Quality evaluation of extemporaneous delayed-release liquid formulations of lansoprazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The quality attributes of extemporaneous delayed-release liquid formulations of lansoprazole for oral administration were evaluated. METHODS: A novel liquid formulation (3 mg/mL) of Prevacid FasTab in an Ora-Blend vehicle was prepared and compared with the Prevacid FasTab 30 mg and Prevacid-sodium bicarbonate 1 M formulation (3 mg/mL). The latter formulation was combined with hydrochloric acid 0.1 N, and the remaining lansoprazole content was assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). A batch of delayed-release liquid formulation was prepared to evaluate content uniformity. For content assay, three samples were prepared for each evaluated condition and each sample was analyzed in triplicate by HPLC. RESULTS: The lansoprazole in the sodium bicarbonate formulation was extensively degraded by quantities of hydrochloric acid 0.1 N in excess of 100 mL. Storage time and temperature had a significant effect on lansoprazole stability in the Ora-Blend formulation. The drug remained stable for seven days when the formulation was stored at 4.5-5.5 °C, but storage at 21-22 °C or the reduction of pH with citric acid accelerated lansoprazole degradation. The amount of lansoprazole released from the Ora-Blend formulation during the buffer stage of the dissolution test decreased with increases in formulation storage time, in formulation storage temperature, and in the amount of lansoprazole released and degraded during the acid stage of the test. CONCLUSION: An extemporaneous formulation consisting of lansoprazole microgranules in Ora-Blend maintained acceptable quality attributes when stored for three days at 4.5-5.5 °C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".