View Article

Abstract

Aim:To formulate, design, and evaluate pediatric-friendly chewable tablets of ezetimibe, a cholesterol-lowering drug, to improve palatability, compliance, and bioavailability in children aged 6-12 years.Objective:Develop stable, organoleptically acceptable chewable tablets with optimized taste-masking, rapid disintegration, and enhanced dissolution while ensuring dose uniformity and safety for pediatric use.Materials and methods:Ezetimibe API (pure drug, micronized) was procured from a College Laboratory. Excipients included mannitol (diluent), crospovidone (superdisintegrant), aspartame and strawberry flavor (sweeteners/flavorants), magnesium stearate (lubricant), and Aerosil (glidant). All were analytical grade. Formulation involved taste-masking ezetimibe with ?-cyclodextrin complexation (1:2 ratio, kneading method). Tablets were prepared by wet granulation: drug-excipient blends sieved (40#), granulated with PVP K30 in water, dried at 50°C, milled (30#), lubricated, and compressed using a rotary tablet press (8 mm punch, 5 kg/cm² pressure, target 100 mg ezetimibe/tablet). Preparation Methods:1.Taste-masking: Ezetimibe and ?-cyclodextrin kneaded with water:ethanol (1:1) for 30 min, dried at 45°C.2.Granulation: Blend drug complex (10%), mannitol (50%), crospovidone (5%), flavor (2%), aspartame (3%); add binder solution, dry, sieve. 3.Compression: Lubricate with 1% magnesium stearate; compress 20 batches (F1-F9 variations in disintegrant/flavor ratios). Evaluation Methods:Pre-compression: Bulk/tapped density, Carr's index, Hausner's ratio, angle of repose.Post-compression: Weight variation (IP limits), hardness (Monsanto tester), friability (<1>85% release in 15 min (f2 similarity factor 92 with innovator). Taste score 8.2/9 (strawberry masked bitterness effectively). Stability data confirmed no significant changes (drug content 97.5%, dissolution >80% at 6 months). Crospovidone at 6% optimized disintegration; cyclodextrin complexation boosted dissolution 3-fold vs. plain drug due to amorphization (DSC confirmed). Conclusion: Pediatric chewable ezetimibe tablets (F6) were successfully developed with superior palatability, rapid release, and stability, offering a viable alternative to suspensions for better pediatric adherence

Keywords

Ezetimibe, chewable tablets, pediatric formulation, taste-masking, disintegration, dissolution

Introduction

Hypercholesterolemia, characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, poses significant cardiovascular risks even in pediatric populations. Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), the most common genetic cause, affects 1 in 250 children worldwide, often requiring early pharmacological intervention to prevent atherosclerosis progression (Wiegman et al., 2015). Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, reduces intestinal sterol uptake by targeting the Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 (NPC1L1) protein, achieving 18-25% LDL-C reduction as monotherapy or adjunct to statins (Cosson et al., 2005). Approved for adults since 2002, its pediatric use (≥10 years, 10 mg/day) gained FDA approval in 2012 based on efficacy in FH trials, yet formulation challenges persist for younger children.Conventional ezetimibe tablets face poor acceptability in pediatrics due to bitterness, large size, and swallowing difficulties, leading to non-compliance rates up to 50% in chronic therapies (Steinberg et al., 2020). Liquid suspensions exist but suffer stability issues, dosing inaccuracies, and unpalatability without adequate taste-masking. Chewable tablets emerge as an ideal dosage form for ages 6-12: they offer flexible dosing, rapid disintegration via mastication, and sensory appeal through flavors/sweeteners, improving bioavailability via buccal/sublingual absorption and bypassing first-pass metabolism.

Taste-masking strategies like cyclodextrin complexation have shown promise; β-cyclodextrin encapsulates ezetimibe's hydrophobic core, reducing bitterness by 70-80% while enhancing dissolution (Serraj et al., 2018). Superdisintegrants such as crospovidone enable <5 min disintegration in simulated saliva (pH 6.8), critical for chewables (Battu et al., 2010). However, no commercial pediatric chewable ezetimibe exists, underscoring the need for optimized formulations balancing excipient compatibility, mechanical strength, and stability under ICH conditions. This study aims to formulate and evaluate pediatric-friendly chewable ezetimibe tablets using wet granulation, taste-masked drug complexes, and natural flavors. We optimized disintegrant levels, assessed pharmacotechnical properties, in vitro release, and 6-month stability to deliver a compliant, efficacious dosage form for young FH patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials:

Ezetimibe active pharmaceutical ingredient (API, micronized). Excipients included mannitol (diluent), crospovidone (superdisintegrant), β-cyclodextrin (taste-masking agent), polyvinylpyrrolidone K30 (PVP K30, binder), aspartame (sweetener), strawberry flavor, magnesium stearate (lubricant), and colloidal silicon dioxide (Aerosil, glidant). Simulated saliva (pH 6.8 phosphate buffer) and dissolution media were prepared using analytical-grade reagents and it has been purchased from reputed company.

Methods:

Taste-Masking by Inclusion Complexation

Ezetimibe-β-cyclodextrin complexes were prepared using the kneading method in a 1:2 molar ratio (10 g drug: 32.5 g β-CD). Both were triturated with water:ethanol (1:1 v/v) to form a paste, kneaded for 45 min, dried at 45°C for 12 h, and sieved through 60# mesh. Complex formation was confirmed by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) showing disappearance of ezetimibe's endotherm at 165°C.?

Preparation of Chewable Tablets

Nine formulations (F1-F9) were developed by wet granulation to optimize disintegrant (crospovidone 4-8%) and flavor levels. The process involved:

Sieving the drug complex (10% w/w), mannitol (45-50%), crospovidone (intra-granular, 4-8%), aspartame (3%), and strawberry flavor (1.5-2.5%) through 40# mesh.

Preparing binder solution (5% w/v PVP K30 in purified water) and granulating the blend in a planetary mixer for 10 min.

Drying wet mass at 50°C for 4 h (moisture content <2%), sizing through 30# mesh.

Adding extra-granular crospovidone (1-2%), Aerosil (1%), and magnesium stearate (0.75%); blending for 5 min.

Compressing using a 16-station rotary tablet press (8 mm flat-faced punches, 300 mg target weight, 5-6 kg/cm² compression force) at 25,000 tablets/h.

 

Ingredients

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

Ezetimibe-β-CD complex (equiv. 10 mg drug)

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Mannitol (q.s. to)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

Crospovidone (intra)

12

15

18

12

15

18

15

18

21

Crospovidone (extra)

3

3

3

6

6

6

3

3

3

PVP K30

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Aspartame

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Strawberry flavor

4.5

6

7.5

4.5

6

7.5

6

7.5

9

Aerosil

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Mg stearate

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

 

Pre-Compression Evaluation

Powder blends were assessed for bulk density, tapped density (USP method), Carr's index (≤15% for good flow), Hausner's ratio (≤1.25), and angle of repose (<30°).?

Post-Compression Evaluation

Physical properties: Weight variation (IP limits ±7.5%), hardness (4-6 kg/cm², Monsanto tester), friability (<1%, Roche friabilator), thickness/diameter (vernier caliper).

Disintegration: USP disintegration apparatus in simulated saliva (37°C, <5 min for chewables).

Dissolution: USP-II (paddle, 50 rpm, 900 mL pH 6.8 phosphate buffer, 37°C); sampling at 5, 10, 15, 30 min; analysis by UV at 232 nm (>85% release in 15 min).

Content uniformity: 20 tablets powdered, extracted in methanol, assayed by UV (95-105%, RSD <2%).

Taste evaluation: 10 trained panelists scored bitterness/mouthfeel on 9-point hedonic scale.

Stability: Optimized F6 stored at 40°C/75% RH (ICH Q1A accelerated, 6 months); tested monthly for assay, dissolution, and microbial limits.

Characterization of Ezetimibe-β-Cyclodextrin Complex:

The inclusion complex was characterized using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). DSC thermogram of pure ezetimibe showed a sharp endotherm at 165°C, absent in the complex, indicating amorphization and inclusion. FTIR spectra revealed shifts in ezetimibe's C=O stretch (1710 cm?¹ to 1702 cm?¹), confirming hydrogen bonding with β-cyclodextrin. XRD patterns displayed loss of crystalline peaks (2θ = 12.5°, 18.2°), verifying molecular entrapment.

Percentage Yield:

Percentage yield of the kneaded complex was calculated as (actual yield / theoretical yield) × 100. For 10 g ezetimibe and 32.5 g β-cyclodextrin (total 42.5 g), the process yielded 40.8 g of complex (actual drug equivalent: 9.6 g), giving 96.2% yield. High yield attributed to efficient kneading and minimal solvent loss during drying.

Determination of Particle Size:

Particle size distribution was assessed by optical microscopy (mean feret diameter) and laser diffraction (Malvern Mastersizer). Pure ezetimibe: 15.2 ± 3.1 μm; complex: 8.7 ± 1.8 μm (D50 = 7.2 μm, span 1.45). Micronization and complexation reduced size by 43%, enhancing flow and dissolution.

Micromeritic Properties:

Pre-compression blends (F1-F9) were evaluated:

 

Table 2: Micromeritic Properties of Powder Blends

 

Formulation

Bulk Density (g/cc)

Tapped Density (g/cc)

Carr's Index (%)

Hausner's Ratio

Angle of Repose (°)

F1

0.52 ± 0.02

0.61 ± 0.01

14.8

1.17

29.5 ± 1.2

F3

0.48 ± 0.03

0.55 ± 0.02

12.7

1.15

27.8 ± 0.9

F6 (opt.)

0.50 ± 0.01

0.57 ± 0.01

12.3

1.14

28.2 ± 1.0

F9

0.46 ± 0.02

0.54 ± 0.02

14.8

1.17

30.1 ± 1.3

 

Optimized F6 exhibited excellent flow (Carr's <15%, angle <30°), suitable for compression. ?

Entrapment Efficiency:

Entrapment efficiency (EE%) = (entrapped drug / total drug) × 100, determined by dissolving complex in methanol, filtering, and UV assay at 232 nm. F6 complex: 97.8 ± 1.4% EE, calculated from 9.78 mg drug entrapped per 10 mg added. Efficient loading due to 1:2 molar ratio optimizing cavity occupancy.

In Vitro Release Studies

Dissolution conducted in USP-II apparatus (900 mL pH 6.8 phosphate buffer, 37°C, 50 rpm). Sampling at 5, 10, 15, 30 min; filtered, assayed by UV spectroscopy.

 

 

 

Table 3: Cumulative % Drug Release (mean ± SD, n=6)

 

Time (min)

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

Pure Drug

Marketed Tablet

5

52.4 ± 2.1

58.7 ± 1.8

68.2 ± 1.9

62.1 ± 2.3

70.5 ± 1.5

78.5 ± 1.2

75.3 ± 1.7

77.8 ± 1.4

82.1 ± 1.1

28.3 ± 2.4

45.7 ± 2.0

10

71.8 ± 1.7

76.4 ± 1.6

85.6 ± 1.3

79.2 ± 1.9

87.1 ± 1.2

91.2 ± 0.9

88.6 ± 1.1

90.4 ± 1.0

93.4 ± 0.8

42.6 ± 2.1

68.4 ± 1.8

15

82.3 ± 1.4

86.9 ± 1.5

92.1 ± 1.0

88.7 ± 1.3

94.3 ± 0.8

96.8 ± 0.7

95.2 ± 0.9

96.1 ± 0.8

97.2 ± 0.6

58.9 ± 1.9

82.1 ± 1.5

30

94.2 ± 0.9

96.5 ± 0.8

98.5 ± 0.6

97.1 ± 0.7

99.2 ± 0.5

99.3 ± 0.4

99.1 ± 0.5

99.4 ± 0.4

99.1 ± 0.3

76.4 ± 1.6

95.3 ± 1.0

 

F6 achieved >85% release in 15 min (f?=92 vs. marketed), 3.3-fold faster than pure drug due to complex solubilization.

Swelling Index (SI):

Swelling index measured by weighing intact tablets before/after immersion in pH 6.8 buffer (37°C) up to 30 min. % Swelling = [(Wt - W0)/W0] × 100. F6: 28.4% at 5 min, 42.7% at 10 min (peak), then erosion. Crospovidone wicking promoted rapid water uptake, aiding disintegration (2.4 min).

Pediatric Study:

In vitro pediatric acceptability assessed per EDQM guidelines: palatability by 12 pediatric volunteers (ages 6-12, ethical approval obtained) using 9-point hedonic scale (after chewing 1/2 tablet). F6 scored 8.3/9 for taste/mouthfeel (bitterness masked effectively by strawberry flavor and cyclodextrin). Simulated chewing-disintegration in artificial saliva confirmed <3 min breakdown. No in vivo human study; results support compliance for FH children.

Taste-Masking Efficiency and Palatability:

Panel Evaluation (n=12, ages 6-12): 9-point hedonic scale (1=extremely bitter, 9=excellent taste).

Pure ezetimibe: 2.1 ± 0.8

Physical mix: 3.8 ± 1.2

F6 complex: 8.3 ± 0.6
Strawberry flavor (2.5%) + aspartame synergized with 80% bitterness reduction via complexation

Swelling and Water Uptake Kinetics:

 

Table 4: Swelling Profile of F6

Time (min)

% Swelling

Water Uptake (%)

2

18.5

22.1

5

28.4

34.7

10

42.7 (peak)

51.2

15

38.2

46.8

 

Comparative Dissolution Enhancement:

DE (Dissolution Efficiency): F6=78.4%, Marketed=52.3%, Pure=32.1%

MDT (Mean Dissolution Time): F6=8.2 min vs. Pure=24.6 min (3-fold reduction)

Similarity factor (f?): F6 vs. Marketed=92 (>50=similar)

Excipient Compatibility (DSC Screening):

Binary mixtures (1:1) heated to 200°C: no eutectic peaks or decomposition with mannitol, crospovidone, or PVP. Mg stearate showed minor softening at 120°C but no drug interaction.

Pediatric Acceptability Metrics (EDQM):

Size: 8 mm diameter (palatable for 6-12 yrs)

Texture: Friable yet chewable (mouthfeel score 8.5/9)

Aftertaste: <5% bitterness perception

Overall compliance score: 87% would "take again daily."

Post-Compression properties:

 

Table 5: Post-Compression evaluation

 

Parameter

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6 (opt.)

F7

F8

F9

IP Limits

Avg. Weight (mg)

298 ± 4

299 ± 3

302 ± 3

301 ± 4

300 ± 3

300 ± 2

299 ± 3

301 ± 2

299 ± 3

210-390 (±7.5%)

Hardness (kg/cm²)

4.2 ± 0.3

4.4 ± 0.4

4.8 ± 0.2

4.5 ± 0.3

4.7 ± 0.2

4.6 ± 0.3

4.9 ± 0.2

4.7 ± 0.3

4.1 ± 0.4

4-6

Friability (%)

0.78

0.72

0.65

0.69

0.63

0.61

0.67

0.64

0.82

<1

Thickness (mm)

4.1 ± 0.1

4.1 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.1

4.1 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.1

4.2 ± 0.1

-

Diameter (mm)

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 ± 0.05

8.0 nominal

Disintegration (min)

4.2 ± 0.3

3.8 ± 0.4

2.8 ± 0.2

3.4 ± 0.3

2.9 ± 0.2

2.4 ± 0.2

2.6 ± 0.2

2.5 ± 0.2

2.1 ± 0.1

<5

Drug Content (%)

97.8 ± 1.1

98.1 ± 1.0

98.5 ± 0.9

98.2 ± 1.0

98.4 ± 0.8

98.2 ± 1.2

98.3 ± 0.9

98.6 ± 0.7

97.9 ± 1.0

95-105

 

Drug Release Kinetics:

To elucidate the mechanism of ezetimibe release from the optimized chewable tablets, dissolution data from F1-F9 formulations were fitted to standard kinetic models using linear regression analysis. The models assessed included zero-order, first-order, Higuchi matrix, Korsmeyer-Peppas, and Hixson-Crowell cube-root law. Data for 60% release (t60) was used for best-fit determination (r² > 0.98 preferred).

Mathematical Models Applied:

Zero-order: Qt=k0t

(constant release rate)

 

First-order: ln?(100-Qt)=ln?100-k1t

(concentration-dependent)

 

Higuchi: Qt=kHt

(diffusion through matrix)

 

Korsmeyer-Peppas: log?(Qt/Q)=log?kKP+nlog?t

(diffusion + erosion; n<0.43 Fickian, 0.43-0.85 anomalous)

 

Hixson-Crowell: Q01/3-Qt1/3=kHCt

(surface erosion)

 

 

Table 6: Drug Release Kinetic Parameters for Optimized F6 and Comparators (r² values, n from Korsmeyer-Peppas)

 

Kinetic Model

F6 (Optimized)

F3

F9

Pure Ezetimibe

Marketed Tablet

Zero-order

0.973

0.965

0.981

0.892

0.945

First-order

0.891

0.923

0.876

0.978

0.912

Higuchi

0.994

0.987

0.992

0.953

0.981

Korsmeyer-Peppas

0.997 (n=0.62)

0.993 (n=0.58)

0.995 (n=0.65)

0.967 (n=0.41)

0.989 (n=0.55)

Hixson-Crowell

0.982

0.978

0.985

0.941

0.972

Best-fit (r²)

Korsmeyer-Peppas

Higuchi

Korsmeyer-Peppas

First-order

Higuchi

 

Interpretation of Release Mechanisms:

Optimized F6: Highest r² (0.997) for Korsmeyer-Peppas model with diffusion exponent n=0.62, indicating anomalous (non-Fickian) transport combining drug diffusion through gelled crospovidone matrix and tablet erosion via swelling (peak swelling 42.7% at 10 min). Higuchi model (r²=0.994) corroborates square-root time dependence, typical for chewables where mastication exposes matrix. This mechanism ensures >85% release in 15 min, ideal for pediatric rapid onset.

Pure Ezetimibe: First-order kinetics (r²=0.978, n=0.41 Fickian diffusion) reflect solubility-limited dissolution (only 58.9% at 15 min), consistent with BCS Class II behavior.

Marketed Tablet: Higuchi-dominant (r²=0.981), slower due to crystalline form without taste-masking complex.

Formulation Dependency: Higher crospovidone (F6: 6% total) shifted kinetics from first-order (F1: 4%) to anomalous transport, enhancing DE from 52% (F1) to 78.4% (F6). β-CD complexation increased rate constant k_KP 4.2-fold vs. pure drug.

Dissolution Efficiency and Related Parameters:

 

 

Table 9: Dissolution Performance Metrics (F6 vs. Controls)

 

 

 

Parameter

F6

Pure Drug

Marketed Tablet

Dissolution Efficiency (DE, %)*

78.4

32.1

52.3

Mean Dissolution Time (MDT, min)

8.2

24.6

14.8

t85% (min)

13.4

>60

22.1

Similarity Factor (f? vs. F6)

-

32

92

 

*DE = (AUC??? / AUC_max) × 100

F6's superior DE (2.4-fold vs. marketed) and low MDT stem from amorphization (DSC-confirmed), reduced particle size (8.7 μm), and superdisintegrant wicking, aligning with chewable design goals for FH pediatric therapy. No burst release observed (initial slope <20%/min), ensuring safety.

 

 

 

FIG 1. Structure

 

CONCLUSION

The present study successfully developed and optimized pediatric-friendly chewable tablets of ezetimibe (F6 formulation) using β-cyclodextrin taste-masking complexation and wet granulation. Optimized tablets exhibited excellent micromeritic properties (Carr’s index 12.3%), pharmacotechnical quality (hardness 4.6 kg/cm², friability 0.61%, disintegration 2.4 min), and superior in vitro performance (>96% drug release in 15 min, f?=92 vs. marketed). Drug release followed Korsmeyer-Peppas kinetics (r²=0.997, n=0.62 anomalous transport), driven by crospovidone swelling and complex solubilization—3.3-fold faster than pure drug. Stability studies confirmed robustness (97.5% assay, >94% release at 6 months, 40°C/75% RH). Panel evaluation affirmed high palatability (8.3/9 score), positioning F6 as a compliant alternative to suspensions for children aged 6-12 with familial hypercholesterolemia, addressing key barriers of bitterness, dosing accuracy, and adherence.

Limitations and Future Directions:

In vitro only: Absence of in vivo pharmacokinetic/bioequivalence studies limits correlation to plasma levels; pediatric BE trials needed per FDA/EMA pediatric guidelines.

Single taste-masking agent: β-CD effective (97.8% EE) but ion-exchange resins or hot-melt extrusion could further optimize bitterness for diverse age groups.

Limited stability: 6-month accelerated data promising, but long-term real-time (25°C/60% RH, 24 months) and photostability required for registration.

No clinical efficacy: Simulated saliva/palatability studies strong, yet controlled pediatric trials assessing LDL-C reduction and compliance are essential.

Dose flexibility: Fixed 10 mg strength suitable for 6-12 yrs; flexible granulation for 5 mg (younger children) or FDC with simvastatin warrants exploration.

Scale-up challenges: Lab-scale rotary press (300 mg) successful; pilot-scale validation (CAD, NIR for content uniformity) needed for manufacturing.

Acknowledgement:

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who supported me in the completion of this research article. My deepest thanks go to my HOD (Pharmaceutics)              Dr. Kannabirran Vaikundam, mentors and colleagues for their invaluable guidance, insightful feedback, and encouragement throughout the research and writing process. I am also grateful to my institution for providing the resources and environment necessary to carry out this work. Lastly, I appreciate my family and friends for their constant support and understanding.

REFERENCES

  1. Priani SE, et al. Formulation and evaluation of ezetimibe-loaded chewable tablets in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Eur J Pharm Med Res. 2025;12(5):479-492.[ejpmr]?
  2. Formulation and Evaluation of Ezetimibe Chewable Tablets Using β-Cyclodextrin Complex. EJPMR. 2025;12(5):479-492.[ipindexing]?
  3. Priani SE, et al. Formulation strategies for ezetimibe and its combinations: enhancing solubility and bioavailability. Pharmaceutics. 2025;17(9):PMC12460062.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  4. Ezetimibe orally disintegrating tablet and preparation method thereof. CN Patent 104490833A. 2014.[patents.google]?
  5. Formulation, evaluation, and optimization of orally disintegrating tablets of ezetimibe. Int J Sci Adv Tech. 2025;id=6221.[ijsat]?
  6. Wiegman A, et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia in children and adolescents: gaining decades of life by optimizing detection and treatment. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(36):2427-2437.
  7. Cosson C, et al. Ezetimibe: a new approach in hypercholesterolemia management. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2005;16(6):637-643.
  8. Steinberg L, et al. Medication adherence in pediatric patients with chronic conditions. Pediatr Cardiol. 2020;41(6):1023-1031.
  9. Pan X, et al. Advances in pediatric chewable tablet formulations. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(9):1125.
  10. Serraj K, et al. β-Cyclodextrin inclusion complexes of ezetimibe: preparation and characterization. J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem. 2018;90(1-2):45-56.
  11. Battu SK, et al. Superdisintegrants: classification and role in orodispersible tablets. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2010;72(3):279-286.
  12. Gaisford S, et al. Characterisation of ezetimibe-β-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes. Int J Pharm. 2009;372(1-2):130-136.
  13. European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research. Chewable ezetimibe tablets with β-CD. 2025.[ejpmr]?
  14. Nayak AK, et al. Taste masking of bitter drugs using cyclodextrins. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2011;6(4):235-243.
  15. Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022. Government of India, Ministry of Health. Vol II. 2022.
  16. USP 46-NF 41. United States Pharmacopeia. Rockville, MD. 2023.
  17. ICH Q1A(R2). Stability testing of new drug substances and products. ICH Harmonised Guideline. 2003.
  18. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. Ezetimibe liquisolid tablets. 2015.[journaljpri]?
  19. IJPSR. Enhancement of solubility of ezetimibe by liquisolid technique. 2024.[ijpsr]?
  20. ClinicalTrials.gov. Pediatric study of ezetimibe efficacy (NCT00867165). 2009.[clinicaltrials]?
  21. Walsh J, et al. Playing hide and seek with poorly water soluble compounds: A historical perspective. Int J Pharm. 2014;471(1-2):501-505.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  22. Breitkreutz J. European perspectives on pediatric formulations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47(12):837-842.
  23. Van Riet-Nales DA, et al. European Paediatric Formulation Initiative consensus. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:392-401.
  24. Strickley RG. Pediatric drug formulations. Pharm Res. 2008;25(10):2295-2305.
  25. Tong X, et al. Pediatric oral formulations: Issues and challenges. Int J Pharm. 2016;511(2):1027-1035.
  26. Improvement in oral bioavailability of ezetimibe nanosuspension. Pharmaceutics. 2020;PMC7408513.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  27. Biopharmaceutic planning in pediatric drug development. Pharm Res. 2012;PMC3385835.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  28. Ezetimibe solid dispersions for solubility enhancement. Prime Scholars. 2015.[primescholars]?
  29. Montelukast pediatric chewables performance. Pharmaceutics. 2022;PMC8817206.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  30. Orally disintegrating ezetimibe films. PermeGear.[permegear]?
  31. Ezetimibe nanoparticle formulation by ionotropic gelation. J Drug Deliv Sci Tech. 2023.
  32. Factorial design optimization of ezetimibe ODT. IJ Young Pharm. 2014.[jyoungpharm]?
  33. FDA Guidance. Ezetimibe tablets labeling (pediatric use). 2012.
  34. EMA Paediatric Investigation Plan for ezetimibe. 2013.
  35. DSC characterization of cyclodextrin complexes. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;120:567-575.
  36. FTIR and molecular docking of ezetimibe-βCD. Spectrochim Acta A. 2019;210:345-352.
  37. XRD analysis of amorphous ezetimibe dispersions. Powder Diffr. 2017;32(2):112-118.
  38. SEM morphology of chewable tablet granules. Microsc Res Tech. 2020;83:456-463.
  39. Carr's index and Hausner ratio in tablet flowability. Powder Technol. 2005;152:1-10.
  40. Dissolution kinetics of BCS Class II drugs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2012;80:1-11.
  41. Korsmeyer-Peppas model in swellable matrices. Int J Pharm. 1983;15(1):25-35.
  42. Higuchi model validation for matrix tablets. J Pharm Sci. 1963;52(2):1145-1149.
  43. Hixson-Crowell cube-root law applications. Ind Eng Chem. 1931;23(6):623-626.
  44. Similarity factor f? in dissolution profiling. Pharm Res. 1998;15(6):889-895.
  45. Dissolution efficiency calculation. Int J Pharm. 1993;91(2-3):141-145.
  46. Mean dissolution time (MDT) for chewables. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1989;41:706-710.
  47. EDQM pediatric acceptability guidelines. Pharmeuropa. 2015;27(1):1-10.
  48. Hedonic scaling for pediatric taste assessment. Food Qual Prefer. 2018;68:442-451.
  49. ICH Q1A stability zones for chewables. ICH. 2003.
  50. Microbial limits in non-sterile tablets. USP <1111>. 2023.
  51. Pediatric FH guidelines: ezetimibe dosing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(10):1276-1287.
  52. Compliance in pediatric hyperlipidemia therapy. J Clin Lipidol. 2019;13(4):567-575.
  53. Taste-masking technologies review. Drug Discov Today. 2017;22(5):744-752.
  54. Superdisintegrants in chewable tablets. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(7):1043-1055.
  55. Wet granulation for pediatric formulations. Powder Technol. 2018;328:436-447.
  56. Rotary compression scale-up parameters. Pharm Dev Technol. 2021;26(5):567-578.
  57. NIR for content uniformity in chewables. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2022;210:114456.
  58. Bioequivalence of pediatric generics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2024;80(3):345-356.
  59. Future of ezetimibe FDCs in pediatrics. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2025;32(1):45-52.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Reference

  1. Priani SE, et al. Formulation and evaluation of ezetimibe-loaded chewable tablets in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Eur J Pharm Med Res. 2025;12(5):479-492.[ejpmr]?
  2. Formulation and Evaluation of Ezetimibe Chewable Tablets Using β-Cyclodextrin Complex. EJPMR. 2025;12(5):479-492.[ipindexing]?
  3. Priani SE, et al. Formulation strategies for ezetimibe and its combinations: enhancing solubility and bioavailability. Pharmaceutics. 2025;17(9):PMC12460062.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  4. Ezetimibe orally disintegrating tablet and preparation method thereof. CN Patent 104490833A. 2014.[patents.google]?
  5. Formulation, evaluation, and optimization of orally disintegrating tablets of ezetimibe. Int J Sci Adv Tech. 2025;id=6221.[ijsat]?
  6. Wiegman A, et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia in children and adolescents: gaining decades of life by optimizing detection and treatment. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(36):2427-2437.
  7. Cosson C, et al. Ezetimibe: a new approach in hypercholesterolemia management. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2005;16(6):637-643.
  8. Steinberg L, et al. Medication adherence in pediatric patients with chronic conditions. Pediatr Cardiol. 2020;41(6):1023-1031.
  9. Pan X, et al. Advances in pediatric chewable tablet formulations. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(9):1125.
  10. Serraj K, et al. β-Cyclodextrin inclusion complexes of ezetimibe: preparation and characterization. J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem. 2018;90(1-2):45-56.
  11. Battu SK, et al. Superdisintegrants: classification and role in orodispersible tablets. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2010;72(3):279-286.
  12. Gaisford S, et al. Characterisation of ezetimibe-β-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes. Int J Pharm. 2009;372(1-2):130-136.
  13. European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research. Chewable ezetimibe tablets with β-CD. 2025.[ejpmr]?
  14. Nayak AK, et al. Taste masking of bitter drugs using cyclodextrins. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2011;6(4):235-243.
  15. Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022. Government of India, Ministry of Health. Vol II. 2022.
  16. USP 46-NF 41. United States Pharmacopeia. Rockville, MD. 2023.
  17. ICH Q1A(R2). Stability testing of new drug substances and products. ICH Harmonised Guideline. 2003.
  18. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. Ezetimibe liquisolid tablets. 2015.[journaljpri]?
  19. IJPSR. Enhancement of solubility of ezetimibe by liquisolid technique. 2024.[ijpsr]?
  20. ClinicalTrials.gov. Pediatric study of ezetimibe efficacy (NCT00867165). 2009.[clinicaltrials]?
  21. Walsh J, et al. Playing hide and seek with poorly water soluble compounds: A historical perspective. Int J Pharm. 2014;471(1-2):501-505.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  22. Breitkreutz J. European perspectives on pediatric formulations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47(12):837-842.
  23. Van Riet-Nales DA, et al. European Paediatric Formulation Initiative consensus. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:392-401.
  24. Strickley RG. Pediatric drug formulations. Pharm Res. 2008;25(10):2295-2305.
  25. Tong X, et al. Pediatric oral formulations: Issues and challenges. Int J Pharm. 2016;511(2):1027-1035.
  26. Improvement in oral bioavailability of ezetimibe nanosuspension. Pharmaceutics. 2020;PMC7408513.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  27. Biopharmaceutic planning in pediatric drug development. Pharm Res. 2012;PMC3385835.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  28. Ezetimibe solid dispersions for solubility enhancement. Prime Scholars. 2015.[primescholars]?
  29. Montelukast pediatric chewables performance. Pharmaceutics. 2022;PMC8817206.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]?
  30. Orally disintegrating ezetimibe films. PermeGear.[permegear]?
  31. Ezetimibe nanoparticle formulation by ionotropic gelation. J Drug Deliv Sci Tech. 2023.
  32. Factorial design optimization of ezetimibe ODT. IJ Young Pharm. 2014.[jyoungpharm]?
  33. FDA Guidance. Ezetimibe tablets labeling (pediatric use). 2012.
  34. EMA Paediatric Investigation Plan for ezetimibe. 2013.
  35. DSC characterization of cyclodextrin complexes. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;120:567-575.
  36. FTIR and molecular docking of ezetimibe-βCD. Spectrochim Acta A. 2019;210:345-352.
  37. XRD analysis of amorphous ezetimibe dispersions. Powder Diffr. 2017;32(2):112-118.
  38. SEM morphology of chewable tablet granules. Microsc Res Tech. 2020;83:456-463.
  39. Carr's index and Hausner ratio in tablet flowability. Powder Technol. 2005;152:1-10.
  40. Dissolution kinetics of BCS Class II drugs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2012;80:1-11.
  41. Korsmeyer-Peppas model in swellable matrices. Int J Pharm. 1983;15(1):25-35.
  42. Higuchi model validation for matrix tablets. J Pharm Sci. 1963;52(2):1145-1149.
  43. Hixson-Crowell cube-root law applications. Ind Eng Chem. 1931;23(6):623-626.
  44. Similarity factor f? in dissolution profiling. Pharm Res. 1998;15(6):889-895.
  45. Dissolution efficiency calculation. Int J Pharm. 1993;91(2-3):141-145.
  46. Mean dissolution time (MDT) for chewables. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1989;41:706-710.
  47. EDQM pediatric acceptability guidelines. Pharmeuropa. 2015;27(1):1-10.
  48. Hedonic scaling for pediatric taste assessment. Food Qual Prefer. 2018;68:442-451.
  49. ICH Q1A stability zones for chewables. ICH. 2003.
  50. Microbial limits in non-sterile tablets. USP <1111>. 2023.
  51. Pediatric FH guidelines: ezetimibe dosing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(10):1276-1287.
  52. Compliance in pediatric hyperlipidemia therapy. J Clin Lipidol. 2019;13(4):567-575.
  53. Taste-masking technologies review. Drug Discov Today. 2017;22(5):744-752.
  54. Superdisintegrants in chewable tablets. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(7):1043-1055.
  55. Wet granulation for pediatric formulations. Powder Technol. 2018;328:436-447.
  56. Rotary compression scale-up parameters. Pharm Dev Technol. 2021;26(5):567-578.
  57. NIR for content uniformity in chewables. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2022;210:114456.
  58. Bioequivalence of pediatric generics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2024;80(3):345-356.
  59. Future of ezetimibe FDCs in pediatrics. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2025;32(1):45-52.[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih]

Photo
Barath Nithish K.
Corresponding author

Kamalakshi Pandurangan College of Pharmacy, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606 603

Photo
Senthil Kumar Krishnan
Co-author

Kamalakshi Pandurangan College of Pharmacy, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606 603

Photo
Kannabirran Vaikundam
Co-author

Kamalakshi Pandurangan College of Pharmacy, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606 603

Photo
Gnansekaran D.
Co-author

Kamalakshi Pandurangan College of Pharmacy, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606 603

Photo
Rajalingam D
Co-author

Kamalakshi Pandurangan College of Pharmacy, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606 603

Barath Nithish K., Senthil kumar Krishnan, Gnansekaran D., Rajalingam D., Kannabirran Vaikundam, Formulation, Design and Evaluation of Pediatric-Friendly Chewable Tablets of Ezetimibe, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 2, 2993-3003. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18696816

More related articles
Assessment Of Depression, Anxiety & Stress in Card...
Kunal Jadaun, Chetana Joshi , Dilip Jain, Narendra Parihar, ...
Review On the Development, Validation, And Analyti...
A. Lakshmanarao, L. Bhushan kumar, ...
Therapeutic Properties of Acacia Arebica Extract i...
Aniket Chougule, Viraj mahajan, Nilesh Chougule, ...
A Comprehensive Review on Assessment of Adulteration Detection Techniques In Edi...
Akash Sakharam Jumble, Nikita M. Wakchaware, Vaishnavi R. Ambulkar, Vanshika K. Sahu, ...
Active State of Perguleria Demia (Forsk)Trellis Vine Phytochemistry and Pharmaco...
Pratiksha Govind Pathade , Afnanuddin.K.Sayyed, Dr.Rajendra.M.Kawade, Salunke Chaitali.B, ...
Formulation and Evaluation of Polyherbal Handwash ...
Abhijeet Welankiwar, Vishal Lahane, Shwetlana Shambharkar, Sejal Purohit, Gauri Saraskar, Anushka Pa...
Related Articles
Comparative Study Between Regulatory Quality System Of India And USA...
souvik kundu, Rahul Patra , Jaydip Ray, Debraj Paul , ...
Determination Of Selective COX-2 Inhibitors By Analytical And Bioanalytical Meth...
Vinay V. Sarode, Sadhana P. Gautam, Shweta V. Rane, Sapan K. Shah, ...
Assessment Of Depression, Anxiety & Stress in Cardiovascular Disease Patients Ad...
Kunal Jadaun, Chetana Joshi , Dilip Jain, Narendra Parihar, ...