Split Decisions: Tablet Scoring Under More Scrutiny

FDA provides more direction as questions arise about dosage consistency.

By Paul Thomas, Senior Editor

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page

Tablet scoring has long been used by oral solid dosage manufacturers—originally as a means to prevent tablet stress fractures, but more recently their function has become more cosmetic than functional [1]. Bisects, of course, present manufacturing challenges. They “may be affected by the tablet cup depth, band thickness and the intended tablet hardness. As the tablet size increases or changes, so do the size and type of bisects that may be placed” [2]. In general, there are seven types of bisect lines, from a G-type, which is very sensitive to pressure placed on it by humans, to the purely cosmetic H-Type [3].

A score is a useful feature for the patient who, for instance, wants to switch from a name-brand to generic product and may need to halve tablets to maintain a consistent dosage regimen. By some accounts, this is happening more often, as insurance companies and doctors are increasingly recommending that patients split tablets for proper dosing or sometimes as a cost saving measure.

Scoring has also been an issue in determining whether a generic drug is equivalent to its reference product. Whether or not a tablet is scored (and scored properly) can play a role in the cat-and-mouse game that originating manufacturers play with would-be generic competition. A reference drug may have a well-defined score while a generic product may only have a cosmetic breakline—in such a case, is the generic truly equivalent?

As one consultant recently stated on a LinkedIn conversation, scoring is “a door to patient non-compliance.” FDA has taken this to heart and has conducted its own research, finding that scoring can lead to discrepancies in tablet content, weight, disintegration, or dissolution. (If you’ve split tablets yourself at home, how often have you gotten a good, clean split?)

Last fall, the Agency established draft guidance for tablet scoring [4]. The guidance is intended to provide “consistent and meaningful criteria by which scored tablets can be evaluated and labeled by: (1) providing a harmonized approach to chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) reviews of scored tablets; (2) ensuring consistency in nomenclature (e.g., score versus bisect) and labeling; and (3) providing information through product labeling or other means to healthcare providers.”

The draft guidance’s fundamental guidelines and criteria are:

  1. The dosage amount meant to be achieved after splitting the tablet should not be below the minimum therapeutic dose indicated on the approved labeling.
  2. The scored dosage form should be safe to handle and not pose risk of unintended drug exposure.
  3. Modified release products for which the control of drug release can be compromised by tablet splitting should not have a scoring feature.
  4. The split tablet, when stored in standard high-density polyethylene pharmacy bottles and caps (no seal), should meet established stability requirements for a period of 90 days at 25º C, plus or minus 2º C/60 percent Relative Humidity (RH), plus or minus 5 percent RH.
  5. The split tablet portions should meet the same finished-product testing requirements as for a whole-tablet product with equivalent strength. A risk assessment should be provided to justify the tests and criteria for product with the proposed functional score.
  6. The scored tablet should be tested using the indicated patient population to ensure patients can split the tablet correctly, as labeled.
  7. The scoring configuration of generic drug products should be the same as the reference drug.
  8. New study data on tablet splitability should be provided during postapproval for any product changes per FDA’s SUPAC guidances.

Because of the guidance, says Metin Celik, PhD, president of PTI, Inc., tablet formulators will have to pay more attention to the design of tablet tooling and the optimum strength of the tablets. “The ease of  splitting of a tablet using the score line should not be at the expense of the other quality attributes of the product,” he says. “I have split tablets many times using the score line both manually as well as using the mechanical splitter. Regardless of manual or mechanical splitting, I failed to have two ‘equal’ pieces in most of these samples.”

“If a tabletting expert fails the split these scored tablets successfully, how can I expect especially elderly patients not to fail?” he continues. “The differences between two different generic manufacturers of the same drug,  as a patient, I would prefer one that allows me to split the tablet in half perfectly (although the patient does not have any choice as the pharmacy is the ultimate decision maker about the manufacturer).”

For additional insight on this “divisive” topic, we sought out Dale Natoli, president of Natoli Engineering, who has 35 years of experience in tabletting and has written extensively on oral solid dosage forms.

PhM: From an equipment standpoint, what are the latest in improvements in tablet scoring or bisecting? (E.g., have there been changes punch designs?)

D.N.: There have been recent improvements to a bisect design commonly referred to as the "Pressure Sensitive" bisect to help reduce edge chipping and edge attrition. The new design requires a facet or radius eliminating the sharp edge on the tablet at the bisect and the beginning of the punch cup.  The Pressure Sensitive bisect design is more common to the European pharmaceutical industry due to an earlier adoption of the European Pharmacopeia standards pertaining to uniform dose of a split tablet presented in 2002.

PhM: FDA wants to ensure good “splitability” for scored tablets. What are some of the keys or best practices for manufacturers in this regard?

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page
Show Comments
Hide Comments

Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments