首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        

不同厂家刻痕片及非刻痕片分剂量评价
引用本文:刘元江,缪经纬,杨亚勇,詹金陶,刘其东.不同厂家刻痕片及非刻痕片分剂量评价[J].中国药房,2012(29):2713-2715.
作者姓名:刘元江  缪经纬  杨亚勇  詹金陶  刘其东
作者单位:[1]清远职业技术学院,广东清远511510 [2]清远市人民医院,广东清远511500
摘    要:目的:评价对不同厂家复方卡托普利片和复方对乙酰氨基酚片(Ⅱ)的刻痕片及非刻痕片采用3种方法的分剂量情况,促进合理用药。方法:以分剂量准确性、期望重量与实际重量差值(d)、重量损失百分比、等分片脆碎度为指标,采用手掰、剪刀、切药器3种方法对A厂(有刻痕)、B厂(无刻痕)的复方卡托普利片及C厂(无刻痕)、D厂(有刻痕)的复方对乙酰氨基酚片(Ⅱ)进行分剂量评价。结果:除D厂(3种方法)、C厂(切药器法)外,其余厂家或方法分剂量准确性均不符合《欧洲药典》第6版的规定。与手掰法比较,C厂剪刀法d值明显降低(P<0.05);与剪刀法比较,D厂切药器法d值明显降低(P<0.01)。3种方法间比较分剂量后重量损失百分比均具有统计学意义(P均<0.01),其中剪刀法>切药器法(除B厂外)>手掰法。等分片脆碎度结果表明,A厂切药器法不合格,B厂3种方法均不合格,其余厂家或方法均合格。结论:刻痕片较非刻痕片更适合分剂量,具体分剂量方法需根据药片物理参数情况进行选择。

关 键 词:刻痕片  非刻痕片  手掰法  剪刀法  切药器法  分剂量  评价

Evaluation of Divided Doses of Scored Tablets and Non-scored Tablets Produced by Different Manufacturers
LIU Yuan-jiang,YANG Ya-yong,ZHAN Jin-tao,LIU Qi-dong.Evaluation of Divided Doses of Scored Tablets and Non-scored Tablets Produced by Different Manufacturers[J].China Pharmacy,2012(29):2713-2715.
Authors:LIU Yuan-jiang  YANG Ya-yong  ZHAN Jin-tao  LIU Qi-dong
Institution:(Qingyuan Polytechnic, Guangdong Qingyuan 511510, China) MIAO Jing-wei(Qingyuan People' s Hospital, Guangdong Qingyuan 511500, China)
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the subdivision of scored tablets and non-scored tablet of Compound captopril tablets and Compound paracetamol tablets ( Ⅱ) from different manufacturers with 3 methods, to promote the rational use of medicines. METH-ODS: Using subdivision accuracy, difference between expected mass and real mass (d value), loss of mass and friability as in- dex, the subdivision of Compound captopril tablets from manufacturer A (scored tablet) and manufacturer B (non-scored tablet) and Compound paracetamol tablets (Ⅱ) from manufacturer C (non-scored tablet) and manufacturer D (scored tablet) were evaluat-ed with hand, scissors and tablet cutters. RESULTS: Except manufacturer D (3 methods) and manufacturer C (tablet cutter), oth- ers could not comply with the specification of Ph. Eur. (6th edition). Compared with manual splitting, d value of manufacturer C decreased significantly when splitted by scissors (P〈0.05); compared with scissors splitting, d value of manufacturer D decreased significantly when splitted by tablet cutters (P〈0.01). There was statistical significance in the difference of loss of mass among 3 methods (P〈0.01), among which loss of mass of scissors method was the highest, followed by tablet cutters (except manufactur- er B) and manual splitting. The friability of equal divided tablet showed that tablet cutters method of manufacturer A and 3 methods of manufacturer B were all not up to standard, while other manufacturers or methods passed the test. CONCLUSION: Scored tablet is quite fit to be subdivided, compared with non-scored tablet. The selection of subdivision method should be in line with the physi- cal parameters.
Keywords:Scored tablet  Non-scored tablet  Manual splitting  Scissors splitting  Tablet cutters  Divided doses  Evaluation
本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号