| Literature DB >> 20177452 |
A Alam1, Alka Ahuja, Sanjula Baboota, S K Gidwani, J Ali.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to formulate and evaluate pharmaceutically equivalent injectable aqueous suspension for parenteral depot of methyl prednisolone acetate. Various aqueous suspensions were prepared by rapid stirring and colloid milling method. The prepared aqueous suspensions were subjected to particle size determination, sedimentation study, in vitro release studies (pH dependent dissolution study), and stability studies. The optimized formulation consisted of 4% w/w of methyl prednisolone acetate, 2.91% w/w of PEG-3350, 0.19% w/v of injection grade Tween-80, 0.68% w/w of monobasic sodium phosphate, 0.15% w/w of di-basic sodium phosphate, 0.91% w/v of benzyl alcohol, 0.32% w/w sodium meta bisulphate. The f(2) value was calculated for innovator (DepoMedrol( ((R)) ), Batch No. MPH-0254) and optimized formulation at pH 6.8 and pH 7.4 phosphate buffers. The f(2) values of 62.94 and 54.37 were obtained at pH 6.8 and pH 7.4 phosphate buffers respectively. The particle size ranged 23-27 mum at D value of 0.9 for both test and innovator product.Entities:
Keywords: DepoMedrol®; Injectable suspension; methyl prednisolone
Year: 2009 PMID: 20177452 PMCID: PMC2810044 DOI: 10.4103/0250-474X.51949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Pharm Sci ISSN: 0250-474X Impact factor: 0.975
DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS FORMULATIONS PREPARED
| Ingredients | Formulations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg/100 ml | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 |
| 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | |
| PEG3350 | 2.91 | 2.84 | 3.1 | 2.91 |
| Polysorbate 80 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
| Mono-basic-Na-phosphate | 0.68 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.68 |
| Di-basic-Na-phosphate | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
| Benzyl alcohol | 0.91 | 0.59 | 0.91 | 0.91 |
| Sodium meta bisulphite | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
MPA= methyl prednisolone acetate, PEG= polyethylene glycol, water for injection was used to produce quantity sufficient to 100 ml
Fig. 1Comparative in vitro drug release at pH 6.8.
Drug release patterns of F-1 (–×–); F-2(–▪–); F-3 (–=–); F-4 (–◆–); and innovator product (–*–) in phosphate buffer pH 6.8.
Fig. 2Comparative in vitro drug release at pH 7.4.
Drug release patterns of F-1 (–×–); F-2(–-–); F-3 (–=–); F-4 (–◆–); and innovator product (–*–) in phosphate buffer pH 7.4.
DRUG EXCIPIENT INTERACTION BY HPTLC METHOD
| Temperature | Rf values for different formulations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |
| Refrigerator | 0.915 | 0.898 | 0.854 | 0.798 |
| Room | 0.886 | 0.895 | 0.873 | 0.796 |
| 40/75% | 0.892 | 0.902 | 0.815 | 0.764 |
| 30/65% | 0.854 | 0.887 | 0.912 | 0.782 |
| 25/60% | 0.823 | 0.794 | 0.853 | 0.669 |
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF PURE DRUG, INNOVATOR PRODUCT AND FORMULATIONS
| Sample | Source | Bulk lot | Obscuration | D (0.9) ±SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure drug | BK-031 | 18.74 | 07.141 ± 1.1 | |
| Pharmacia | LK-099 | 13.58 | 22.986 ± 2.3 | |
| Pharmacia | LK-034 | 13.06 | 23.131 ± 3.5 | |
| Formulation-F1 | In-house | AFT-F1 | 13.26 | 38.067 ± 6.2 |
| Formulation-F3 | In-house | AFT-F2 | 16.51 | 62.524 ±7.9 |
| Formulation-F3 | In-house | AFT-F3 | 13.83 | 53.675 ± 7.6 |
| Formulation-F4 | In-house | AFT-F4 | 13.68 | 27.021 ± 9.8 |
MPA (API)= methyl prednisolone acetate (active pharmaceutical ingredient)
Depo Medrol®= Innovator product
F VALUE CALCULATION AT PH 6.8 PHOSPHATE BUFFER (MEAN CPR)*
| Time(t) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n 1 | n 2 | n 3 | n 4 | n 5 | n 6 | n 7 | n 8 | Sum | |
| Reference | 26.9 | 28.8 | 29.2 | 32.1 | 34.5 | 42.7 | 66.5 | 88.4 | - |
| Test | 31.9 | 34.6 | 34.9 | 36.1 | 40.1 | 46.8 | 46.8 | 73.9 | - |
| Rt-Tt | −5.0 | −5.7 | −5.7 | −4.0 | −5.6 | −4.1 | −7.4 | −5.1 | - |
| (Rt-Tt)2 | 25.0 | 32.49 | 32.49 | 16.0 | 31.36 | 16.81 | 54.76 | 26.01 | 234.92 |
f=50*log{[1+(1/nsum(Rt-Tt)^2]−0.5}*100=62.94066786
CPR= Cumulative percent release, n1-n8= Time points, n= Mean time points
F VALUE CALCULATION AT PH 7.4 PHOSPHATE BUFFER (MEAN CPR)*
| Time(t) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n 1 | n 2 | n 3 | n 4 | n 5 | n 6 | n 7 | n 8 | Sum | |
| Reference | 23 | 33.4 | 43.9 | 47.7 | 68.9 | 82.7 | 86.1 | 96.6 | - |
| Test | 28.1 | 33.9 | 36.4 | 49.6 | 50.6 | 73.7 | 87.6 | 97.0 | - |
| Rt-Tt | −5.1 | −5.1 | 7.5 | −1.9 | 18.3 | 9.0 | −1.5 | −0.4 | - |
| (Rt-Tt)2 | 26.01 | 0.25 | 56.25 | 3.61 | 334.89 | 81.0 | 22.5 | 0.16 | 234.92 |
f=50*log{[1+(1/nsum(Rt-Tt)^2]-0.5}*100
CPR= Cumulative percent release, n1-n8= Time points, n= Mean time points
SEDIMENTATION STUDY ANALYSIS
| Time (h) | Sedimentation volume (Hu/Ho) |
|---|---|
| 0.5 | 0.72 |
| 12 | 0.70 |
| 24 | 0.68 |
| 30 | 0.60 |
| 48 | 0.59 |
| 54 | 0.50 |
| 72 | 0.50 |
STABILITY STUDIES OF OPTIMIZED FORMULATION (F4)
| Time point | Storage (Temp/RH) | Crystal Formation | pH | Particle size (μm) | Sedimentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 day | - | Nil | 6.34 | 23.13 | Nil |
| 30 days | 40°/75% | Nil | 6.26 | 22.56 | Nil |
| 30°/65% | Nil | 6.31 | 23.48 | Nil | |
| 25°/60% | Nil | 6.20 | 21.63 | Nil | |
| 5° | Nil | 6.19 | 20.31 | Nil | |
| 60 days | 40°/75% | Nil | 6.14 | 24.95 | Nil |
| 30°/65% | Nil | 6.25 | 23.14 | Nil | |
| 25°/60% | Nil | 6.19 | 26.53 | Nil | |
| 5° | Nil | 6.13 | 21.37 | Nil | |
| 90 days | 40°/75% | Nil | 6.08 | 25.48 | Nil |
| 30°/65% | Nil | 6.12 | 26.31 | Nil | |
| 25°/60% | Nil | 6.21 | 22.14 | Nil | |
| 5° | Nil | 6.15 | 23.92 | Nil |