Submited on: 02 May 2012 04:30:16 AM GMT
Published on: 02 May 2012 07:57:05 PM GMT
 
Peer Review of Metronidazole Microsphere Compatibility Study
Posted by Mr. Johnathan E Lesaint on 21 Nov 2016 09:32:50 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The authors primarily claim that metronidazole (MNZ) is compatible with ethyl cellulose microspheres. If true, this claim would be relatively high-impact, given the utility of extended delivery formulations of MNZ for delivery to the colon. However, the study is limited to a specific formulation of MNZ only, which cannot be directly translated to other formulations.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    To the reviewer’s best knowledge, no other works have been published which characterize the compatibility of MNZ in ethyl cellulose microspheres. However, one paper (Bhowmik B.B., Nayak B.S., Chatterjee A.: Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 1, 240 (2009).) describes the physical and chemical characteristics of MNZ mixed with hydrogels of several polymers, including ethyl cellulose. However, this is only marginally relevant. Thus, this paper describes relatively novel research, albeit somewhat limited in scope.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The author provides a concise yet thorough review of the importance of understanding drug-excipient interactions, along with relevant experimental technology and the clinical utility of MNZ microspheres for colon delivery. However, this discussion is linked to previously published works to a minimal degree; the only referenced works are one describing the theory of IR spectroscopy and a therapeutic analysis of MNZ. More extensive context with other research might be beneficial.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results do sufficiently prove that MNZ-ethyl cellulose microspheres are compatible in 10% ethanol-water solutions at a temperature of 50 degrees Celsius for at least two weeks. However, only this solution condition is evaluated, while a true clinical formulation would be exposed to significantly different environments in vivo. Experiments in these solutions, such as highly acidic or basic aqueous solutions that the microspheres would need to pass through to reach the colon, would provide much greater confidence in the stated claim.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No protocol deviations are reported.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    It is this reviewer’s opinion that the experimental methods are sufficiently discussed to allow for independent researchers to attempt to reproduce the reported results.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    As previously stated, conduction of the same experiments in different solutions that are physiologically relevant would significantly improve the paper. It seems that this would be equally difficult to conduct and report as the currently reported experiment, as they would be nearly identical.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    While the research is effectively presented and appears to represent appropriately conducted science, the scope is fairly limited. However, if the suggested further experiments were conducted, then this reviewer would find that the cumulative report would be highly useful in this field.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    ,

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I do have suitable experience and knowledge to review this article.

  • How to cite:  Lesaint J E.Peer Review of Metronidazole Microsphere Compatibility Study[Review of the article 'Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003345
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Why studies were conducted at 50 0 C.

    Expalin and discuss about the mechanism of drug release from microspheres.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have published an article Microsphere formulation of acceclofenac in Acta Pharm.

  • How to cite:  Patro C .Investigation of drug polymer compatibility: Formulation and characterization of Metronidazole microspheres for colonic delivery[Review of the article 'Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2016;3(5):WMCRW001823
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The area of topics is good and the work have done is also good bt in case of incopatibility study if DSC data included then it will be strong work. But still it is a good work and many researcher are get helped from this article.

  • Competing interests:
    mucoadhesive, in situ gel, enteric coating, microspheres, microcapsules, floating, transdermal patch.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I worked in this topics and i have 2 publication of this area.

  • How to cite:  Goswami D s.Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery.[Review of the article 'Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2016;3(5):WMCRW001817
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The article may be published in the present form.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    7 years of research

  • How to cite:  Bhowmik M .Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. [Review of the article 'Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2016;3(5):WMCRW001792
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you Dr. Bhowmik for your valuable comments and reviews
Responded by Mr. Prasanta K Choudhury on 10 May 2012 05:50:38 PM
Assessment of submitted article
Posted by Dr. Oliver Grundmann on 01 May 2012 12:43:31 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The paper submitted by Choudhury and colleagues addresses and interesting and important topic in the field of targeted drug delivery. Metronidazole has been used as an essential drug and targeted delivery to the colon remains a core issue. The current study addresses the formulation, stability, and release profile for various ethyl cellulose formulated microspheres. The authors build upon a small body of knowledge that establishes ethyl cellulose as a delivery vehicle for colon-targeted drugs. Overall the paper is well written - some methods (e.g. particle size determination) have not been well defined and should be revised or added. The diction requires some improvements - certain sentences are not comprehensible although the message that the authors wish to convey gets across.

  • Competing interests:
    I have no competing interests.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Pharmacists, teaching pharmacy students

  • How to cite:  Grundmann O .Assessment of submitted article[Review of the article 'Investigation of Drug Polymer Compatibility: Formulation and Characterization of Metronidazole Microspheres for Colonic Delivery. ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2016;3(5):WMCRW001760
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Dr. Oliver Grundmann Thanks for your comments and review on our article. We have revised the article and added some descriptions as per your suggestions. Hope this time we may satisfy the readers. Thanking you yours sincerely Prasanta Kr. Choudhury
Responded by Mr. Prasanta K Choudhury on 02 May 2012 02:44:29 AM