/15/umami/(accessed on May 01,
2008).
• Roche, E.J., Papile, S.M., Freeman, E.M.: US5260072(1993).
• Kulkarni, G.M., Menjoge, A.R.: CN1878539(2006).
• Roche, E.J., Reo, J.P.: KR0166064B (1999).
• Dumont, H., Thibert, R.: US20060228410 (2006).
• Kokubo, H., Nishiyama, Y.: KR20010051807 (2001).
• Yeong, J.S., Gil, K.M., Su, P.Y., Il, S.S., Sin, S.J.: KR0058861 (2003).
REFERENCES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Douglas, S.J., Evans, J.: CA2146999 (1994).
Krise, H.E., Rajendra, K.K., John, H.: US20046740341 (2004).
Naoto, O., Yasunobu, O.: JP327943 (2006).
Nandi, I., Guo, M., Gassert, C.M.: US20050084540 (2005).
Lai, J.W., Venkatesh, G.M., Qian, K.K.: US20060105039 (2006).
Julian, T.N., Radebaugh, G.W.: KR970007899B (1997).
Gandhi, R., Issa, C., Malik, R.: US20060159758 (2006).
Paruthi, M.K., Bhonsle, S., Krishnan, A.: WO2004066984 (2004).
Venkatesh, G.M.: US20060078614 (2006).
Taste masking approaches

Taste masking approaches

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Ventral posterior medial nucleusof thalamus or parietal cerebral cortex (nuclei of tractus solitarius)
  • 3.
    Epithelial cells in tastebuds Supporting cells Gustatory receptor cells Basal cells
  • 4.
  • 5.
    CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS Ageusia: Absenceof sense of taste Dysgeusia: Disturbed sense of taste Hypogeusia: Diminshed sense of taste Hypergeusia: increased sense of taste
  • 6.
    Trends in PharmaceuticalTaste Masking Technologies: A Patent Review Z. Ayenew, V. Puri, L. Kumar and A. K. Bansal, Recent Patents on Drug Delivery & Formulation 2009, 3, 26-39. Department of Quality Assurance ISF COLLEGE OF PHARMACY MOGA – 142001 Presented by:- Saurav Bhandari
  • 7.
    INTRODUCTION • The flavorof a substance is attributed to its taste, sight, odor and qualities such as mouth feel. • Taste refers to a perception arising from the stimulation of taste buds present on the surface of the tongue. • Humans can distinguish among five components of taste: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sourness Saltiness Sweetness Bitterness Umami (savory)
  • 8.
    INTRODUCTION • The sweet,salty and the sour-taste receptors are concentrated on the tip and both edges of the tongue. • Bitter taste is perceived by the receptors at the back of the tongue. • Umami taste receptors are located all over the tongue. • This article focuses on the current trends in the taste masking technologies summarized from the state of art patents filed in the 10 year span of 1997 to 2007 in this field. • It discusses the reported taste masking technologies and the factors governing the selection of taste masking strategies for a particular drug.
  • 9.
    CURRENT TRENDS INTASTE MASKING TECHNOLOGIES • The worldwide database of European patent office (http:// ep.espacenet.com) was used to search the taste masking patents and the patent applications published in the period of year 1997 to 2007.
  • 10.
    CURRENT TRENDS INTASTE MASKING TECHNOLOGIES • Taste masking technologies are increasingly focussed on aggressively bitter tasting drugs like 1. 2. 3. Macrolide anti-biotics Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs Peni-cillins • Taste masking of water soluble bitter drugs, especially those with a high dose, is difficult to achieve by using sweeteners alone. As a consequence, more efficient techniques such as coating, microencapsulation and granulation have been used in combination with the sweeteners.
  • 11.
    CURRENT TRENDS INTASTE MASKING TECHNOLOGIES • Coating, which accounts for 27% of patents and patent applications, was the most commonly used technique. • An almost equivalent percentage of patents were filed on the flavors and sweeteners for taste masking. • Microencapsulation, granulation technologies, suppressants potentiators also hold a prominent share of patents in this field. • Less commonly used taste masking technologies were viscosity modifiers, solid dispersions, complexing agents, ion exchange resins, pH modifiers these hold 5% share of the total taste masking patents. and
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
    COATING • Coating is oneof the most efficient and commonly used taste masking technologies. • It is classified based on the type of coating material, coating solvent system, and the number of coating layers. • Hydrophobic polymers, lipids, sweeteners and hydrophilic polymers can be used as coating materials, either alone or in combination, as a single or multilayer coat. • Hydrophobic polymers have been popularly used for coating bitter medicaments to achieve taste masking. However, hydrophilic polymers may also provide taste masking. For example, rotogranules containing ibuprofen, polyvinylpyrrolidone, sodium starch glycolate and sodium lauryl sulfate were coated with hydrophilic polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose or a mixture of hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose to achieve taste masking.
  • 15.
    COATING • Combinations ofpH independent water insoluble polymers such as cellulose ethers, cellulose ester, polyvinyl acetate and water soluble polymers such as cellulose acetate butyrate, polyvinylpyrollidone, hydroxyethyl cellulose have been used to attain a balance between the taste masking and in vitro release. • This approach may not be effective for the oral liquid dosage forms such as suspensions due to a gradual loss of taste masking efficiency upon storage in the liquid form. In such cases, pH independent water insoluble polymers can be combined with the enteric or reverse enteric polymers to increase the taste masking efficiency. • The pH of formulation maintained between 3.5 and 5 by adding a buffering agent to prevent the dissolution of polymers. This approach can provide an efficient taste masked suspensions over a long storage time.
  • 16.
    GRANULATION • Mixture ofbitter medicaments and sweeteners, hydrophobic polymers, lipids or waxes can be processed by dry, wet and melt granulation techniques to prepare taste masked oral solid or liquid dosage forms. • Granulation is a less expensive, rapid operation and an easily scalable taste masking technology. • pH dependent and independent water insoluble polymers, especially the swelling polymers such as MCC and polycarbophil have been employed. • During granulation, particle coating may remain incomplete. However, a swelling matrix phenomenon can reduce the overall diffusion of the bitter active. Thus, swellable polymers can give a better taste masking in granulation compared to non swellable polymers.
  • 17.
    SWEETENERS • Sweeteners arecommonly used in combination with other taste masking technologies. They can be mixed with bitter taste medicaments to improve the taste of the core material which is prepared for further coating or may be added to the coating liquid. • Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose, aspartame and saccharin have been used in combination with sugar alcohols such as lactitol, maltitol and sorbitol to decrease the after-taste perception of artificial sweeteners. Sucralose can be used with physiologically acceptable acids (e.g. citric acid) to increase the taste masking efficiency of the sweetener.
  • 18.
    Sweetener(s) Sucralose and acids(e.g. citric acid) Sucralose Drug(s) Acetaminophen, guaifenesinand dextromethorphan hydrobromide Amino acids(e.g. Lalanine and L-aspartic acid and other Amino acids except arginine), protein hydrolysates and proteins Comments Citric acid Low pH(2 to 5) and use of as a sweetener achieves an unexpected synergy of bitter taste masking effectiveness Improved taste without an unpleasant, bitter/metallic taste or after-taste of ingestible products
  • 19.
    MICROENCAPSULATION • Coating byenteric polymers in combination with water insoluble and gastrosoluble polymers have been used for masking the unpleasant taste of medicaments. Combination of water soluble polymer like gelatin, and water insoluble coating polymer like ethyl-cellulose was used to prepare taste masked microcapsules by the phase separation method. • pH independent water insoluble polymers have been used with enteric polymers, to achieve taste masking by microencapsulation. Buffering agents are also included in suspending medium to increase taste masking efficiency of microcapsules in oral suspensions.
  • 20.
    TASTE SUPPRESSANTS ANDPOTENTIATORS • Taste suppressants compete with bitter substances to bind with the Gprotein coupled (GPCR) receptor sites. • Lipoproteins are universal bitter taste blockers. Study on animal model showed that lipoproteins composed of phosphatidic acid and β lactoglobulin inhibit the taste nerve responses to the bitter substances without affecting those due to the sugars, amino acids, salts or acids. • Mixture of cooling (e.g. eucalyptol) and warming agents (e.g. methyl salicylate) was used for taste masking of thymol. • Potentiators increase the perception of the taste of sweeteners and mask the unpleasant after taste. Potentiators such as thaumatine, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone(NHDC) and glycyrrhizin can increase the perception of sodium or calcium saccharinates, saccharin, acesulfame
  • 21.
    TASTE SUPPRESSANTS ANDPOTENTIATORS • The recent trend of use of bitter taste blockers such as hydroxyflavanones, adenosine monophosphate and gamma-aminobutanoic acid were found to be effective to achieve the taste masking of bitter drugs.
  • 22.
    SOLID DISPERSIONS • Specificinteractions between poorly soluble drugs and hydrophilic polymers can increase the solubility of the drug Solution of quinolone + the natural hydrophobic polymer shellac solvent evaporation Taste masked solid dispersion This approach usually requires a higher concentration of excipients compared to other taste masking techniques. Natural polymers such as shellac and zein Enteric poly-mers like derivatives of acrylic acid polymers and phthalate are good choices to develop the taste masked solid dispersions.
  • 23.
    ION EXCHANGE RESINS •Ion exchange resins are high molecular weight polymers with cationic and anionic functional groups. Resins form insoluble resinates + oppositely charged drugs Form weak ionic bonding & maintain low concentration of the free drug in a suspension After ingestion, the resinate exchange the drug with the counter ion in gastrointestinal tract The drug is eluted & get absorbed
  • 24.
    VISCOSITY ENHANCERS Viscosity Enhancers Retardthe migration of dissolved medicament from the surface of the solid particle to the suspending medium Decrease the contact between the bitter medicament and the taste receptors
  • 25.
    VISCOSITY ENHANCERS • Hypromellosewas used as a viscosity modifier in taste masked azelastine suspension consisting of sucralose as the sweetening agent • Viscosity enhancers included in suspending vehicle to improve the taste masking efficiency some examples include1. Xanthan gum 2. Microcrystalline cellulose 3. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
  • 26.
    COMPLEX FORMATION Complex Formation Cyclodextrinswraps the bad tasting molecule to inhibit its interaction with the taste buds Interacts with the gatekeeper proteins of the taste buds Sweeteners such as acesulfame can form complex with medicaments to achieve taste masking.
  • 27.
    pH MODIFIERS pH Modifyingagents Generate a specific pH microenvironment in aqueous media Cause in situ precipitation of the bitter drug substance in saliva Reduce the overall taste sensation for liquid dosage forms like suspension
  • 28.
    ADSORBATES Drug + Adsorbate Thedrug may be adsorbed or/and entrapped in the matrix of the porous component (Adsorbate) Result in a delayed release of the bitter active during the transit through the oral cavity
  • 29.
    FACTORS AFFECTING SELECTIONOF TASTE MASKING TECHNOLOGY
  • 30.
    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Extent of BitterTaste Dose of Active Pharmaceuticals Drug Particle Shape and Size Distribution Dosage Forms Drug Solubility Ionic Characteristics of the Drug
  • 31.
    EXTENT OF BITTERTASTE With aggressively bad tasting medicaments even a little exposure is sufficient to perceive the bad taste. • Coating is more efficient technology for aggressively bitter drugs even though coating imperfections, if present, reduce the efficiency of the technique • Microencapsulation of potent bitter active agents such as azithromycin is insufficient to provide taste masking of liquid oral suspensions. • Viscosity enhancers can complement the taste masking efficiency. Oral suspension containing viscosity enhancers can mask the objectionable taste.
  • 32.
    DOSE OF ACTIVEPHARMACEUTICALS • Dose of a drug may dictate whether a particular formulation strategy would be suitable to achieve taste masking • Low dose palatable pediatric aspirin oral formulation was developed by adding sweeteners, but the same approach failed to address the problem of drugs like acetaminophen because of its high dose • Coating will be the preferred techinique if dose of drug is high
  • 33.
    DRUG PARTICLE SHAPEAND SIZE DISTRIBUTION • Core materials with irregular shapes and small particle size lead to poor taste masking efficiency and varying dissolution of coated particles Granules of irregular particles are prepared Coating using internal spacing layer Coating layer for taste masking to avoid any misperfection in coating
  • 34.
    DOSAGE FORMS • Chewabletablets and liquid oral formulations are preferable in case of large dose drugs for an ease of intake. • Taste masking technologies such as sweeteners, particulate coating, microencapsulation and granulation can be employed for chewable tablets and supported with techno-logies such as viscosity enhancers and pH modifiers to achieve taste masking in liquid oral formulations • Microencapsulation of the unpleasant tasting active agent with ethyl cellulose or a mixture of ethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose or other cellulose derivatives has been used to provide chewable tastemasked dosage forms. However, this approach is having disadvantage that it also affect release of drug from the formulation. So this is not good for drugs which are to be used for immediate release.
  • 35.
    DRUG SOLUBILITY • Physicochemicalproperties of the drug play an important role in the selection of taste masking technology • Ondansetron has a relatively lower water solubility at higher pH, based on which a rapidly disintegrating taste masked composition of ondansetron was formulated by adding an alkalizing agent (sodium bicarbonate) to reduce the water solubility and also the taste perception Water Insoluble drug Water soluble drug Coat with a Lipid Formulated in aqueous media, so Coating with a Lipid is difficult Coat with polymeric binder
  • 36.
    IONIC CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE DRUG • Ionic characteristics of drugs govern the selection of ion exchange resin polymers • Anionic polymers (e.g. Alginic acid) are good candidates for cationic drugs like donepezil hydrochloride, and the cationic polymers are choice of excipients for anionic drugs like sildenafil
  • 37.
    CURRENT & FUTUREDEVELOPMENTS • Use of sweeteners is an age old and most popular tool for disguising bitterness • The combination of sweeteners with other taste masking technologies including microencapsulation, particulate coating, bitterness blockers, ion exchange resins and potentiators is found to be a more efficient strategy. • Bitter taste blockers which specifically block the bitter taste but not the pleasant taste of any additive are being explored as universal taste masking alternatives. Presently, they are limited in number, and most of them not being GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) listed.
  • 38.
    REFERENCES • Lindemann B.Umami taste receptor identified. Nature Neuro-science 2000. http://www.nature.com/neuro/press_release/nn0200. html(accessed on May 01, 2008). • Yonan J. Umami: Two cookbook authors hope to demystify the littleknown fifth taste. The Boston Globe 2006. http://www. boston.com/ae/food/articles/2006/03/15/umami/(accessed on May 01, 2008). • Roche, E.J., Papile, S.M., Freeman, E.M.: US5260072(1993). • Kulkarni, G.M., Menjoge, A.R.: CN1878539(2006). • Roche, E.J., Reo, J.P.: KR0166064B (1999). • Dumont, H., Thibert, R.: US20060228410 (2006). • Kokubo, H., Nishiyama, Y.: KR20010051807 (2001). • Yeong, J.S., Gil, K.M., Su, P.Y., Il, S.S., Sin, S.J.: KR0058861 (2003).
  • 39.
    REFERENCES • • • • • • • • • Douglas, S.J., Evans,J.: CA2146999 (1994). Krise, H.E., Rajendra, K.K., John, H.: US20046740341 (2004). Naoto, O., Yasunobu, O.: JP327943 (2006). Nandi, I., Guo, M., Gassert, C.M.: US20050084540 (2005). Lai, J.W., Venkatesh, G.M., Qian, K.K.: US20060105039 (2006). Julian, T.N., Radebaugh, G.W.: KR970007899B (1997). Gandhi, R., Issa, C., Malik, R.: US20060159758 (2006). Paruthi, M.K., Bhonsle, S., Krishnan, A.: WO2004066984 (2004). Venkatesh, G.M.: US20060078614 (2006).