| Literature DB >> 26555965 |
N Vishal Gupta1, D V Gowda1, V Balamuralidhara1, M S Khan1.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare the in vitro release and to find out whether the bioavailability of a 75 mg indomethacin capsule (Microcid SR) was equivalent to optimized formulation (indomethacin-loaded cetyl alcohol microspheres). Indomethacin-loaded cetyl alcohol microspheres were prepared by meltable emulsified cooling-induced technique. Surface morphology of microspheres has been evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. A single dose, randomized, complete cross over study of IM microspheres was carried out on 10 healthy male and female Albino sheep's under fasting conditions. The plasma was separated and the concentrations of the drug were determined by HPLC-UV method. Plasma indomethacin concentrations and other pharmacokinetic parameters obtained were statistically analyzed. The SEM images revealed the spherical shape of fat microspheres, and more than 98.0% of the isolated microspheres were in the size range 12-32 μm. DSC, FTIR spectroscopy and stability studies indicated that the drug after encapsulation with fat microspheres was stable and compatible. Both formulations were found to be bioequivalent as evidenced by in vivo studies. Based on this study, it can be concluded that cetyl alcohol microspheres and Microcid SR capsule are bioequivalent in terms of the rate and extent of absorption.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 26555965 PMCID: PMC4595941 DOI: 10.1155/2013/109837
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm (Cairo) ISSN: 2090-9918
Drug and cetyl alcohol ratio for the prepared microspheres formulations.
| Formulation | Drug (gm) | Cetyl alcohol (gm) |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | 2.8 | 8.8 |
| F2 | 2.9 | 8.9 |
| F3 | 3.0 | 9.0 |
| F4 | 3.1 | 9.1 |
| F5 | 3.2 | 9.2 |
Micromeritic properties of the drug-loaded CA microspheres.
| Formulation | Average size ( | Yield (%)∗ | Angle of repose ( | % compressibility index∗ | Tapped density (g/cm3)∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 12 ± 02 | 91.43 ± 1.2 | 25.32 ± 1.6 | 10.19 ± 0.8 | 0.42 ± 0.3 |
| F2 | 14 ± 01 | 93.11 ± 1.3 | 26.98 ± 1.3 | 10.89 ± 0.5 | 0.44 ± 0.4 |
| F3 | 25 ± 03 | 95.88 ± 0.9 | 27.43 ± 1.0 | 12.12 ± 0.9 | 0.51 ± 0.5 |
| F4 | 28 ± 03 | 90.21 ± 1.1 | 24.98 ± 1.3 | 13.67 ± 0.7 | 0.48 ± 0.4 |
| F5 | 32 ± 04 | 90.10 ± 1.0 | 25.12 ± 1.1 | 13.98 ± 0.6 | 0.49 ± 0.5 |
∗Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.
Figure 1SEM photograph of cetyl alcohol microspheres loaded with IM-formulation F3.
Figure 2DSC thermograms of cetyl alcohol, pure indomethacin and indomethacin-loaded cetyl alcohol microspheres, peak a: cetyl alcohol, peak b: indomethacin, peak c: indomethacin-loaded cetyl alcohol microspheres (F3).
Figure 3FTIR spectra of cetyl alcohol (peak a), indomethacin (peak b), and indomethacin-loaded cetyl alcohol microspheres (peak c:F3).
Figure 4Drug release profile of indomethacin from microspheres and Microcid SR.
Absolute recovery results obtained for indomethacin from plasma.
| Sampling | Drug present | Drug added | Drug recovered | Drug Conc. recorded in ng/mL | Percent of drug recovered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 10 | 50 | 58 | 48 | 96.0 ± 1.31 |
| 2.0 | 10 | 100 | 106 | 96 | 96.0 ± 1.24 |
| 4.0 | 10 | 200 | 207 | 197 | 98.5 ± 1.42 |
| 6.0 | 10 | 300 | 308 | 298 | 99.33 ± 1.12 |
| 8.0 | 10 | 400 | 406 | 396 | 99.00 ± 1.54 |
∗Standard deviation, n = 5.
Figure 5Mean plasma concentrations:time profiles of indomethacin from Microcid SR and formulation F3.
Comparison of mean values of pharmacokinetics obtained for products Microcid SR and formulation F3 after oral administration.
| Parameters∗ | Microcid SR | Formulation F3 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.0 | 2.9 | >0.05 |
|
| 2134 ± 29.60 | 1989 ± 20.30 | >0.05 |
|
| 2.62 ± 0.02 | 2.67 ± 0.20 | >0.05 |
| AUC0–24 (ng/mL h−1) | 12478 ± 104.21 | 12145 ± 87.32 | >0.05 |
| AUC0– | 12632 ± 132.12 | 12452 ± 96.32 | >0.05 |
|
| 0.3934 ± 0.002 | 0.3856 ± 0.002 | >0.05 |
|
| 0.2843 ± 0.004 | 0.2678 ± 0.004 | >0.05 |
| Mean residence Time (MRT) | 4.89 ± 0.03 | 4.75 ± 0.03 | >0.05 |
∗Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.