The Disintegration and Dissolution of Nabumetone Dispersible Tablets - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

The Disintegration and Dissolution of Nabumetone Dispersible Tablets
Nabumetone was complexed with β-cyclodextrin, and a 23 factorial design was used to prepare dispersible tablets containing the drug or its complex.The authors analyzed the effects of complexation as well as the levels of ammonium bicarbonate and crospovidone on tablet wetting time (WT), disintegration time (DT), and percent dissolution efficiency at 60 min (%DE60).


Pharmaceutical Technology


Weight uniformity was determined with a digital balance (model 220BL, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) according to the official method (19). Tablet hardness and thickness were evaluated using a hardness tester (Scientific Engineering Corp., Delhi, India) and digimatic caliper (Mitutoyo Corp., Japan), respectively (20). For each batch, tablet friability was determined in an automated USP friabilator (model EF-2, Electrolab (I) Ltd., Mumbai). Tablet content uniformity was computed from the assay values in 2% w/w solution of sodium lauryl sulphate (9).

In vitro dissolution studies were carried out in triplicate for 45 min in USP dissolution-rate test Apparatus II (model TDT-06T, Electrolab (I) Ltd., Mumbai), as per the official method (9). Dissolution media consisting of 900 mL of 2% w/w SLS in distilled water was maintained at 37 ± 0.5 °C and a stirring speed of 50 rpm. Samples were withdrawn at time intervals of 15 min, filtered through 0.45-μm filter, suitably diluted, and analyzed spectrophotometrically at 270 nm using 2% w/w solution of SLS as a reagent blank. Percent dissolution efficiency at 45 min, used to compare the dissolution profiles of the model formulations, was calculated using Equation 2:




in which Yt stands for percent of drug dissolved at time T and Y100 denotes 100 % dissolution (21). The integral representing the area under the dissolution curve between time zero and time T was computed using Graph Pad Prism version 4.02 (GraphPad Software., San Diego, CA).

Regression analysis. The targeted response parameters were statistically analyzed by applying one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 0.05 level in Design-Expert 7.1.3 demo version soft ware (Stat-Ease Inc.., Minneapolis, MN). Individual parameters were evaluated using the F test, and polynomial models of the form indicated in Equation 3 were generated for each response parameter.




in which Y is the level of the measured response, β0 is the intercept, and β1 to β5 are the regression coefficients. X1 and X2 stand for the main effects; X1 X2, X2X3, and X1X3 are the two-way interactions between the main effects, and X1X2X3 represents the three way interaction. Mathematical models containing only the significant terms were generated for each response parameters using multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) and ANOVA. The models generated were used to construct the three-dimensional graphs in which response parameter Y was represented as a function of X. The effect of independent variables on each response also was visualized from the contour plots.

Validation of the mathematical models. The mathematical models representing the response parameters were validated by developing a new formulation with a combination of factors within the experimental domain (16). Constraints such as minimizing the disintegration time (DT) and maximizing the wetting time (WT)and dissolution efficiency at 60 min (%DE60) were set to locate the optimum settings of the independent variables in the new formulation. The new formulation was evaluated for the responses, and the experimental values obtained were compared with those predicted by the mathematical models.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
|Monthly
| Weekly

Survey
How does your company apply quality-by-design (QbD) principles to manufacturing processes?
To all processes for both new and legacy products
To all process for new products only
To select process for new products only
To select processes for both new and legacy products
Do not use QbD
To all processes for both new and legacy products
18%
To all process for new products only
13%
To select process for new products only
22%
To select processes for both new and legacy products
22%
Do not use QbD
24%
View Results
UPCOMING CONFERENCES

Programs for Investigational and Pre-Launch Drugs
Philadelphia, PA
July 17-18, 2013
Request Brochure

Strategic Pipeline Planning & Portfolio Valuation
Philadelphia, PA
August 13-14, 2013
Request Brochure

MES 2013 - Forum on Manufacturing Execution Systems
Philadelphia, PA
August 14-15, 2013
Request Brochure

Mobile Innovation for the Life Sciences Industry
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2013
Request Brochure

See All Conferences >>

Eric Langer Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy
Patricia Van Arnum Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry
Nathan Jessop Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues
Lynn Torbeck Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality
 More
Inadequate Access to Medicines Puts EU at Risk
FDA Offers Insight on QbD for Modified-Release Products
Global Biosimilars Market to Reach $2.445 Billion in 2013
Adapting to Change
AstraZeneca and Exco InTouch Collaborate to Augment Current COPD Pathways
FindPharma Custom Search
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here