| Literature DB >> 36015129 |
Shaima Alaithan1, Nimbagal Raghavendra Naveen2, Prakash S Goudanavar2, Penmetsa Durga Bhavani3, Beveenahalli Ramesh2, Naga Prashant Koppuravuri2, Santosh Fattepur4, Nagaraja Sreeharsha1,5, Anroop B Nair1, Bandar E Aldhubiab1, Pottathil Shinu6, Rashed M Almuqbil1.
Abstract
Currently, gastro-retentive dosage forms achieved a remarkable position among the oral drug delivery systems. This is a broadly used technique to hold the drug delivery systems for a long duration in the gastro intestine (GI) region, slow drug delivery, and overcome other challenges related to typical oral delivery such as low bioavailability. The current work aimed to formulate and characterize a new expandable gastro-retentive system through Itopride Hydrochloride (IH)'s unfolding process for controlled release. The IH-loaded unfolding film formulation was optimized using the Box-Behnken design for folding endurance and length of tested layer (LTL). Initially, the formulation was made using several anti-adhesive additives to promote the unfolding mechanism. Citric acid and sodium bicarbonate were selected as anti-adhesives based on these results. The enfolded film in a capsule shell was shown to unroll in the stomach fluids and render drug delivery up to 12 h in acidic conditions. A fabricated system should have dimensions more than the size of the relaxed pyloric sphincter, and as required, >20 mm LTL was identified. This further confirms that the residence period in the stomach is irrelevant to the fed or fasted condition. Based on desirability criteria, the formulation containing 143.83, 0.7982, and 14.6096 Eudragit L100, PEG, and sodium bicarbonate are selected as optimized formulations (O-IH-UF). The optimized formulation was further analyzed for various parameters such as tensile strength, mechanical strength, unfolding nature, degradability, and in vitro release studies. The pharmacokinetic study revealed greater AUC (area under the curve) and long half-life with the designed O-IH-UF formulation, confirming that the unfolding film type can be a favorable drug system for enhancing the bioavailability of low soluble drugs. The results showed that unfolding types of gastro retentive systems could potentiate the drugs with stability issues in an alkaline medium or those with absorption in acidic conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Box-Behnken design; gastro retentive systems; itopride hydrochloride; optimization; unfolding film
Year: 2022 PMID: 36015129 PMCID: PMC9415307 DOI: 10.3390/ph15080981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Experimental plan for Box-Behnken design in terms of actual and coded values. Three factors and three levels were considered to study their impact on folding endurance and LTL.
| Factors/Independent Variables | Levels | Responses/Dependent Variables | Constraints | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | |||
| Concentration of Eudragit L 100-X1 | 50 | 100 | 150 | Folding Endurance | Maximum |
| Concentration of PEG 400-X2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | LTL | Maximum |
| Concentration of sodium bicarbonate-X3 | 0 | 10 | 20 | ||
Effect of anti-adhesive on the unfolding mechanism of IH film.
| S. No | Anti-Adhesive Excipient | Unfolding | Length of Unfolded Film |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Microcrystalline cellulose | Not observed | ----- |
| 2. | Starch | Observed | 9 mm |
| 3. | Talc | Observed | 11 mm |
| 4. | Magnesium stearate, talc, and citric acid | Observed | 11 mm |
| 5. | Magnesium stearate and citric acid | Not observed | ----- |
| 6. | Citric acid, sodium bicarbonate, and talc | Observed | 16 mm |
| 7. | Citric acid and sodium bicarbonate | Observed | 19 mm |
Figure 1FTIR spectra of (a) IH and (b) physical mixture of IH + excipients at a wavelength of 400–4000 cm−1.
Figure 2(a) Rolling and the (b) accordion pattern of folding for IH film to study the impact of the folding method on the unfolding of IG gastro retentive film.
Experimental runs were conducted as per the BBD and their observed responses.
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Response 1 | Response 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | A:Eudragit L100 | B:PEG 400 | C:Sodium Bicarbonate | Folding Endurance | LTL |
| mg | mL | mg | mm | ||
| 13 | 50 | 0.6 | 0 | 76 ± 4 | 9 ± 1.5 |
| 11 | 50 | 0.6 | 20 | 82 ± 3 | 13 ± 2.1 |
| 14 | 50 | 0.4 | 10 | 69 ± 3 | 14 ± 2.3 |
| 2 | 50 | 0.8 | 10 | 87 ± 5 | 16 ± 2.4 |
| 12 | 100 | 0.4 | 0 | 74 ± 4 | 9 ± 2.6 |
| 1 | 100 | 0.4 | 20 | 74 ± 6 | 14 ± 1.8 |
| 16 | 100 | 0.8 | 0 | 97 ± 7 | 15 ± 2.2 |
| 15 | 100 | 0.6 | 10 | 84 ± 5 | 21 ± 2.5 |
| 7 | 100 | 0.6 | 10 | 86 ± 5 | 21 ± 2.4 |
| 8 | 100 | 0.8 | 20 | 108 ± 3 | 21 ± 2.0 |
| 9 | 100 | 0.6 | 10 | 84 ± 4 | 22 ± 0.7 |
| 3 | 100 | 0.6 | 10 | 85 ± 5 | 22 ± 1.8 |
| 17 | 100 | 0.6 | 10 | 86 ± 2 | 22 ± 1.6 |
| 6 | 150 | 0.6 | 0 | 86 ± 2 | 13 ± 1.3 |
| 4 | 150 | 0.4 | 10 | 76 ± 5 | 17 ± 1.4 |
| 5 | 150 | 0.6 | 20 | 98 ± 5 | 18 ± 1.5 |
| 10 | 150 | 0.8 | 10 | 114 ± 4 | 25 ± 1.6 |
Model summary statistics of selected responses.
| Responses | Source | Sequential | Lack of Fit | Adjusted R2 | Predicted R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | <0.0001 | 0.0056 | 0.9031 | 0.8400 | ||
| 2FI | 0.0020 | 0.0428 | 0.9695 | 0.9219 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cubic | 0.0832 | 0.9931 | Aliased | |||
| Linear | 0.0393 | 0.0004 | 0.3382 | 0.1322 | ||
| 2FI | 0.9163 | 0.0002 | 0.1806 | −0.5594 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cubic | 0.1544 | 0.9870 | Aliased |
Model (quadratic) fit summary of the responses.
| Parameter | PS | EE |
|---|---|---|
| Std. Dev. | 1.61 | 0.7512 |
| Mean | 86.24 | 17.18 |
| C.V. % | 1.87 | 4.37 |
| Adeq Precision | 34.9242 | 28.5860 |
| Lack of Fit F-value | 4.75 | 3.06 |
| Lack of Fit | 0.0832 | 0.1544 |
| Model F value | 98.74 | 72.17 |
| Model | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Figure 3Normal probability and model residuals versus test orders for (a) folding endurance and (b) LTL.
ANOVA coefficients table for both responses to confirm the significant factors for chosen responses. Bold terms indicate significance.
| Intercept | A | B | C | AB | AC | BC | A2 | B2 | C2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Folding endurance | 85 | 7.5 | 14.125 | 3.625 | 5 | 1.5 | 2.75 | −0.625 | 2.125 | 1.125 |
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.1055 | 0.0113 | 0.4531 | 0.0306 | 0.1959 | ||
| LTL | 21.6 | 2.625 | 2.875 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.25 | 0.25 | −2.55 | −1.05 | −5.8 |
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0052 | 0.5270 | 0.5270 | 0.0002 | 0.0241 | <0.0001 |
Figure 4Contour plots and 3D Response surface plots for (A) Folding endurance and (B) LTL.
Figure 5Desirability plot of selected BBD in optimizing the concentrations of chosen variables.
Relative error calculation for standardized preparation.
| S. No | Response | Predicted/Theoretical Value | Experimental/Practical Value | Relative Error (%) | Limit for Relative Error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Folding endurance | 115.293 | 117.00 | −1.48 | ±5 |
| 2. | LTL | 25.198 | 24.214 | 3.90 |
Evaluation tests for optimized formulation.
| S. No | Formulation | Test | Result(Avg ± S.D) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | O-IH-UF | Weight variation | 0.253 ± 0.023 g |
| 2. | Thickness | 0.93 ± 0.02 mm | |
| 3. | Mechanical strength | 1.7 ± 0.03 kg/cm2 | |
| 4. | Drug content | 98.79 ± 0.10% | |
| 5. | Retention time | >10 h |
Figure 6SEM image of optimized formulation at (a) 3493 and (b) 6987 magnification.
Figure 7Effect of added weights on change in length of the film (Increase length of film observed concerning added weights. (*, film broken)).
Figure 8Unfolding test of optimized formulation filled in hard gelatin capsule. (a) Capsule added to the medium, (b) capsule started disintegration, and (c) fully unfolded film.
Figure 9In vitro drug release comparison of pure IH and O-IH-UF formulation.
Comparison of difference and similarity factors between pure IH and O-IH-UF.
| S. No | Reference | Test | Difference Factor (f1) | Acceptance Criteria | Similarity Factor (f2) | Acceptance Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pure IH | O-IH-UF | 53.50 | 0–15 | 28.63 | 50–100 |
Figure 10Drug [IH] release kinetics. (a) Zero-order kinetics, (b) Higuchi Plot, and (c) Korsmeyer–Peppas model from O-IH-UF.
Stability studies for O-IH-UF.
| TEST | INITIAL | 25 °C ± 2 °C + 60% ± 5% RH | 40 °C ± 2 °C + 75% ± 5% RH | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 M | 6 M | 3 M | 6 M | ||
| Folding endurance | 117 | 115 | 113 | 114 | 110 |
| -- | 97.24 | 96.25 | 96.87 | 94.64 | |
Figure 11X-ray radiographs (i) before administration and after the administration of O-IH-UF at (ii) 1 h and (iii) 8 h.
Calculated pharmacokinetic parameters of marketed product and O-IH-UF.
| S. No | Pharmacokinetic Parameter | Marketed Product | O-IH-UF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Cmax (ng mL−1 h) | 518.56 ± 26.09 | 679.78 ± 19.24 |
| 2. | t max (h) | 1 ± 0 | 2 ± 0 |
| 3. | AUC0-t (ng mL−1 h) | 1570.10 ± 49.19 | 2894.29 ± 102.49 |
| 4. | AUC0-i (ng mL−1 h) | 1645.78 ± 35.26 | 3048.19 ± 139.73 |
| 5. | MRTt (h) | 4.21 ± 0.41 | 7.54 ± 0.53 |
| 6. | Ke (1/h) | 0.1689 ± 0.019 | 0.0789 ± 0.0039 |
| 7. | Relative Bioavailability | --- | 184.33 |
Figure 12Pharmacokinetic profiles of marketed product and O-IH-UF.