| Literature DB >> 24944837 |
Lovleen Kaur1, Rajni Bala1, Neha Kanojia1, Manju Nagpal1, Gitika Arora Dhingra2.
Abstract
The current research work involves preparation of fast dissolving tablets of Aceclofenac by direct compression method using different concentrations of Lepidium sativum mucilage as natural superdisintegrant. A two-factor three-level (3(2)) factorial design is being used to optimize the formulation. Nine formulation batches (D1-D9) were prepared accordingly. Two factors as independent variables (X 1-amount of β-cyclodextrin and X 2-amount of Lepidium sativum mucilage) were taken with three levels (+1, 0, -1). The levels of two factors were selected on the basis of preliminary experiments conducted and their effect on three dependent variables (disintegration time, wetting time, and in vitro drug release) was studied along with their % prediction error. All the active blends were evaluated for postcompression parameters (angle of repose, Carr's index, Hausner ratio, etc.) and the tablets were evaluated for postcompression parameters (weight variation, hardness, and friability, wetting time, disintegration time, water absorption ratio, and in vitro drug release studies). The optimum batch was further used for SEM and stability studies. Formulation D5 was selected by the Design-Expert software which exhibited DT (15.5 sec), WT (18.94 sec), and in vitro drug release (100%) within 15 minutes.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24944837 PMCID: PMC4040205 DOI: 10.1155/2014/242504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Pharm ISSN: 2090-6145
Design layout of 32 factorial design.
| Formulation batches |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| D1 | −1 | −1 |
| D2 | 0 | −1 |
| D3 | +1 | −1 |
| D4 | −1 | 0 |
| D5 | 0 | 0 |
| D6 | +1 | 0 |
| D7 | −1 | +1 |
| D8 | 0 | +1 |
| D9 | +1 | +1 |
Where 1 is the high value, −1 is the low value, and 0 is the centre value for the factors X1 and X2.
X1: amount of β-cyclodextrine.
X2: amount of Lepidium sativum mucilage.
Composition of 32 factorial design batches of Aceclofenac fast dissolving tablets.
| Ingredients | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aceclofenac | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| 0 | 15 | 30 | 0 | 15 | 30 | 0 | 15 | 30 |
|
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| MCC | 144 | 129 | 114 | 135 | 120 | 105 | 126 | 111 | 96 |
| Mannitol | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Aspartame | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Talc | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Magnesium Stearate | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
MCC: microcrystalline cellulose, β-CD: β-cyclodextrine.
Figure 1FTIR spectra of pure drug (Aceclofenac).
Figure 2FTIR spectra of Lepidium sativum mucilage.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of mixture of drug and mucilage.
Evaluation of precompression parameters of factorial design batches of Aceclofenac fast dissolving tablets.
| Parameter | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk density (g/mL) | 0.481 ± 0.023 | 0.484 ± 0.014 | 0.458 ± 0.021 | 0.514 ± 0.040 | 0.515 ± 0.041 | 0.504 ± 0.029 | 0.482 ± 0.025 | 0.484 ± 0.043 | 0.514 ± 0.009 |
| Tapped density (g/mL) | 0.584 ± 0.013 | 0.548 ± 0.023 | 0.550 ± 0.020 | 0.587 ± 0.009 | 0.589 ± 0.018 | 0.590 ± 0.021 | 0.570 ± 0.015 | 0.556 ± 0.019 | 0.605 ± 0.040 |
| Angle of repose | 20.30 ± 0.21 | 24.70 ± 0.13 | 21.30 ± 0.25 | 22.78 ± 0.32 | 22.79 ± 0.08 | 21.30 ± 0.15 | 22.29 ± 0.22 | 23.74 ± 0.09 | 25.64 ± 0.25 |
| Carr's index | 17.6 | 11.7 | 16.6 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 14.06 | 15.2 | 12.9 | 15.0 |
| Hausner ratio | 1.21 | 1.13 | 1.20 | 1.14 | 1.14 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.14 | 1.17 |
Data are represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Evaluation of postcompression parameters of factorial design batches of Aceclofenac fast dissolving tablets.
| Parameters | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness (kg/cm2) | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| Friability (%) | 0.9 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 0.9 | 0.65 | 0.33 | 0.9 | 0.68 | 0.38 |
| Disintegration time (sec) | 22 | 25 | 26 | 20 | 15 | 22 | 19 | 20 | 30 |
|
| 31 | 24 | 38 | 24 | 21 | 29 | 20 | 36 | 34 |
| Wetting time (sec) | 29 | 26 | 31 | 24 | 18 | 28 | 21 | 25 | 38 |
| Water absorption ratio (%) | 91.7 | 131 | 132 | 126 | 134 | 135 | 128 | 129 | 122 |
Data are represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 4In vitro drug release profile of final batches (D1–D9).
Response parameters of various formulations.
| Batches |
|
| DT (sec) ( | WT ( | % cumulative release ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | −1 | −1 | 25 | 29 | 81.33 |
| F2 | 0 | −1 | 20 | 24 | 93.02 |
| F3 | +1 | −1 | 19 | 21 | 83.33 |
| F4 | −1 | 0 | 22 | 26 | 89.55 |
| F5 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 18 | 99.26 |
| F6 | +1 | 0 | 20 | 25 | 88.05 |
| F7 | −1 | +1 | 26 | 31 | 91.05 |
| F8 | 0 | +1 | 22 | 28 | 95.52 |
| F9 | +1 | +1 | 30 | 38 | 73.49 |
Data are represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Summary of results of regression analysis and ANOVA for measured response.
| Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DT | ||||||
| Full model | 15.89 | 2.33 | −0.666 | 2.50 | 4.666 | 4.666 |
|
| 0.0342 | 0.036 | 0.376 | 0.0503 | 0.0248 | 0.0248 |
| Regression | DF = 5 | SS = 147.44 | MS = 29.49 |
|
| |
| WT | ||||||
| Full model | 19.67 | 3.83 | −0.33 | 3.75 | 5.5 | 5.00 |
|
| 0.0476 | 0.0278 | 0.7501 | 0.491 | 0.0449 | 0.0566 |
| Regression | DF = 5 | SS = 255.58 | MS = 51.12 |
|
| |
| T15 | ||||||
| Full model | 99.93 | −2.48 | 0.40 | −4.89 | −11.47 | −6.00 |
|
| 0.0197 | 0.0584 | 0.7052 | 0.0248 | 0.0061 | 0.0359 |
| Regression | DF = 5 | SS = 479.99 | MS = 96.00 |
|
|
Figure 73D RSM plots for (a) DT, (b) WT, and (c) drug release (15 min).
Figure 8Desirability plot (2D).
Figure 9Desirability plot (3D).
Comparison of observed and predicted value with the prediction error.
| Response parameters | Constraints set | Predicted value | Observed value | % prediction error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disintegration time | Minimize | 15.50 | 16.33 | 5.08 |
| Wetting time | Minimize | 18.94 | 18.33 | 3.32 |
|
| Maximize | 100.00 | 99.66 | 0.34 |
Figure 10Overlay plot showing three optimized dependent variables.
Figure 5SEM image for optimised batch D5.
Stability studies of optimized batch D5 at accelerated condition.
| Time | Parameter | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight variation | Tablet Thickness | Tablet diameter | Hardness | Wetting time | Friability | Disintegration time | |
| 15 days | 297.49 | 3.36 ± 0.04 | 8.07 ± 0.02 | 2.51 ± 0.3 | 20 ± 2 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 14 ± 2 |
| 30 days | 297.51 | 3.38 ± 0.04 | 8.08 ± 0.02 | 2.47 ± 0.3 | 19 ± 2 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | 15 ± 2 |
| 60 days | 297.76 | 3.41 ± 0.03 | 8.14 ± 0.02 | 2.45 ± 0.3 | 19 ± 2 | 0.61 ± 0.03 | 14 ± 2 |
| 90 days | 300.00 | 3.43 ± 0.04 | 8.14 ± 0.02 | 2.49 ± 0.3 | 18 ± 2 | 0.63 ± 0.03 | 14 ± 2 |
Figure 6Comparison of dissolution profile of batch D5 before stability and after stability.