| Literature DB >> 35812143 |
Ameen M Alwossabi1,2, Eltayeb S Elamin3, Elhadi M M Ahmed4,5, Mohammed Abdelrahman1,5.
Abstract
A high percentage of marketed drugs suffer from poor water solubility and require an appropriate technique to increase their solubility. This study aims to compare physically modified and unmodified gum polymers extracted from Ziziphus spina-christi fruits as solid dispersion carriers for some drugs. Taguchi Orthogonal Design (L9) was chosen for the screening and optimization of the solid dispersions. The design has four factors: type of drug, type of polymer, type of solid dispersion process, and drug to polymer ratio. Each factor was varied in three stages and the total number of runs was 9 in triplicate. The polymer was physically modified by heating (M1ZG) or freeze-drying (M2ZG). The drugs were selected according to the biopharmaceutical classification system, namely loratadine and glimepiride (class II) and furosemide (class IV). Drugs were dispersed in the polymer in three different ratios 1: 1, 1: 2, and 1: 3. Solid dispersions were made by co-grinding, solvent evaporation, and kneading methods. Modified and unmodified polymers were characterized in terms of their organoleptic properties, solubility, powder flowability, density, viscosity, swelling index, and water retention capacity. Solid dispersions were characterized in terms of percentage practical yield, solubility improvement, and drug compatibility. The results showed that the organoleptic properties of polymers were not changed by the gum modification. The swelling index of the polymer was doubled in M1ZG. The viscosity and water retention capacity of the polymer was increased in both modified polymers. All solid dispersions showed a high practical percentage yield of more than 93%, the higher values being more associated with loratadine and furosemide than with glimepiride. The improvement in solubility was observed in all solid dispersions prepared, the values varying with the pH of the medium and the method of modification. The FTIR results indicated that there was no chemical interaction between these drugs and the polymer used. Analysis of the results according to the Taguchi orthogonal design indicated 51 folds aqueous solubility enhancement for loratadine using M2ZG polymer at a ratio of 1: 3 of Drug: polymer. This study showed the possibility of improving the solubility of other poorly soluble drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Modification of polymer; Natural polymer; Poorly water-soluble drugs; Solid dispersion; Ziziphus gum polymer; Ziziphus spina-christi
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812143 PMCID: PMC9257872 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2022.04.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.562
Factors and levels in L9 (34) Taguchi orthogonal array (TOA) design.
| Type of drug | GLM | LOR | FUR | |
| Type of polymer | UMZG | M1ZG | M2ZG | |
| Method of solid dispersion | KN | SE | CG | |
| Ratio Drug: polymer | 1:1 | 1:2 | 1:3 | |
Unmodified Ziziphus Gum (UMZG), Modified Ziziphus Gum by heating (M1ZG), and Modified Ziziphus Gum by freeze-drying M2ZG. Co-grinding (CG), Solvent Evaporation (SE), and Kneading (KN) methods for the preparation of solid dispersion.
Formulations of ZG SDs designed by L9 (TOA) design.
| SD1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| SD2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| SD3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| SD4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| SD5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| SD6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| SD7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| SD8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| SD9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
SD: Solid dispersion; A: Type of drug; B: Type of polymer; C: Method of solid dispersion; D: Ratio Drug: Polymer.
Physicochemical characterization of Ziziphus gum polymers and their modified forms.
| Pale brown | Pale brown | Pale brown | ||
| Sweet | Sweet | Sweet | ||
| Odorless | Odorless | Odorless | ||
| Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | ||
| Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | ||
| Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | ||
| Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble | ||
| 966.6 ± 33.3 | 1783.3 ± 76.37 | 891.6 ± 14.43 | ||
| 18.667 ± 1.154 | 20.667 ± 0.577 | 22 ± 1 | ||
| 15.667 ± 0.208 | 20.7 ± 0.435 | 17.167 ± 0.152 | ||
| 39.82 ± 0.531 | 40.66 ± 0.097 | 41.72 ± 0.058 | ||
| 4.24 ± 0.034 | 4.25 ± 0 | 4.26 ± 0.0152 | ||
| 0.723 ± 0.01 | 0.765 ± 0.006 | 0.715 ± 0.007 | ||
| 0.822 ± 0.018 | 0.861 ± 0.007 | 0.828 ± 0.008 | ||
| 12.03 ± 395 | 11.188 ± 0.042 | 13.589 ± 1.749 | ||
| 1.134 ± 0.041 | 1.126 ± 0.005 | 1.345 ± 0.022 | ||
UMZG: Unmodified Ziziphus Gum; M1ZG: Modified Ziziphus gum by heating; M2ZG: Modified Ziziphus Gum by freeze-drying, DCM: dichloromethane; cps: centipoise.
Precision results for Glimipride, Loratadine, and Furosemide.
| GLM | LOR | FUR | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-day | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. |
| 4 | 0.001 | 0.5 | 100.1 | 3 | 0.002 | 0.6 | 102.3 | 3 | 0.002 | 0.6 | 100.3 | |
| 6 | 0.006 | 1.5 | 98.0 | 4 | 0.002 | 0.6 | 102.2 | 4 | 0.002 | 0.4 | 99.9 | |
| 8 | 0.002 | 0.4 | 100.1 | 5 | 0.002 | 0.4 | 100.6 | 5 | 0.009 | 1.6 | 101.0 | |
| Inter-day | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. | Conc. µg/ml | SD | % RSD | % Rec. |
| 4 | 0.002 | 0.7 | 101.3 | 3 | 0.003 | 1.1 | 102.3 | 3 | 0.003 | 0.9 | 100.5 | |
| 6 | 0.003 | 0.9 | 98.0 | 4 | 0.005 | 1.5 | 101.5 | 4 | 0.001 | 0.2 | 100.2 | |
| 8 | 0.001 | 0.1 | 99.8 | 5 | 0.007 | 1.9 | 101.9 | 5 | 0.006 | 1.0 | 100.1 | |
Accuracy and sensitivity results for Glimipride, Loratadine, and Furosemide.
| GLM | LOR | FUR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Conc. µg/ml | 10.8 (80%) | 12 (100%) | 13.2 (120%) | 5.4 (80%) | 6 (100%) | 6.6 (120%) | 5.4 (80%) | 6 (100%) | 6.6 (120%) |
| SD | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| % Rec. | 98.84 | 98.40 | 98.87 | 101.7 | 100.6 | 99.32 | 100.7 | 99.10 | 100.37 | |
| % RSD | 0.093 | 0.422 | 0.266 | 0.239 | 0.670 | 0.204 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.16 | |
| Sensitivity | LOD | 0.191 | 0.092 | 0.076 | ||||||
| LOQ | 0.637 | 0.307 | 0.253 | |||||||
ANOVA analysis and PC% for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in aqueous media.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | p-value Prob > F | PC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 0.62 | 1 | 0.62 | |||
| Model (significant) | 6085.9 | 8 | 760.74 | 1058.58 | < 0.0001 | |
| A-Drug type | 3127.92 | 2 | 1563.96 | 2176.29 | < 0.0001 | 37.5 |
| B-Polymer mod. | 844.7 | 2 | 422.35 | 587.71 | < 0.0001 | 0.0 |
| C-SD method | 935.89 | 2 | 467.94 | 651.16 | < 0.0001 | 1.5 |
| D-Drug: Polymer ratio | 1177.39 | 2 | 588.69 | 819.18 | < 0.0001 | 5.5 |
| Residual | 5.75 | 8 | 0.72 | 55.5 | ||
| Cor Total | 6092.26 | 17 | 100.0 |
Fig. 1Graphic model for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in aqueous media.
Fig. 2Graphic model for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 1.2.
Fig. 3Graphic model for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 6.8.
Fig. 4Graphic model for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 7.4.
Fig. 5Graphic model for percentage yield of solid dispersion formulations.
Fig. 7Solubility of LOR and its solid dispersion in different media.
ANOVA analysis and PC% for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 1.2.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | p-value Prob > F | PC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 0.077 | 1 | 0.077 | |||
| Model (significant) | 157.3 | 8 | 19.66 | 225.62 | < 0.0001 | |
| A-Drug type | 120.68 | 2 | 60.34 | 692.4 | < 0.0001 | 69.6 |
| B-Polymer mod. | 11.3 | 2 | 5.65 | 64.82 | < 0.0001 | 0.1 |
| C-SD method | 14.1 | 2 | 7.05 | 80.89 | < 0.0001 | 1.8 |
| D-Drug: Polymer ratio | 11.22 | 2 | 5.61 | 64.38 | < 0.0001 | 0.0 |
| Residual | 0.7 | 8 | 0.087 | 28.5 | ||
| Cor Total | 158.07 | 17 | 100.0 |
ANOVA analysis and PC% for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 6.8.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | p-value Prob > F | PC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 0.042 | 1 | 0.042 | |||
| Model (significant) | 76.17 | 8 | 9.52 | 792.25 | < 0.0001 | |
| A-Drug type | 68.96 | 2 | 34.48 | 2869.09 | < 0.0001 | 88.4 |
| B-Polymer mod. | 1.59 | 2 | 0.79 | 65.94 | < 0.0001 | 0.0 |
| C-SD method | 2.4 | 2 | 1.2 | 99.88 | < 0.0001 | 1.1 |
| D-Drug: Polymer ratio | 3.22 | 2 | 1.61 | 134.09 | < 0.0001 | 2.1 |
| Residual | 0.096 | 8 | 0.012 | 8.3 | ||
| Cor Total | 76.31 | 17 | 100.0 |
ANOVA analysis and PC% for solubility fold of solid dispersion formulations in pH 7.4.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | p-value Prob > F | PC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | |||
| Model (significant) | 2857.8 | 8 | 357.23 | 1560.78 | < 0.0001 | |
| A-Drug type | 2394.8 | 2 | 1197.4 | 5231.64 | < 0.0001 | 78.7 |
| B-Polymer mod. | 145.69 | 2 | 72.84 | 318.27 | < 0.0001 | 0.0 |
| C-SD method | 156.18 | 2 | 78.09 | 341.19 | < 0.0001 | 0.4 |
| D-Drug: Polymer ratio | 161.13 | 2 | 80.57 | 352.01 | < 0.0001 | 0.5 |
| Residual | 1.83 | 8 | 0.23 | 20.4 | ||
| Cor Total | 2859.74 | 17 | 100.0 |
ANOVA analysis and PC% for percentage yield of solid dispersion formulations.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | p-value Prob > F | PC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Model (significant) | 35.66 | 8 | 4.46 | 6.37E + 07 | < 0.0001 | |
| A-Drug type | 6.77 | 2 | 3.39 | 6.37E + 07 | < 0.0001 | 15.8 |
| B-Polymer mod. | 1.15 | 2 | 0.57 | 6.37E + 07 | < 0.0001 | 0.0 |
| C-SD method | 24.92 | 2 | 12.46 | 6.37E + 07 | < 0.0001 | 66.7 |
| D-Drug: Polymer ratio | 2.82 | 2 | 1.41 | 6.37E + 07 | < 0.0001 | 4.7 |
| Residual | 0 | 8 | 0 | 12.9 | ||
| Cor Total | 35.66 | 17 | 100.0 |
Analysis of 5 combinations of categoric factor levels according to the TOA model.
| No. | Drug | Polymer mod. | SD method | D:P ratio | Sol. Fold Aq. | Sol. Fold pH 1.2 | Sol. Fold pH 6.8 | Sol. Fold pH 7.4 | % Yield | Desirability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LOR | Mod2 | SE | 1:3 | 51.1 | 2.2 | 41.4 | 33.0 | 95.4 | 0.7 | Selected |
| 2 | LOR | Mod2 | KN | 1:3 | 37.7 | 1.6 | 32.4 | 29.9 | 98.2 | 0.7 | |
| 3 | LOR | Unmod | CG | 1:3 | 46.8 | 1.8 | 35.8 | 28.3 | 95.6 | 0.6 | |
| 4 | LOR | Mod2 | CG | 1:3 | 34.4 | 3.7 | 31.7 | 25.8 | 96.2 | 0.6 | |
| 5 | LOR | Mod1 | SE | 1:3 | 47.5 | 0.9 | 36.7 | 28.6 | 95.1 | 0.6 |
SD: Solid Dispersion, D: Drug, P: Polymer, Sol.: Solubility, Mod1: Modified Ziziphus gum by heating, Mod2: Modified Ziziphus gum by freeze-drying, Unmod: Unmodified Ziziphus gum, LOR: Loratadine, SE: Solvent Evaporation method, KN: Kneading method, CG: Co-Grinding method.
Comparison between predicted saturation solubility results from Taguchi model and solubility of the actual formula.
| Predicted solubility | 51.1 | 2.2 | 41.4 | 33.0 |
| Actual solubility | 52.6 ± 0.7 | 0.5 ± 0.01 | 43.9 ± 0.49 | 31.7 ± 0.10 |
Fig. 6Solubility of GLM and its solid dispersion in different media.
Fig. 8Solubility of FUR and its solid dispersion in different media.
Fig. 9% Practical yield of solid dispersion formulations.
Fig. 10FTIR of GLM and its solid dispersions.
Fig. 11FTIR of LOR and its solid dispersions.
Fig. 12FTIR of FUR and its solid dispersions.