Articles Vol. 64 No. tiếng Anh 22/12/2023

10. LITERATURE REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROBIOTIC TABLETS

Ngo Nguyen Quynh Anh1, Dam Thanh Xuan2, Nguyen Ngoc Chien2
1 Hai Duong Central College of Pharmacy
2 Hanoi University of Pharmacy
Corresponding author: qanhk63hup@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v64i13.865
22 Views
23 Downloads
Keywords
Probiotic tablet; viability; factor; formulation.
Abstract

Probiotics are gaining increasing attention due to their significant benefits to the host. Despite their potential advantages, probiotic dosage forms have not been extensively studied, primarily because of their poor survival through the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotic tablets emerge as a promising delivery system utilized in nutritional products to supplement the natural intestinal flora. These tablets possess the capability to deliver live, functional bacteria in sufficiently large quantities, ensuring effectiveness, and providing protection against the harsh conditions of the gastrointestinal and biliary tract environment, thereby ensuring in vivo protection and maintaining viability during preparation. Various adverse effects that impact the effectiveness of probiotics are associated with preparation methods and user factors. This review primarily focuses on probiotic tablets, delving into factors influencing the existence of microorganisms and the development of formulations for probiotic tablets.

References
[1]
E Silva JPS, Sousa SC, Costa P et al., Development Google Scholar
[2]
of Probiotic Tablets Using Microparticles: Google Scholar
[3]
Viability Studies and Stability Studies. AAPS Google Scholar
[4]
PharmSciTech, 14(1), 121–127., 2012. Google Scholar
[5]
Govender M, Choonara YE, Kumar P et al., A Google Scholar
[6]
review of the advancements in probiotic delivery: Google Scholar
[7]
Conventional vs. non-conventional formulations Google Scholar
[8]
for intestinal flora supplementation; AAPS Google Scholar
[9]
PharmSciTech, 2014, 15, 29–43. Google Scholar
[10]
FAO/WHO, Guidelines for the evaluation of Google Scholar
[11]
probiotic in food, Joint FAO/WHO working Google Scholar
[12]
group report on drafting guidelines for the Google Scholar
[13]
evaluation of probiotic in food, 2002. Google Scholar
[14]
Kim W-S, Cho C-S, Hong L et al., Oral delivery Google Scholar
[15]
of probiotics using pH-sensitive phthalyl Google Scholar
[16]
inulin tablets; J Microbiol Biotechnol; 2019; Google Scholar
[17]
(2):200–208. Google Scholar
[18]
Gurram S, Jha DK, Shah DS et al., Insights Google Scholar
[19]
on the Critical Parameters Affecting the Google Scholar
[20]
Probiotic Viability During Stabilization Google Scholar
[21]
Process and Formulation Development; AAPS Google Scholar
[22]
PharmSciTech. 2021 May 18;22(5):156. Google Scholar
[23]
doi: 10.1208/s12249-021-02024-8. PMID: Google Scholar
[24]
Shu G, Tian M, Chen L et al., Probiotic goat milk Google Scholar
[25]
tablets: Formulation optimization and stability Google Scholar
[26]
evaluation. LWT, 2019, 108862. doi:10.1016/j. Google Scholar
[27]
lwt.2019.108862 Google Scholar
[28]
Huq T, Vu KD, Riedl B et al., Development Google Scholar
[29]
of probiotic tablet using alginate, pectin, and Google Scholar
[30]
cellulose nanocrystals as excipients. Cellulose, Google Scholar
[31]
(3), 2016, 1967–1978. doi:10.1007/s10570- Google Scholar
[32]
-0905-2 Google Scholar
[33]
Vorländer K, Bahlmann L, Kwade A et al., Google Scholar
[34]
Tableting of fluidized bed granules containing Google Scholar
[35]
living microorganisms, European Journal of Google Scholar
[36]
Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2023. Google Scholar
[37]
Sierra-Vega NO, Romañach RJ, Méndez R, Google Scholar
[38]
Feed Frame: The Last Processing Step before Google Scholar
[39]
the Tablet Compaction in Pharmaceu-tical Google Scholar
[40]
Manufacturing. Int. J. Pharm, 2019, 572, 118728. Google Scholar
[41]
Vorländer K, Kampen I, Finke JH et al., Along the Google Scholar
[42]
Process Chain to Probiotic Tablets: Evaluation Google Scholar
[43]
of Mechanical Impacts on Microbial Viability; Google Scholar
[44]
Pharmaceutics 2020,12, 66. Google Scholar
[45]
Byl E, Bladt P, Lebeer S et al., Importance of Google Scholar
[46]
Pressure Plasticity during Compression of Google Scholar
[47]
Probiotic Tablet Formulations. Eur. J. Pharm. Google Scholar
[48]
Biopharm, 2019,145, 7–11. Google Scholar
[49]
Vorländer K, Bahlmann L, Kwade A et al., Google Scholar
[50]
Effect of Process Parameters, Protectants and Google Scholar
[51]
Carrier Materials on the Survival of Yeast Cells Google Scholar
[52]
during Fluidized Bed Granulation for Tableting, Google Scholar
[53]
Pharmaceutics, 2023. Google Scholar
[54]
Breitenbach J, Beermann C, Esper GJ, Google Scholar
[55]
Comparison of different methods for Google Scholar
[56]
microencapsulation of probiotics. Prog. Agric. Google Scholar
[57]
Eng. Sci. 2016,12, 63–80. Google Scholar
[58]
Yan J, Wu M, Zhao W et al., Effects of probiotics Google Scholar
[59]
and its fermented milk on constipation: a Google Scholar
[60]
systematic review, Food Science and Human Google Scholar
[61]
Wellness, 2023. Google Scholar
[62]
Broeckx G, Vandenheuvel D, Claes IJJ et al., Google Scholar
[63]
Drying techniques of probiotic bacteria as an Google Scholar
[64]
important step towards the development of novel Google Scholar
[65]
pharmabiotics. Int. J. Pharm. 2016,505, 303–318. Google Scholar
[66]
El Mafadi S, Picot A, Poncelet D, Modification/ Google Scholar
[67]
improvement of the Wurster process for drying Google Scholar
[68]
or coating sensitive bioactive materials. Minerva Google Scholar
[69]
Biotecnol, 2005,17, 231–235. Google Scholar
[70]
Zaghari L, Basiri A, Rahimi S, Preparation and Google Scholar
[71]
characterization of double-coated probiotic Google Scholar
[72]
bacteria via a fluid-bed process: A case study on Google Scholar
[73]
Lactobacillus reuteri. Int. J. Food Eng. 2020,16, Google Scholar
[74]
Stummer S, Toegel S, Rabenreither MC et al., Google Scholar
[75]
Fluidized-bed drying as a feasible method for Google Scholar
[76]
dehydration of Enterococcus faecium M74. J. Google Scholar
[77]
Food Eng; 2012,111, 156–165. Google Scholar
[78]
Sun CC, Decoding Powder Tabletability: Roles Google Scholar
[79]
of Particle Adhesion and Plasticity. J. Adhes. Google Scholar
[80]
Sci. Technol; 2011, 25, 483–499. Google Scholar
[81]
Thoorens G, Krier F, Leclercq B et al., Google Scholar
[82]
Microcrystalline Cellulose, a Direct Compression Google Scholar
[83]
Binder in a Quality by Design Environment—A Google Scholar
[84]
Review. Int. J. Pharm. 2014,473, 64–72. Google Scholar
[85]
Klayraung S, Viernstein H, Okonogi S, Google Scholar
[86]
Development of Tablets Containing Probiotics: Google Scholar
[87]
Effects of Formulation and Processing Google Scholar
[88]
Parameters on Bacterial Viability. Int. J. Pharm. Google Scholar
[89]
,370, 54–60. Google Scholar
[90]
Allouche R, Dupont S, Charriau A et al., Google Scholar
[91]
Optimized Tableting for Extremely Oxygen Google Scholar
[92]
Sensitive Probiotics Using Direct Compression. Google Scholar
[93]
Int. J. Pharm, 2018, 538, 14–20. Google Scholar
[94]
Byl E, Jokicevic K, Kiekens S et al., Strain Google Scholar
[95]
Specific Differences in Behaviour among Google Scholar
[96]
Lacticaseibacillus Rhamnosus Cell Wall Mutants Google Scholar
[97]
during Direct Compression. Int. J. Pharm. Google Scholar
[98]
,588, 119755. Google Scholar
[99]
Iswandana R, Putri KSS, Anisa HN et al., Google Scholar
[100]
Formulation of various polysaccharides-based Google Scholar
[101]
multicoated tablets containing dexamethasone Google Scholar
[102]
and probiotics for inflammatory bowel disease, Google Scholar
[103]
Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, 2023. Google Scholar
[104]
Blair TC, Buckton G, Bloomfield SF, On the Google Scholar
[105]
mechanism of kill of microbial contaminants Google Scholar
[106]
during tablet compression. Int. J. Pharm; 1991, Google Scholar
[107]
, 111–115. Google Scholar
[108]
Plumpton EJ, Gilbert P, Fell JT, The survival of Google Scholar
[109]
microorganisms during tabletting. Int. J. Pharm; Google Scholar
[110]
, 30, 241–246. Google Scholar
[111]
Fassihi AR, Parker MS, Inimical Effects of Google Scholar
[112]
Compaction Speed on Microorganisms in Google Scholar
[113]
Powder Systems with Dissimilar Compaction Google Scholar
[114]
Mechanisms. J. Pharm. Sci. 1987, 76, 466–470. Google Scholar
[115]
Vorländer K, Bahlmann L, Kwade A et al., Google Scholar
[116]
Influence of compression kinetics during tableting Google Scholar
[117]
of fluidized bed-granulated microorganisms on Google Scholar
[118]
microbiological and physical-mechanical tablet Google Scholar
[119]
properties, European Journal of Pharmaceutics Google Scholar
[120]
and Biopharmaceutics, 2023. Google Scholar
[121]
Gurram S, Jha DK, Shah DS et al., Insights Google Scholar
[122]
on the Critical Parameters Affecting the Google Scholar
[123]
Probiotic Viability During Stabilization Google Scholar
[124]
Process and Formulation Development, AAPS Google Scholar
[125]
PharmSciTech, 2021. Google Scholar
[126]
Yao M, Xie J, Du H et al., Progress in Google Scholar
[127]
microencapsulation of probiotics: a review. Google Scholar
[128]
Compre Rev Food Sci. 2020;19(2):857–874. Google Scholar
[129]
doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12532 Google Scholar
[130]
Baral, Kshitis & Bajracharya, Rajiv & Lee Google Scholar
[131]
et al., Advancements in the Pharmaceutical Google Scholar
[132]
Applications of Probiotics: Dosage Forms and Google Scholar
[133]
Formulation Technology. International Journal Google Scholar
[134]
of Nanomedicine, 2021, Volume 16. 7535-7556. Google Scholar
[135]
2147/IJN.S337427. Google Scholar
[136]
Urdaneta V, Casadesús J, Interactions between Google Scholar
[137]
bacteria and bile salts in the gastrointestinal and Google Scholar
[138]
hepatobiliary tracts. Front Med. 2017;4:163. doi: Google Scholar
[139]
3389/fmed.2017.00163. Google Scholar
[140]
Grenier D, Effect of proteolytic enzymes on Google Scholar
[141]
the lysis and growth of oral bacteria. Oral Google Scholar
[142]
Microbiol Immunol. 1994;9(4):224–228. doi:76 Google Scholar
[143]
1111/j.1399-302X.1994.tb00062.x. Google Scholar
[144]
Pliszczak D, Bourgeois S, Bordes C et al., Google Scholar
[145]
Improvement of an encapsulation process for Google Scholar
[146]
the preparation of pro- and prebiotics-loaded Google Scholar
[147]
bioadhesive microparticles by using experimental Google Scholar
[148]
design. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011;44(1):83–92. doi: Google Scholar
[149]
1016/j.ejps.2011.06.011. Google Scholar
[150]
Merkus FW, Verhoef JC, Schipper NG et Google Scholar
[151]
al., Nasal mucociliary clearance as a factor Google Scholar
[152]
in nasal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. Google Scholar
[153]
;29(1–2):13–38. doi: 10.1016/S0169- Google Scholar
[154]
X(97)00059-8. Google Scholar
[155]
Serralheiro A, Alves G, Sousa J et al., Nose as Google Scholar
[156]
a route for drug delivery. In: Önerci TM, editor. Google Scholar
[157]
Nasal Physiology and Pathophysiology of Nasal Google Scholar
[158]
Disorders. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 2013:191–215. Google Scholar
[159]
De Rudder C, Garcia-Tímermans C, De Boeck Google Scholar
[160]
I et al., Lacticaseibacillus casei AMBR2 Google Scholar
[161]
modulates the epithelial barrier function and Google Scholar
[162]
immune response in a donor-derived nasal Google Scholar
[163]
microbiota manner. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):16939. Google Scholar
[164]
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73857-9. Google Scholar
[165]
Terpou A, Papadaki A, Lappa IK et al., Probiotics Google Scholar
[166]
in food systems: significance and emerging Google Scholar
[167]
strategies towards improved viability and Google Scholar
[168]
delivery of enhanced beneficial value. Nutrients; Google Scholar
[169]
;11(7):1591. doi: 10.3390/nu11071591. Google Scholar
[170]
Stanbury PF, Whitaker A, Hall SJ, The recovery Google Scholar
[171]
and purification of fermentation products. In: Google Scholar
[172]
Stanbury PF, Whitaker A, Hall SJ, editors. Google Scholar
[173]
Principles of Fermentation Technology. 3rd ed. Google Scholar
[174]
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2017:619–686. Google Scholar
[175]
Blair TC, Buckton G, Bloomfield SF, On the Google Scholar
[176]
mechanism of kill of microbial contaminants Google Scholar
[177]
during tablet compression. Int J Pharm. Google Scholar
[178]
;72(2):111–115. doi: 10.1016/0378- Google Scholar
[179]
(91)90048-S. Google Scholar
[180]
Plumpton EJ, Gilbert P, Fell JT, The survival of Google Scholar
[181]
microorganisms during tabletting. Int J Pharm. Google Scholar
[182]
;30(2–3):241–246. doi: 10.1016/0378- Google Scholar
[183]
(86)90086-4. Google Scholar
[184]
Mills S, Stanton C, Fitzgerald GF et al., Google Scholar
[185]
Enhancing the stress responses of probiotics for Google Scholar
[186]
a lifestyle from gut to product and back again. Google Scholar
[187]
Microb Cell Fact. 2011;10(Suppl 1):S19–S19. Google Scholar
[188]
doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-10-S1-S19. Google Scholar
[189]
Ketaubon P, Prapagdee B, Enhancing cadmium Google Scholar
[190]
phytoremediation of Chlorophytum comosum Google Scholar
[191]
(Thunb.) Jacques by applying cadmium-resistant Google Scholar
[192]
bacterial tablet, Environmental Science and Google Scholar
[193]
Pollution Research, Article in Press 2023 Google Scholar
[194]
Kaur R, Simnani FZ, Singh S, Enhancement of Google Scholar
[195]
Probiotics for Functional Food ( Book Chapter), Google Scholar
[196]
Recent Advances in Food Biotechnology, 2022. Google Scholar
[197]
Das NC, Patra R, Dey A et al., Probiotics as Google Scholar
[198]
Efficacious Therapeutic Option for Treating Google Scholar
[199]
Gut-Related Diseases: Molecular and Google Scholar
[200]
Immunobiological Perspectives (Book Chapter), Google Scholar
[201]
Prebiotics, Probiotics and Nutraceuticals, 2022 Google Scholar
[202]
Sreeja V, Prajapati JB, Probiotic Formulations: Google Scholar
[203]
Application and Status as Pharmaceuticals—A Google Scholar
[204]
Review. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, Google Scholar
[205]
(2), 2013, 81–91. doi:10.1007/s12602-013-9126-2 Google Scholar
[206]
Plumpton EJ, Gilbert P, Fell JT, Effect of spatial Google Scholar
[207]
distribution of contaminant microorganisms Google Scholar
[208]
within tablet formulations on subsequent Google Scholar
[209]
inactivation through compaction. Int. J. Pharm, Google Scholar
[210]
, 30, 237–240. Google Scholar
[211]
Chan ES, Zhang Z, Encapsulation of probiotic Google Scholar
[212]
bacteria Lactobacillus acidophilus by direct Google Scholar
[213]
compression. Trans IChemE 80 (part C), 2002, Google Scholar
[214]
pp 78–82 Google Scholar
[215]
Maggi L, Mastromarino P, Macchia S et al., Google Scholar
[216]
Technological and biological evaluation of Google Scholar
[217]
tablets containing different strains of lactobacilli Google Scholar
[218]
for vaginal administration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm Google Scholar
[219]
:389–395, 2000. Google Scholar
[220]
Mohd AA, Mimi SAM, Design and optimization Google Scholar
[221]
of a probiotic tablet for gastrointestinal Google Scholar
[222]
tolerance by a simplex-centroid mixture, Drug Google Scholar
[223]
Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2020.77 Google Scholar
[224]
Sierra-Vega NO, Romañach RJ, Méndez R, Google Scholar
[225]
Feed Frame: The Last Processing Step before Google Scholar
[226]
the Tablet Compaction in Pharmaceu-tical Google Scholar
[227]
Manufacturing. Int. J. Pharm, 2019,572, 118728. Google Scholar
[228]
Vorländer K, Kampen I, Finke JH et al., Along the Google Scholar
[229]
Process Chain to Probiotic Tablets: Evaluation Google Scholar
[230]
of Mechanical Impacts on Microbial Viability; Google Scholar
[231]
Pharmaceutics 2020,12, 66. Google Scholar
[232]
Byl E, Bladt P, Lebeer S et al., Importance of Google Scholar
[233]
Pressure Plasticity during Compression of Google Scholar
[234]
Probiotic Tablet Formulations. Eur. J. Pharm. Google Scholar
[235]
Biopharm. 2019,145, 7–11. Google Scholar
[236]
Maggi L, Mastromarino P, Macchia S et al., Google Scholar
[237]
Technological and biological evaluation of Google Scholar
[238]
tablets containing different strains of lactobacilli Google Scholar
[239]
for vaginal administration. Eur J Pharm Google Scholar
[240]
Biopharm; 2000;50(3):389–395 Google Scholar
[241]
Azhar MA, Munaim MSA, Design and Google Scholar
[242]
optimization of a probiotic tablet for Google Scholar
[243]
gastrointestinal tolerance by a simplex-centroid Google Scholar
[244]
mixture. Drug Development and Industrial Google Scholar
[245]
Pharmacy, 47(2), 2020, 189–196. Google Scholar