Abstract:Background: Preference for and acceptability of a drug are crucial for compliance and hence optimal treatment of diseases that require long-term management (eg, osteoporosis). The preference for and acceptability of a chewable tablet containing calcium and vitamin D 3 and a dose-comparable effervescent powder were assessed in a Phase 4, randomized, open-label, crossover trial in 5 European countries (Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Greece). Objective: The aim of the present analysis was to compare the preference for and acceptability, including tolerability, of these 2 formulations based on the Belgian results of the previously mentioned study. Methods: Patients were recruited from 3 osteoporosis units and university hospitals in Brussels, Liege, and Ghent, Belgium. Adult patients at risk for calcium and vitamin D deficiencies were enrolled. The study drugs included 2 formulations of a dietary supplement containing a combination of calcium plus vitamin D3: chewable tablets (calcium carbonate, 1250 mg; vitamin D 3, 400 IU) (A) and effervescent powder (calcium carbonate, 1250 mg; vitamin D 3, 440 IU) (I3). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 treatment sequences: AB or BA. Both formulations were given PO BID for 14 days, with a switch to the alternate formulation occurring on day 15 of the study. Preference and acceptability were assessed using 2 questionnaires: one assessed 5 variables of acceptability using 11-point scales, and the other assessed preference using yes/no questions. Compliance and tolerability were recorded throughout the study, with unused dose counts and recording of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Results: The s tudy comprised 200 patients, 199 of whom received at least 1 dose of s tudy medication and were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (174 women, 25 men; mean age, 66 years [range, 30-87 years]). Preference data were *Trial investigators are listed in the Acknowledgments. Accepted for publication November 9, 2004. Reproduction in whole or part is not permitted. doi:l 0.1016/j.curtheres.2005.03.003 0011-393X]05]$19.00 Copyright © 2005 Fxcerpta Media, Inc. 23 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH available in 178 patients, 129 of whom (72.5%) preferred the chewable tablet compared with 34 (19.1%) who preferred the effervescent powder and 15 (8.4%) who had no preference (both, P < 0.001 vs tablet). The preference for the tablet was based on consistently and significantly higher mean scores on all 5 variables of acceptability (all, P < 0.001). The most common AEs were gastrointestinal (tablet, 27/192 patients [14.1%]; powder, 31/190 patients [16.3%]). Eighteen patients (9.0%) discontinued the trial due to >1 AE (12 receiving the tablet and 6 receiving the powder). ¢onduslons: In this s tudy of preference for and acceptability of 2 formulations (chewable tablet and effervescent powder) of a dietary supplement containing a combination of calcium plus vitamin D 3 in Belgian adults at risk for calcium and vitamin D deficiencies, the chewable tablet was preferred by a significant majority. Based on 5 variables, the tablet was found to be significantly more acceptable than the powder. Tolerability was similar between the 2 formulations. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2005;66:23-34) Copyright © 2005 Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Questionnaire Survey and Serum Phosphorus Levels in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients Switching Lanthanum Carbonate Formulation From Chewable Tablets to Granules

Is Granular Formulation of Lanthanum Carbonate More Effective than Chewable Tablets?

Effects of Change in the Formulation of Lanthanum Carbonate on Laboratory Parameters

Efficacy of oral powder compared with chewable tablets for lanthanum carbonate administration in hemodialysis patients

Additional Reduction in Serum Phosphorus Levels by Pulverized Lanthanum Carbonate Chewable in Hemodialysis Patients

Lanthanum Carbonate for the Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in Ckd 5d: Multicenter, Double Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial in Mainland China

Phosphate‐binding efficacy of crushed vs. chewed lanthanum carbonate in hemodialysis patients

Assessment of pharmacodynamic equivalence and tolerability of lanthanum carbonate oral powder and tablet formulations: a single-center, randomized, open-label, 2-period crossover study in healthy subjects

Comparative evaluation of the in vitro efficacy of lanthanum carbonate chewable tablets.

Lanthanum Carbonate Versus Sevelamer Hydrochloride: Improvement of Metabolic Acidosis and Hyperkalemia in Hemodialysis Patients

Sevelamer carbonate lowers serum phosphorus effectively in haemodialysis patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study.

Two-Way Randomized Crossover Study to Establish Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence Between Oxylanthanum Carbonate and Lanthanum Carbonate

Clinical Evaluation of the Safety, Efficacy and Tolerability of Lanthanum Carbonate in the Management of Hyperphosphatemia in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

An open-label phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of lanthanum carbonate in hyperphosphatemic children and adolescents with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis

Calcium and Phosphonium Metabolism in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients with Different Dialysates

Phosphate binder pill burden, adherence, and serum phosphorus control among hemodialysis patients converting to sucroferric oxyhydroxide

Effects of lanthanum carbonate on serum phosphorus in maintenance hemodialysis patients receiving calcitriol pulse therapy due to secondary hyperparathyroidism

[Phosphorus binders: preferences of patients on haemodialysis and its impact on treatment compliance and phosphorus control]

Preference for and Acceptability of Two Formulations of a Dietary Supplement Containing Calcium Plus Vitam !

Lanthanum Carbonate for Treating End Stage Renal Disease Patients with Hyperphosphatemia：a Rapid Assessment

#346 Oxylanthanum carbonate for hyperphosphatemia in ESKD: tolerability trial in progress