| Literature DB >> 24250376 |
Shailesh Prajapati1, Laxmanbhai Patel, Chhaganbhai Patel.
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to prepare a floating matrix tablet containing domperidone as a model drug. Polyethylene oxide (PEO) and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) were evaluated for matrix-forming properties. A simplex lattice design was applied to systemically optimize the drug release profile. The amounts of PEO WSR 303, HPMC K15M and sodium bicarbonate were selected as independent variables and floating lag time, time required to release 50% of drug (t50) and 80% of drug (t80), diffusion coefficient (n) and release rate (k) as dependent variables. The amount of PEO and HPMC both had significant influence on the dependent variables. It was found that the content of PEO had dominating role as drug release controlling factor, but using suitable concentration of sodium bicarbonate, one can tailor the desired drug release from hydrophilic matrixes. The linear regression analysis and model fitting showed that all these formulations followed Korsmeyer and Peppas model, which had a higher value of correlation coefficient (r). The tablets of promising formulation were found to be stable for 3 months under accelerated (40°C / 75% RH) stability testing.Entities:
Keywords: Domperidone; Floating lag time; Floating matrix tablets; Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose; Polyethylene oxide; Release kinetics; Simplex lattice design; Total floating time.
Year: 2011 PMID: 24250376 PMCID: PMC3813035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1Equilateral triangle representing simplex lattice design for 3 components
Formulation and evaluation of batches in simplex lattice design
|
|
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 ± 2 | 9.583 ± 1.9 | 12.344 ± 2.2 | 0.733 ± 0.045 | 6.445 ± 0.3 | ||||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 55 ± 3 | 12.684 ± 2.3 | 17.435 ± 2.6 | 0.591 ± 0.007 | 9.853 ± 1.2 | ||||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 ± 4 | 11.702 ± 0.8 | 21.527 ± 0.8 | 0.620 ± 0.004 | 9.929 ± 0.4 | ||||
|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 35 ± 5 | 17.077 ± 1.7 | 26.350 ± 1.7 | 0.513 ± 0.032 | 14.435 ± 2.1 | ||||
|
| 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 98 ± 3 | 18.11 ± 1.4 | 28.49 ± 1.1 | 0.489 ± 0.0019 | 15.402 ± 0.3 | ||||
|
| 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 25 ± 2 | 11.194 ± 0.5 | 23.811 ± 0.7 | 0.635 ± 0.0021 | 10.386 ± 0.7 | ||||
|
| 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 39 ± 3 | 15.277 ± 1.2 | 23.071 ± 2.0 | 0.5748 ± 0.002 | 12.319 ± 1.8 | ||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| 1 | 60 | 30 | 20 | |||||||||
| 0 | 50 | 20 | 10 | |||||||||
FLT: Floating lag time; SD: Standard deviation; t50% and t80%: Time required for 50% and 80% drug dissolution; n: Diffusion coefficient; k: Release rate constant; X1: Amount of Polyethylene oxide WSR 303 (mg); X2: Amount of HPMC K15M (mg); X3: Amount of Sodium bicarbonate (mg). All batches contained 30 mg of domperidone, 20 mg of maize starch, 2% wt/wt of talc, and 1% wt/wt of magnesium stearate. Average weight of each tablet was 145 mg.
Analysis of variance table for dependent variables from simplex lattice design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 4 | 5179.885 | 1294.971 | 28.29187 | 0.03443 |
|
| 2 | 91.54371 | 45.77185 | ||
|
| 6 | 5271.429 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 3 | 6.45989986 | 2.15329995 | 9.538526 | 0.048185 |
|
| 3 | 0.67724299 | 0.22574766 | ||
|
| 6 | 7.13714286 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 1 | 16.814736 | 16.814736 | 6.888313 | 0.046839 |
|
| 5 | 12.205264 | 2.4410528 | ||
|
| 6 | 29.02 | |||
|
| 3 | 0.03359082 | 0.01119694 | 35.0759 | 0.007769 |
|
| 3 | 0.00095766 | 0.00031922 | ||
|
| 6 | 0.03454848 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 2 | 57.0932443 | 28.5466222 | 10.72798 | 0.024691 |
|
| 4 | 10.6437974 | 2.66094936 | ||
|
| 6 | 67.7370417 | |||
DF: Degree of freedom; SS: Sum of square; MS: Mean of square; F: Fischer’s ratio
Figure 3Comparison of in-vitro dissolution profiles of batch S7 and theoretical dissolution profile.
Figure 4Response surface plot (3D) showing the effect of the amount of PEO, HPMC and sodium bicarbonate on floating lag time
Figure 5Response surface plot (3D) showing the effect of the amount of PEO, HPMC and sodium bicarbonate on t50%.
Figure 6Response surface plot (3D) showing the effect of the amount of PEO, HPMC and sodium bicarbonate on t80%
Figure 7Response surface plot (3D) showing the effect of the amount of PEO, HPMC and sodium bicarbonate on diffusion exponent (n).
Figure 8Response surface plot (3D) showing the effect of the amount of PEO, HPMC and sodium bicarbonate on release rate constant (k).