| Literature DB >> 24250343 |
Pintu Kumar De1, Subrata Mallick, Biswajit Mukherjee, Sagar Sengupta, Satyanarayan Pattnaik, Subrata Chakraborty.
Abstract
The present study was undertaken to develop a suitable transdermal matrix patch of ketorolac tromethamine with different proportions of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) and ethyl cellulose (EC) using a D-optimal mixture design. The prepared transdermal patches were subjected to different physicochemical evaluation. The surfacet opography of the patches was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The drug-polymer interaction studies were performed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic (FTIR) technique. A correlation between in - vitro drug-release and in - vitro skin permeation was established and the criterion of desirability was employed to optimize the formulation. The results of the physicochemical characterization and in - vitro permeation of the prepared patches were promising to formulate transdermal patches with PVP/EC combinations.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR; Ketorolac; Optimization; SEM; Transdermal
Year: 2011 PMID: 24250343 PMCID: PMC3828911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Composition and observed responses from runs in D-optimal mixture design
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 (PVP %) | X2 (EC %) | P24 (µg/cm2) | J (µg/cm2.h) | Q8 (%) | |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 142.44 ± 13.45 | 6.59 ± 0.45 | 19.27 ± 1.45 |
| 2 | 25 | 75 | 263.62 ± 15.14 | 12.75 ± 0.63 | 28.47 ± 1.84 |
| 3 | 50 | 50 | 463.83 ± 50.03 | 19.99 ± 0.22 | 30.83 ± 1.77 |
| 4 | 75 | 25 | 657.56 ± 71.30 | 27.07 ± 0.51 | 67.37 ± 1.41 |
| 5 | 100 | 0 | 912.78 ± 79.78 | 37.63 ± 0.41 | 76.83 ± 2.17 |
a : Data shown are mean of three determinations (Mean ± Standard deviation)
Physicochemical parameters of the patches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run 1 | 3.86 ± 0.35 | 7.88 ± 0.18 | 100 | 0.87 ± 0.02 | 567.8 ± 2.76 |
| Run 2 | 3.65 ± 0.48 | 6.45 ± 0.13 | 100 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 549.6 ± 3.45 |
| Run 3 | 3.23 ± 0.08 | 4.78 ± 0.06 | 100 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 564.9 ± 2.69 |
| Run 4 | 3.18 ± 0.17 | 3.86 ± 0.12 | 100 | 0.84 ± 0.01 | 566.2 ± 2.55 |
| Run 5 | 3.11 ± 0.01 | 3.25 ± 0.09 | 100 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 558.3 ± 3.21 |
Figure 1(a) Scanning electron micrograph of ketorolac tromethamine transdermal patch shows homogenous distribution of drug clusters in the matrix, before applying on skin. (b) Scanning electron micrograph of ketorolac tromethamine transdermal patch shows holes in the matrix after 24 h of in-vitro skin permeation
Figure 2FTIR spectra of the active ingredient (A) and the prepared formulation (B) show no major drug excipients interaction
Model fitting of ketorolac tromethamine release from transdermal patches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero order (R2) | 0.98 | 0.996 | 0.981 | 0.969 | 0.976 |
| First order (R2) | 0.916 | 0.972 | 0.989 | 0.979 | 0.981 |
| Power law (R2) | 0.957 | 0.984 | 0.994 | 0.995 | 0.983 |
| Higuchi (R2) | 0.932 | 0.975 | 0.996 | 0.997 | 0.987 |
Figure 3In-vitro skin permeation profile of the experimental transdermal patches. Final equation in terms of real component
Figure 4Two component mix plot showing influence of the mixture components on P24
Figure 5Two component mix plot showing influence of the mixture components on J
Figure 6Two component mix plot showing influence of mixture components on Q8
Figure 7Correlation between in-vitro skin permeation and invitro release times
Figure 8Desirability of formulations through numeric optimization
Optimized levels for formulation variables and comparative values of predicted and observed responses for numerically optimized formulation
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 (PVP%) | X2 (EC%) | Observeda | Predicted | Predicted errorb (%) | |
| Optimized | 90.00 | 10.00 | 34.03 ( ± 1.07) | 33.20 | 2.5 |
a: Data shown are mean of three determinations and figure in the paren theses indicates standard deviation. b : Predicted error (%) = (observed value – predicted value) / predicted value 100×