| Literature DB >> 26702263 |
Megha Sharma1, Seema Kohli2, Agnimitra Dinda3.
Abstract
During the study repaglinide encapsulated floating microspheres were formulated and characterized for enhancing residence time of drug in git and thereby increasing its bioavailability. Floating microspheres of ethylcellulose (EC) and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) (5 and 100 cps) were prepared by emulsion solvent diffusion technique. During process optimization various parameters were studied such as: drug: polymer ratio, polymer ratio, concentration of emulsifier and stirring speed. Selected optimized formulations were studied for SEM, entrapment, floating behavior, drug release and kinetics. In-vivo floating ability (X-ray) study and in-vivo antidiabetic activity were performed on alloxan induced diabetic rats. Microspheres prepared with different viscosity grade HPMC were spherical shaped with smooth surface. Size of microspheres was in the range of 181.1-248 μm. Good entrapment and buoyancy were observed for 12 h. X-ray image showed that optimized formulation remained buoyant for more than 6 h. Optimized formulation treated group shows significant (p < 0.01) reduction in blood glucose level as compared to pure drug treated group. Repaglinide loaded floating microspheres expected to give new choice for safe, economical and increased bioavailable formulation for effective management of NIDDM.Entities:
Keywords: ATP, adenosine tri phosphate; Alloxan; Antidiabetic; EC, ethylcellulose; GRT, gastric residence time; HPMC, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose; PEG, polyethylene glycerol; PVA, polyvinyl alcohol; Repaglinide; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; Significant; UV, uv–visible; Viscosity
Year: 2015 PMID: 26702263 PMCID: PMC4669415 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Formula for microspheres with different grades of HPMC after optimization.
| Optimized parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Polymer ratio | 1:2 |
| Drug:polymer ratio | 1:3 |
| Emulsifier concentration (% | 0.1 |
| Stirring speed (rpm) | 900 |
Process variables for microspheres with HPMC (5 cps).
| Formulation variables | Particle size | % Entrapment efficiency | % Buoyancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | 181.1 ± 1.5 | 58.5 ± 4.6 | 70.3 ± 1.1 |
| 1:2 | 192.5 ± 2.4 | 62.5 ± 3.2 | 77.2 ± 2.3 |
| 1:3 | 204.2 ± 3.5 | 63.2 ± 1.3 | 80.3 ± 3.3 |
| 1:1 | 179.6 ± 3.5 | 60.7 ± 2.3 | 70.4 ± 2.6 |
| 1:2 | 189.4 ± 4.5 | 64.8 ± 6.3 | 78.1 ± 5.8 |
| 1:3 | 193.2 ± 7.2 | 66.6 ± 4.9 | 81.3 ± 6.4 |
| 0.46 | 208.1 ± 4.2 | 67.2 ± 5.3 | 84.3 ± 8.0 |
| 0.66 | 194.2 ± 1.1 | 64.3 ± 7.2 | 80.2 ± 6.1 |
| 0.86 | 182.3 ± 3.2 | 58.6 ± 6.2 | 79.4 ± 0.1 |
| 600 | 211.1 ± 0.3 | 65.2 ± 1.2 | 82.4 ± 4.2 |
| 900 | 201.2 ± 2.4 | 59.5 ± 2.6 | 78.1 ± 2.1 |
Process variables for microspheres with HPMC (100 cps).
| Formulation variables | Particle size | % Entrapment efficiency | % Buoyancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | 221.2 ± 3.2 | 61.2 ± 0.2 | 68.4 ± 2.1 |
| 1:2 | 232.8 ± 4.8 | 64.5 ± 0.8 | 76.5 ± 3.6 |
| 1:3 | 236.0 ± 6.1 | 65.5 ± 3.2 | 79.1 ± 2.2 |
| 1:1 | 220.1 ± 1.3 | 61.8 ± 3.2 | 67.2 ± 8.1 |
| 1:2 | 229.1 ± 4.5 | 65.3 ± 1.2 | 78.8 ± 5.1 |
| 1:3 | 233.5 ± 1.8 | 68.6 ± 2.6 | 79.0 ± 6.3 |
| Emulsifier concentration (% w/v) | |||
| 0.46 | 251.5 ± 0.5 | 70.5 ± 3.1 | 80.2 ± 1.1 |
| 0.66 | 243.6 ± 4.2 | 66.2 ± 3.2 | 77.9 ± 2.1 |
| 0.86 | 229.4 ± 3.6 | 62.3 ± 6.9 | 75.3 ± 7.3 |
| 600 | 248.2 ± 3.2 | 69.1 ± 4.2 | 81.2 ± 3.5 |
| 900 | 236.7 ± 3.6 | 62.4 ± 5.0 | 77.2 ± 2.3 |
Figure 1SEM photographs of microspheres prepared: (a) HPMC 5 cps and (b) 100 cps.
Figure 2In-vitro release profile of optimized formulation of both the batches.
Figure 3First order plot of repaglinide from EC:HPMC formulations (H1–H10).
Figure 4X-ray images of formulation in the gastric region of rat: (a) before dosing, (b) 2 h after dosing, and (c) 4 h after dosing.
Figure 5Comparative blood glucose level of different groups of animals.
Figure 6Histopathological view of liver showing protective effect of formulation in rats, (a) normal control, (b) pure drug treated, and (c) optimized drug loaded formulation treated group.
Figure 7Histopathological view of pancreas showing protective effect of formulation in rats, (a) normal control, (b) pure drug treated, and (c) optimized drug loaded formulation treated group.
Figure 8Histopathological view of heart showing protective effect of formulation in rats, (a) normal control, (b) pure drug treated, and (c) optimized drug loaded formulation treated group.
Figure 9Histopathological view of kidney showing protective effect of formulation in rats, (a) normal control, (b) pure drug treated, and (c) optimized drug loaded formulation treated group.