Letter to Editor "Formulation and evaluation of herbal paediatric edible jelly of Breynia vitis-idea for helminthic infections”

Authors

1. Dr. Yakaiah Vangoori
   Department of Pharmacology, Malla Reddy Medical College for Women, Telangana

Abstract

Dear Editor, 
 I read with interest the article titled “Formulation and evaluation of herbal paediatric edible jelly of Breynia vitis-idea for helminthic infections” and appreciate the authors’ effort to explore a child-friendly herbal dosage form for helminthic infections, an area of practical relevance in paediatric therapeutics. However, we would like to highlight several methodological and interpretative issues that, in our view, warrant clarification and may help contextualize the findings more appropriately. A primary concern relates to the alignment between the study objective and the experimental evidence presented. Although the title and conclusion emphasize a paediatric edible jelly formulation, the anthelmintic activity appears to have been evaluated only for the ethanolic leaf extract of Breynia vitis-idea (ELBV) using the earthworm model. The final jelly formulation itself does not appear to have undergone direct anthelmintic efficacy testing. This distinction is important because pharmaceutical formulation can significantly influence release characteristics, stability, and biological activity. Accordingly, conclusions regarding the therapeutic effectiveness of the jelly formulation should ideally be supported by direct bioactivity data on the final product. A second issue concerns internal consistency in the reporting of experimental concentrations. The methods section describes extract concentrations of 20, 40, 80, and 100 mg/mL, whereas the results table presents 20, 40, 60, and 80 mg/ mL. Such discrepancies may appear minor, but they have implications for reproducibility, dose-response interpretation, and overall confidence in the data. Clarification of the actual tested concentrations would therefore strengthen the report. Similarly, the rationale for selecting piperazine citrate (25 mg/mL) as the standard comparator could have been more explicitly justified. In addition, the pharmacological interpretation may extend beyond the strength of the available evidence. The earthworm assay is a recognized preliminary screening tool in anthelmintic research, but it remains an indirect surrogate and does not, by itself, support therapeutic implications for paediatric helminthic infections. For a formulation proposed for clinical relevance, further steps such as extract standardization, in vivo validation, and safety evaluation would be essential before translational conclusions are drawn. The formulation assessment also appears somewhat limited for a paediatric oral dosage form. While the authors evaluated organoleptic properties, pH, and viscosity, several pharmaceutically important parameters—such as content uniformity, microbial quality, stability, release profile, and dose reproducibility—were not reported. These characteristics are especially relevant in paediatric preparations, where acceptability and dosing precision are critical. Finally, although statistical methods are mentioned, more detailed reporting of exact p-values, confidence intervals, and clearer group comparisons would have enhanced transparency and interpretability. In conclusion, this study may be better interpreted as a preliminary exploratory investigation rather than conclusive evidence supporting a paediatric herbal jelly for helminthic treatment. We hope these comments are received in the constructive spirit intended and contribute to strengthening future work in this promising area.

Full Text

HTML full text is not available. Refer to the PDF galley.