The AAPS Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 1072–1081 | Cite as

A Report from the Pediatric Formulations Task Force: Perspectives on the State of Child-Friendly Oral Dosage Forms

  • Anne Zajicek
  • Michael J. Fossler
  • Jeffrey S. Barrett
  • Jeffrey H. Worthington
  • Robert Ternik
  • Georgia Charkoftaki
  • Susan Lum
  • Jörg Breitkreutz
  • Mike Baltezor
  • Panos Macheras
  • Mansoor Khan
  • Shreeram Agharkar
  • David Douglas MacLaren
Commentary Theme: Challenges and Opportunities in Pediatric Drug Development


Despite the fact that a significant percentage of the population is unable to swallow tablets and capsules, these dosage forms continue to be the default standard. These oral formulations fail many patients, especially children, because of large tablet or capsule size, poor palatability, and lack of correct dosage strength. The clinical result is often lack of adherence and therapeutic failure. The American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists formed a Pediatric Formulations Task Force, consisting of members with various areas of expertise including pediatrics, formulation development, clinical pharmacology, and regulatory science, in order to identify pediatric, manufacturing, and regulatory issues and areas of needed research and regulatory guidance. Dosage form and palatability standards for all pediatric ages, relative bioavailability requirements, and small batch manufacturing capabilities and creation of a viable economic model were identified as particular needs. This assessment is considered an important first step for a task force seeking creative approaches to providing more appropriate oral formulations for children.


children drugs formulations manufacturing palatability pediatrics regulatory 



The authors would like to thank Drs. Philip Mayer and David Mitchell and AAPS for facilitating this effort and to Sharon Pichon of AAPS for facilitating the calls and meetings with the co-authors


  1. 1.
    Thompson KC. Extemporaneous formulations: Comparison with labeled pediatric formulations. American Pharmaceutical Review 2010 (March); 13(2).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baguley D, Lim E, Bevan A, et al. Prescribing for children-taste and palatability affect adherence to antibiotics: a review. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97(3):293–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendeles L. Selecting a systemic corticosteroid for acute asthma in children. J Peds. 2003;142:S40–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steele RW, Russo TM, Thomas MP. Adherence issues related to the selection of antistaphylococcal or antifungal antibiotic suspensions for children. Clin Pediatr. 2006;45(3):245–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EMEA Reflection Paper. Reflection paper formulations of choice for the paediatric population, 28 Jul 2006 EMEA/CHMP/PEG?194810/2005. Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  6. 6.
    EMA Guideline on Pharmaceutical Development of Medicines for Paediatric Use. Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  7. 7.
    Spomer N, Klingmann V, Stoltenberg I, et al. Acceptance of uncoated mini-tablets in young children: results from a prospective exploratory cross-over study. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97(3):283–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah R, Collier J, Saveed V, Bryandt A, Habib M, Khan MA. Tablet splitting of a narrow therapeutic index drug: a case study with levothyroxine sodium. AAPS Pharm Sci Technol. 2010;11(2):818–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhao N, Zidan A, Tawakkul M, Sayeed V, Khan MA. Tablet splitting: product quality assessment of metropolol succinate extended release tablets. Int J Pharm. 2010;401:25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    FDA Guidance to Industry. Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System, 2000.…/Guidances/ucm070246.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2013.
  11. 11.
    Abdel-Rahman S, Amidon GL, Kaul A, et al. Summary of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development-Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act Pediatric Formulation Initiatives Workshop-Pediatric Biopharmaceutics Classification System Working Group. Clin Ther. 2012;34(11):S11–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cella M, Gorter de Vries F, Burger D, Danhof M, Della Pasqua O. A model-based approach to dose selection in early pediatric development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(3):294–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knibbe CA, Danhof M. Individualized dosing regimens in children based on population PKPD modeling: are we ready for it? Int J Pharm. 2011;415(1–2):9–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cella M, Danhof M, Della Pasqua O. Adaptive trials in pediatric development: dealing with heterogeneity and uncertainty in pharmacokinetic differences in children. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(2):346–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Cock RF, Allegaert K, Schreuder MF, Sherwin CM, de Hoog M, van den Anker JN, et al. Maturation of the glomerular filtration rate in neonates, as reflected by amikacin clearance. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51(2):105–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rinaki E, Valsami G, Macheras P. Quantitative biopharmaceutics classification system: the central role of dose/solubility ratio. Pharm Res. 2003;20(12):1917–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charkoftaki G, Dokoumetzidis A, Valsami G, Macheras P. Elucidating the role of dose in the biopharmaceutics classification of drugs: the concepts of critical dose, effective in vivo solubility, and dose-dependent BCS. Pharm Res. 2012;29(11):3188–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu CY, Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm Res. 2005;22(1):11–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amidon G. Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act Pediatric Formulations Initiative Workshop, Potomac, 2011, Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  20. 20.
    Shehab N, Lewis CL, Streetman DD, Donn SM. Exposure to the pharmaceutical excipient benzyl alcohol and propylene glycol among critically ill neonates. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2009;10(2):256–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strickley RG, Iwata Q, Will S, Dahl TC. Pediatric drugs—a review of commercially available oral formulations. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(5):1731–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Inactive Ingredients Database URL: Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  23. 23.
    European Union Pediatric Formulations Initiative. Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  24. 24.
    Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Legin A, Rudnitskaya A, Clapham D, Seleznev B, Lord K, Vlasov Y. Electronic tongue for pharmaceutical analytics: quantification of tastes and masking effects. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2004;380(1):36–45. Epub 2004 Jul 29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorenz JK, Reo JP, Hendl O, Worthington JH, Petrossian VD. Evaluation of a taste sensor instrument (electronic tongue) for use in formulation development. Int J Pharm. 2009;367(1–2):65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Woertz K, Tissen C, Kleinebudde P, Breitkreutz J. Performance qualification of an electronic tongue based on ICH guideline Q2. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2010;51(3):497–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guffon N, Kibleur Y, Copalu W, Tissen C, Breitkreutz J. Developing a new formulation of sodium phenylbutyrate. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97:1081–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen ML, Straughn AB, Sadrich N, Meyer M, Faustino PJ, Ciavarella AB, et al. A modern view of excipient effects on bioequivalence: case study of sorbitol. Pharm Res. 2007;24(1):73–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richey RH, Craig JV, Shah UU, Ford JL, Barker CE, Peak M, et al. The manipulation of drugs to obtain the required dose: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(9):2103–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stegemann S, Gosch M, Breitkreutz J. Swallowing dysfunction and dysphagia is an unrecognized challenge for oral drug therapy. Int J Pharm. 2012;430:197–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoffmann EM, Breitenbach A, Breitkreutz J. Advances in orodispersible films for drug delivery. Exp Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stoltenberg I, Breitkreutz J. Orally disintegrating mini-tablets (ODMTs)—a novel solid dosage form for pediatric use. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;78:462–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walsh J, Bickmann D, Breitkreutz J, Chariot-Goulet M. Delivery devices for the administration of pediatric formulations: overview of current practice, challenges and recent developments. Int J Pharm. 2011;415:221–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aziz MAHH, Jameela KA. How accurate are household spoons in drug administration? Med Princ Pract. 1990;2:106–9.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Madlon-Kay DJ, Mosch FS. Liquid medication dosing errors. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:741–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Griessmann K, Breitkreutz J, Schubert-Zsilavecz M, Abdel-Tawab M. Dosing accuracy of measuring devices provided with antibiotic oral suspensions. Paediatr Perinat Drug Ther. 2007;8:61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dockhorn S, Feuersenger D, Schuenemann S, Knauf B, Duerr S, Schubert-Zsilavecz M, et al. Study of microbial contamination and dosing accuracy of oral dispensers. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35:279–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Breitkreutz J, Boos J. Paediatric and geriatric drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007;4:37–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Charkoftaki G, Kytariolos J, Macheras P. Novel milk-based oral formulations: proof of concept. Int J Pharm. 2010;390:150–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rieder M. If children ruled the pharmaceutical industry: the need for pediatric formulations. Drug News Perspect. 2010;23:458–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Booth, B. Pediatric formulations: what we want to know. Presentation to the FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee, 15 December 2009.…/UCM197942.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  43. 43.
    Raw AS, Lionberger R, Yu LX. Pharmaceutical equivalence by design for generic drugs: modified release products. Pharm Res. 2011;28(7):1445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Health Canada Guidance Document. Comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effects. May 22, 2012. ld/bio/gd_standards_ld_normes-eng.php. Accessed 19 Jul 2013.
  45. 45.
    Holford N. Dosing in children. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:367–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barrett JS. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling in children. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(1):40–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Johnson TN, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Resurgence in the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in pediatric clinical pharmacology: parallel shift in incorporating the knowledge of biological elements and increased applicability to drug development and clinical practice. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21:291–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Laer S, Barrett JS, Meibohm B. The in silico child: using simulation to guide pediatric drug development and manage pediatric pharmacotherapy. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49:889–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meibohm B, Läer S, Panetta JC, Barrett JS. Population pharmacokinetic studies in pediatrics: issues in design and analysis. AAPS J. 2005;7:E475–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang Y, Jadhav PR, Lala M, Gobburu JV. Clarification on precision criteria to derive sample size when designing pediatric pharmacokinetic studies. J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;52(10):1601–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Strachan I, Greener M. Medication-related swallowing difficulties may be more common than we realise. Pharm Pract. 2005;15:411–4.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Milne CP, Bruss JB. The economics of pediatric formulation development for off-patent drugs. Clin Ther. 2008;30(11):2133–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Zajicek
    • 1
  • Michael J. Fossler
    • 2
  • Jeffrey S. Barrett
    • 3
  • Jeffrey H. Worthington
    • 4
  • Robert Ternik
    • 5
  • Georgia Charkoftaki
    • 6
  • Susan Lum
    • 7
  • Jörg Breitkreutz
    • 8
  • Mike Baltezor
    • 9
  • Panos Macheras
    • 6
  • Mansoor Khan
    • 10
  • Shreeram Agharkar
    • 11
  • David Douglas MacLaren
    • 12
  1. 1.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Pharmacology Modeling and SimulationGlaxoSmithKlineKing of PrussiaUSA
  3. 3.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics DivisionThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Senopsys LLCWoburnUSA
  5. 5.Small Molecule Design and DevelopmentEli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  6. 6.Laboratory of Biopharmaceutics & Pharmacokinetics, Faculty of PharmacyNational & Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  7. 7.Bureau of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Therapeutics Products DirectorateHealth CanadaOttawaCanada
  8. 8.Institute of Pharmaceutics and BiopharmaceuticsHeinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  9. 9.Biotechnology Innovation and Optimization Center, Institute for Advancing Medical InnovationUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  10. 10.FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchSilver SpringUSA
  11. 11.Global CMC—Strategy & Scientific Affairs; Lead Generation & Candidate Realization, Sanofi R&DBridgewaterUSA
  12. 12.Drug Product Development and CT ManufacturingEli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations