Abstract
Meloxicam (MX), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, widely used to treat arthritis, has a very bitter taste. Chemical modification of the bitter functionality was achieved by synthesis of a prodrug, meloxicam pivalate (MXP). Taste improvement was evaluated using single bottle-test rat model. It was found that palatability of MXP solution improved significantly as compared to MX.
Acknowledgments
Bandoo Chatale would like to thank UGC-BSR, India, for the Research Fellowship and Lupin Pharmaceutical, Pune, India for gift sample. Authors are also thankful to All India Council for Technical Education (RPS fund, 2014-15) for HPLC procurement.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare not having competing financial interest.
Figure 3b. 1H NMR integration for meloxicam in DMSO-d6 (NMR shown chemical shift δ, at 3.49 due to HDO and 2.47 due to DMSO-d5].
![Figure 3b. 1H NMR integration for meloxicam in DMSO-d6 (NMR shown chemical shift δ, at 3.49 due to HDO and 2.47 due to DMSO-d5].](/cms/asset/17d82498-bddb-4964-aeeb-db3c98da35e9/iddi_a_1628250_f0006_c.jpg)
Figure 7. In vivo taste assessment test sample volume consumption: *(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed as compared to water (day 1, 4); @(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed to sucrose solution (day 2, 5); and # (p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed as compared to MXP (day 6).
![Figure 7. In vivo taste assessment test sample volume consumption: *(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed as compared to water (day 1, 4); @(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed to sucrose solution (day 2, 5); and # (p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX solution (day 3) consumed as compared to MXP (day 6).](/cms/asset/eb0bc833-86f6-4ed9-8785-8da781613771/iddi_a_1628250_f0011_c.jpg)
Figure 8. In vivo taste assessment test sample volume consumption: *(p < 0.05), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed as compared to water (day 1, 4); @(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed to sucrose solution (day 2, 5); and # (p < 0.05), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed as compared to MXP (day 6).
![Figure 8. In vivo taste assessment test sample volume consumption: *(p < 0.05), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed as compared to water (day 1, 4); @(p < 0.0001), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed to sucrose solution (day 2, 5); and # (p < 0.05), significant difference in volume of the MX-HP-β-CD solution (day 3) consumed as compared to MXP (day 6).](/cms/asset/1b33af6c-9b95-4955-99e4-986dc05a98e5/iddi_a_1628250_f0012_c.jpg)