| Literature DB >> 23351981 |
Venkata Srikanth Meka1, Sreenivasa Rao Nali, Ambedkar Sunil Songa, Janaki Ram Battu, Venkata Ramana Murthy Kolapalli.
Abstract
The objective of the present investigation is to formulate gastro retentive floating drug delivery systems (GRFDDS) ofEntities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23351981 PMCID: PMC3561659 DOI: 10.1186/2008-2231-20-21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Daru ISSN: 1560-8115 Impact factor: 3.117
Experimental range and levels of the independent variables in CMEC based formulations
| CMEC (mg) X1 | 200 | 240 | 280 |
| % w/w Sodium bicarbonate concentration | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| % w/w povidone concentration X3 | 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 |
Formulations with the levels of independent variables and observed responses
| PCMECR 01 | 200 | 5 | 2.5 | 650 | 40.22 | 6.6 |
| PCMECR 02 | 280 | 5 | 2.5 | 550 | 31.11 | 8 |
| PCMECR 03 | 200 | 15 | 2.5 | 720 | 36.58 | 8.2 |
| PCMECR 04 | 280 | 15 | 2.5 | 510 | 18.99 | 10.8 |
| PCMECR 05 | 200 | 5 | 7.5 | 300 | 32.12 | 8 |
| PCMECR 06 | 280 | 5 | 7.5 | 600 | 23.45 | 9.9 |
| PCMECR 07 | 200 | 15 | 7.5 | 495 | 22.12 | 9.9 |
| PCMECR 08 | 280 | 15 | 7.5 | 670 | 13.84 | 12.2 |
| PCMECR 09 | 172.73 | 10 | 5 | 570 | 27.23 | 9 |
| PCMECR 10 | 307.27 | 10 | 5 | 369 | 18.12 | 11 |
| PCMECR 11 | 240 | 1.59 | 5 | 450 | 28.15 | 8.85 |
| PCMECR 12 | 240 | 18.41 | 5 | 300 | 18.99 | 12 |
| PCMECR 13 | 240 | 10 | 0.80 | 310 | 34.59 | 9.8 |
| PCMECR 14 | 240 | 10 | 9.20 | 280 | 26.68 | 11.15 |
| PCMECR 15 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 312 | 19.12 | 10.3 |
| PCMECR 16 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 369 | 18.99 | 10.4 |
| PCMECR 17 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 435 | 19.89 | 10.25 |
| PCMECR 18 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 401 | 19.99 | 10.2 |
| PCMECR 19 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 467 | 19.01 | 10.15 |
| PCMECR 20 | 240 | 10 | 5 | 420 | 18.78 | 10 |
Figure 1 Dissolution Profile of GRFT formulations: A) PCMECR 01-05, B) PCMECR 06-10, C) PCMECR 11-15, D) PCMECR 16-20.
Correlation coefficient values and release kinetics of GRFT
| PCMECR 01 | 8.8464 | 0.9128 | 0.3922 | 0.9764 | 0.9856 | 0.9848 | 0.3821 | 0.9837 |
| PCMECR 02 | 8.9460 | 0.9311 | 0.2738 | 0.9912 | 0.9889 | 0.9786 | 0.4640 | 0.9687 |
| PCMECR 03 | 8.6046 | 0.9276 | 0.2519 | 0.9872 | 0.9893 | 0.9593 | 0.4007 | 0.9822 |
| PCMECR 04 | 6.8619 | 0.9641 | 0.2158 | 0.9860 | 0.9955 | 0.9953 | 0.5905 | 0.9841 |
| PCMECR 05 | 9.0042 | 0.9211 | 0.2886 | 0.9908 | 0.9835 | 0.9745 | 0.4530 | 0.9644 |
| PCMECR 06 | 7.7720 | 0.9623 | 0.2174 | 0.9955 | 0.9969 | 0.9937 | 0.5565 | 0.9910 |
| PCMECR 07 | 7.7709 | 0.9676 | 0.2119 | 0.9916 | 0.9972 | 0.9938 | 0.5791 | 0.9920 |
| PCMECR 08 | 6.1913 | 0.9695 | 0.2027 | 0.9728 | 0.9950 | 0.9947 | 0.6678 | 0.9827 |
| PCMECR 09 | 7.7972 | 0.9597 | 0.2660 | 0.9778 | 0.9981 | 0.9930 | 0.5213 | 0.9966 |
| PCMECR 10 | 6.8746 | 0.9658 | 0.2119 | 0.9831 | 0.9957 | 0.9947 | 0.6067 | 0.9844 |
| PCMECR 11 | 7.7522 | 0.9528 | 0.2840 | 0.9709 | 0.9968 | 0.9908 | 0.4961 | 0.9926 |
| PCMECR 12 | 6.7415 | 0.9679 | 0.1835 | 0.9959 | 0.9965 | 0.9958 | 0.5917 | 0.9896 |
| PCMECR 13 | 7.0102 | 0.9243 | 0.2830 | 0.9463 | 0.9881 | 0.9807 | 0.3870 | 0.9845 |
| PCMECR 14 | 6.5653 | 0.9549 | 0.2004 | 0.9822 | 0.9942 | 0.9893 | 0.4732 | 0.9927 |
| PCMECR 15 | 7.8594 | 0.9646 | 0.2036 | 0.9965 | 0.9943 | 0.9564 | 0.6207 | 0.9826 |
| PCMECR 16 | 7.8342 | 0.9659 | 0.2929 | 0.9975 | 0.9942 | 0.9837 | 0.6264 | 0.9854 |
| PCMECR 17 | 7.8163 | 0.9655 | 0.2022 | 0.9967 | 0.9950 | 0.9801 | 0.6101 | 0.9869 |
| PCMECR 18 | 7.8216 | 0.9644 | 0.2063 | 0.9957 | 0.9951 | 0.9749 | 0.6073 | 0.9852 |
| PCMECR 19 | 7.8945 | 0.9643 | 0.2096 | 0.9958 | 0.9944 | 0.9931 | 0.6246 | 0.9820 |
| PCMECR 20 | 7.9658 | 0.9637 | 0.2169 | 0.9950 | 0.9941 | 0.9934 | 0.6288 | 0.9798 |
Summary of ANOVA results in analyzing lack of fit (LOF) and pure error
| Model | 171694 | 9 | 19077.11 | 1.122 | 0.4269 | Not significant |
| Residual | 170028 | 10 | 17002.78 | | | |
| Lack of Fit | 155211 | 5 | 31042.10 | 10.47 | 0.0111 | significant |
| Pure Error | 14817 | 5 | 2963.4667 | | | |
| Model | 942.28 | 9 | 104.6973 | 16.04 | < 0.0001 | significant |
| Residual | 65.26 | 10 | 6.5265 | | | |
| Lack of Fit | 63.96 | 5 | 12.7915 | 48.93 | 0.0003 | significant |
| Pure Error | 1.31 | 5 | 0.2614 | | | |
| Model | 29.439 | 3 | 9.812 | 21.28 | < 0.0001 | significant |
| Residual | 7.377 | 16 | 0.461 | | | |
| Lack of Fit | 7.2837 | 11 | 0.662 | 35.47 | 0.0005 | significant |
| Pure Error | 0.0933 | 5.0000 | 0.018 | |||
Statistical parameters
| Std. Dev. | 130.39 | 2.555 | 0.68 |
| Mean | 458.90 | 24.399 | 9.84 |
| C.V. % | 28.41 | 10.471 | 6.90 |
| PRESS | 1195095.90 | 502.960 | 12.95 |
| R-Squared | 0.5024 | 0.9352 | 0.7996 |
| Adj R-Squared | 0.0546 | 0.8769 | 0.7621 |
| Pred R-Squared | -2.4973 | 0.5008 | 0.6484 |
| Adeq Precision | 3.4934 | 12.842 | 16.4605 |
Figure 2 Response surface plot for (A) the effect of CMEC and sodium bicarbonate concentrations on D (B) effect of CMEC and povidone concentrations on D (C) effect of sodium bicarbonate and povidone concentrations on D
Figure 3 Response surface plot for (A) the effect of CMEC and sodium bicarbonate concentrations on t
Figure 4 Desirability plot and Overlay plot for optimization of gastroretentive floating tablets of propranolol HCl.
Figure 5 FTIR spectra of propranolol HCl, CMEC and PCMECRso.
Figure 6 DSC thermogram of a) propranolol HCl, b) CMEC and c) PCMECRso.
residence time of the optimized GRFT of propranolol HCl containing barium sulfate (PCMECRsoB)
| 0.5 | Stomach | Stomach |
| 2 | Stomach | Stomach |
| 4 | Stomach | Small intestine |
| 6 | Stomach | Disappeared from gastric region |
| 8 | Disappeared from gastric region | |
Figure 7 X- ray photographs of gastric floating tablets of PCMECRsoB containing propranolol HCl under fasted state after (a) 0.5 hrs (b) 2 hrs (c) 4 hrs (d) 6 hrs.
Figure 8 X- ray photographs of gastric floating tablets of PCMECRsoB containing propranolol HCl under fed state after (a) 0.5 hrs (b) 2 hrs (c) 4 hrs (d) 6 hrs (e) 8 hrs.