| Literature DB >> 31612094 |
Reem H Obaydo1, Amir Alhaj Sakur1.
Abstract
Six spectrophotometric methods were developed to determine a new single-dose otic solution known as "Otovel®," which consists of two components: the major one is ciprofloxacin (CIP) and the minor is fluocinolone acetonide (FLU). The ratio of (CIP) and (FLU) in Otovel® is 12 : 1, which is considered a challengeable ratio for UV determination. Thus, spectrum addition as a sample enrichment technique was required for the analysis of (FLU) low concentration. All these methods were capable of resolving the spectra for each component in D 0 belonging to the fingerprint resolution technique. The former absorptivity centering (a-centering) method was recently developed in 2018; it was effectively applied for its solution of both binary components in Otovel®, while another method, ratio subtraction (RS), is considered as an original resolution method that could be applied to determine only one component in mixtures. However, the other four methods that are related to their original method (RS) were extended ratio subtraction (EXRS), constant multiplication (CM), unified constant subtraction (UCS), and spectrum subtraction (SS). They were also easily applied for completing the quantification of binary mixture drugs present in Otovel®. The linearity ranges were found to be 3.0-15.0 μg/mL for (CIP) and (FLU), respectively. All results acquired from the proposed methods were successfully estimated according to ICH criteria and were statistically compared with official ones where no differences were noticed.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31612094 PMCID: PMC6758403 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8919345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Chemical structure of fluocinolone acetonide (a) and ciprofloxacin hydrochloride monohydrate (b).
Figure 2Zero-order spectra of (a) (CIP) (10.0 μg/mL), (b) FLU (10.0 μg/mL), and (c) a mixture containing 5.0 μg/ml of (CIP) and FLU showing the isoabsorptive point.
Figure 3Zero-order spectra of (a) (CIP) (12.0 μg/mL) and (b) FLU (1.0 μg/mL) showing the ratio of the dosage form.
Selection of the best divisor of (CIP) and FLU by the optimization study.
| Mix no. | (CIP) divisors | |||||
| 4.0 | 8.0 | 12.0 | ||||
| Post | Rec | Post | Rec | Post | Rec | |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 1.250 | 1.277 | 0.625 | 0.632 | 0.417 | 0.422 |
| 2 | 2.500 | 2.545 | 1.250 | 1.259 | 0.833 | 0.842 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 1.020 | 0.500 | 0.537 | 0.333 | 0.326 |
| 4 | 1.000 | 1.028 | 0.500 | 0.503 | 0.333 | 0.331 |
| 5 | 2.000 | 2.044 | 1.000 | 0.980 | 0.667 | 0.645 |
|
| ||||||
| AAD | 0.033 | 0.015 | 0.009 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Mix no. | FLU divisors | |||||
| 4.0 | 8.0 | 12.0 | ||||
| Post | Rec | Post | Rec | Post | Rec | |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 1.250 | 1.352 | 0.625 | 0.635 | 0.417 | 0.421 |
| 2 | 1.000 | 1.041 | 0.500 | 0.488 | 0.333 | 0.343 |
| 3 | 2.500 | 2.452 | 1.250 | 1.271 | 0.833 | 0.845 |
| 4 | 2.000 | 2.013 | 1.000 | 1.002 | 0.667 | 0.668 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 1.018 | 0.500 | 0.482 | 0.333 | 0.331 |
| AAD | 0.044 | 0.013 | 0.006 | |||
The values represent the constant at the plateau regions (300.0–330.0 nm) for (CIP) and (220.0–260.0 nm) for FLU. Post: postulated value of constant; Rec: recorded value of constant; AAD: average absolute difference between postulated and recorded constant values.
Figure 45.0 μg/ml of (CIP) spectra representing. (a) Absorptivity inverse (1/a) of (CIP), and (b) Factorized spectrum of (CIP) (FS′).
Figure 5(a) Zero-order absorption spectrum of (CIP)′ (12.0 μg/mL) as a divisor; (b) zero-order absorption spectrum of a mixture of (CIP) and FLU (5.0 μg/ml each); (c) ratio spectrum of this mixture using of (CIP)′ (12.0 μg/mL) as a divisor showing in the plateau region (300.0–330.0 nm).
Figure 6The spectra obtained by using the EXRS method. (a) A mixture containing 5.0 μg/ml of each (CIP) and FLU; (b) the mixture after divided by 12.0 μg/mL of FLU′; (c) the mixture after subtracting the constant; (d) the pure (CIP) obtained after multiplied by FLU′.
Assay parameters and validation sheets for pure cited drugs at their maxima.
| Parameter | CIP | FLU |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelength (nm) | 278.0 | 238.0 |
|
| 7 | 7 |
| Range ( | 3.0–15.0 | 3.0–15.0 |
| Intercept | −0.0007 | −0.0011 |
| Slope | 0.1209 | 0.0357 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.9999 | 0.9999 |
| Accuracya,b | 100.08 ± 0.51 | 99.79 ± 0.54 |
| Repeatabilitya,c | 0.43 | 0.82 |
| Interday precisiona,c | 1.19 | 1.03 |
a-Centering, EXRS, CM, UCS, and SS. a-Centering and RS. aAverage of three experiments. bMean ± standard deviation. cRSD% of concentrations (4.0, 8.0, and 12.0 μg/mL of both CIP and FLU).
Analysis of laboratory-prepared mixtures and the dosage form by the proposed spectrophotometric methods.
| CIP : FLUa ( | CIP | FLU | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery % | |||||||||
| a-Centering | EXRS | CM | UCS | SS | a-Centering | RS | |||
| NS | FS | NS | FS | ||||||
| 5 : 5 | 98.00 | 99.80 | 101.78 | 99.80 | 102.04 | 100.60 | 97.80 | 99.80 | 100.06 |
| 10 : 4 | 99.90 | 100.10 | 99.80 | 101.09 | 100.59 | 99.90 | 100.05 | 100.05 | 100.00 |
| 4 : 10 | 100.05 | 100.03 | 100.15 | 99.75 | 100.75 | 98.58 | 99.90 | 99.80 | 100.02 |
| 4 : 8 | 100.15 | 101.78 | 100.08 | 100.08 | 99.75 | 101.28 | 99.84 | 100.01 | 98.63 |
| 8 : 4 | 99.88 | 100.04 | 99.88 | 98.75 | 101.25 | 100.38 | 99.75 | 99.50 | 100.05 |
| 12 : 5b | 100.03 | 99.99 | 100.04 | 100.05 | 100.03 | 100.00 | 100.06 | 99.80 | 99.80 |
| Meanc ± SD | 99.67 ± 0.82 | 100.29 ± 0.74 | 100.29 ± 0.74 | 99.92 ± 0.75 | 100.73 ± 0.83 | 100.12 ± 0.90 | 99.57 ± 0.87 | 99.83 ± 0.20 | 99.76 ± 0.56 |
| a,dOtovel® batch no. 24338-080-14 | 100.03 ± 0.56 | 99.81 ± 0.36 | 99.66 ± 0.54 | 99.44 ± 0.61 | 99.61 ± 0.52 | 99.75 ± 0.78 | 100.27 ± 1.20 | 99.45 ± 1.31 | 99.37 ± 1.21 |
aAverage of three experiments. bRatio present in Otovel® before subtraction of the added (FLU) spectrum (4 μg/mL). cMean of the percentage recovery of all laboratory-prepared mixtures and standard deviation. dMean and standard deviation of the percentage recovery of Otovel®. NS results were obtained by using the normalized spectrum. FS results were obtained by using the factorized spectrum.
Statistical comparison between the results obtained by the proposed spectrophotometric methods and official methods [6] for the determination of CIP and FLU in Otovel® otic solution.
| Methods | CIP | FLU | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a-Centering | EXRS | CM | UCS | SS | BPa | a-Centering | RS | BPa | |||
| NS | FS | NS | FS | ||||||||
| Mean | 100.03 | 99.81 | 99.66 | 99.44 | 99.61 | 99.89 | 99.85 | 100.27 | 99.45 | 99.37 | 99.73 |
| SD | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.32 | 1.20 | 1.31 | 1.21 | 0.61 |
| Variance | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.10 | 1.45 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 0.37 |
|
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
|
| 0.86 | 0.18 | 0.73 | 1.46 | 0.96 | 0.14 | — | 0.97 | 0.48 | 0.66 | — |
|
| 3.01 | 1.27 | 2.80 | 3.55 | 2.63 | 4 | — | 3.87 | 4.61 | 3.90 | — |
aThe BP method for (CIP) is HPLC, while athe BP method for FLU is the absorption method. bThe corresponding tabulated value of Student's t-test is equal to 2.23 at p=0.05. cThe corresponding tabulated value of F is equal to 5.05 at p=0.05. NS results were obtained by using the normalized spectrum. FS results were obtained by using the factorized spectrum.
Results of one-way ANOVA for comparison of the proposed and the official methods [6] for determination of (CIP) and FLU in Otovel® otic solution.
| Source of variation | Degree of freedom | Sum of squares | Mean square |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIP | Between columns | 6 | 1.41 | 0.24 | 0.53 | 0.87 | 2.37 |
| Within columns | 35 | 9.49 | 0.27 | ||||
| Total | 41 | 10.90 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| FLU | Between columns | 3 | 2.97 | 0.99 | 0.51 | 0.79 | 3.10 |
| Within columns | 20 | 25.07 | 1.25 | ||||
| Total | 23 | 28.05 | |||||
aThere was no significance difference between the methods using one-way ANOVA at p < 0.05.
Advantages and limitations of each fingerprint method used for the analysis of co-formulated otic solution of ciprofloxacin and fluocinolone acetonide in their challengeable ratio.
| Method | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| a-Centering via normalized spectrum | (1) Measurement was done in zero order | (1) Four manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| a-Centering via factorized spectrum | (1) Measurement was done in zero order | (1) Three manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| Ratio Subtraction (RS) | (1) It is able to determine the nonextended component at its | (1) Three manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| Extended Ratio Subtraction (EXRS) | (1) It is able to determine the extended component at its | (1) Four manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| Constant Multiplication (CM) | (1) No need for special software | (1) Two manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| Unified Constant Subtraction (UCS) | (1) Measurement was done on ratio spectra | (1) Three manipulation steps |
|
| ||
| Spectrum Subtraction (SS) | (1) No need for isopoint | (1) Applied only as a complementary method |