Stability assessment of levofloxacin in three different suspension vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Levofloxacin is a broad‐spectrum antibiotic of the fluoroquinolone class used in the paediatric population to treat resistant bacterial infections. Because no commercial option exists, a stable liquid formulation of this antibiotic made with accessible vehicles would be useful. Aim The aim of this study was to develop and assess the stability of levofloxacin suspensions made from commercially available tablets and three different accessible vehicles. Methods Levofloxacin suspensions (50 mg/mL) were compounded using two different commercially available tablets (from Apotex; Toronto, ON, Canada and Sandoz; Boucherville, QC, Canada) and three different vehicles (Ora‐Blend, Oral‐Mix; Medisca, Saint‐Laurent, QC, Canada and Simple Syrup (SS); Laboratoire Atlas Inc., Anjou, QC, Canada). Suitable suspensions in Ora‐Blend and Oral‐Mix were stored at room temperature (25°C) as well as under refrigeration (5°C) in amber plastic bottles for 90 days. Suspensions made with SS were only stored at 25°C because of sugar crystallisation at 5°C. Suspension concentrations were assessed by HPLC. Results Suspensions using Apotex levofloxacin tablets produced unsuitable high‐foaming, phase‐separated, non‐homogeneous suspension products in all vehicles tested that were therefore not tested for stability. Levofloxacin suspensions prepared using Sandoz tablets remained chemically and physically stable for 3 months, with >96% recovery according to United States Pharmacopeia criteria (90%–110%) in all three vehicles. Conclusion The results show that the choice of generic levofloxacin tablets is important when preparing homogeneous suspensions. All three vehicles could be used to prepare levofloxacin suspensions using Sandoz tablets that were physically and chemically stable for 3 months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".