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.
10. LITERATURE REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROBIOTIC TABLETS
22
Lượt xem
23
Lượt tải xuống
Từ khóa
Probiotic tablet; viability; factor; formulation.
Tóm tắt
Tài liệu tham khảo
[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