Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
INTRODUCTION
Tablets that disintegrate or dissolve rapidly in the patients mouth are convenient for young
children, the elderly and patients with swallowing difficulties, and in situations where potable
liquids are not available. Since the drug can be absorbed partially or entirely into the system
circulation from blood vessels in the sublingual mucosa, the sublingual route bypasses the
hepatic first pass metabolic processes, thus producing rapid onset of action. The sublingual
route is appropriate for drugs with short delivery period requirements, for drugs which are
inactivated by first passintestinal or hepatic metabolism or inactivated by the proteolytic
enzymes in the GI tract, the highly vascularised oral mucosa through which drugs enter the
systemic circulation directly, thus bypassing the gastrointestinal tract and the first pass effect
in the liver.1, 2, 3
Zaleplon is a new nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic agent indicated for the short- term
treatment of insomnia. Work by interacting with benzodiazepine receptors.
Although
10
with 2 factors, 2levels and 13 runs was selected for the optimization study. This design
consists of 4 full factorial design points, 4 axial points, and 5 center points 11. In this study,
amount of SSG and CCS were chosen as the independent formulation variables. The
dependent variables included wetting time (WT) and in vitro dispersion time (DT). The effect
of formulation variables on the response variables were statically evaluated by applying oneway ANOVA at 0.05 level using Design-Expert 8 (Stat Ease, USA). The design was
evaluated using a quadratic model, which bears the form of the equation:
Y= b0 + b1 X1+ b2 X2 + b3 X1 X2 + b4 X1 2+ b5 X2 2
Where Y is the response variable, b0 the constant and b1 , b2, b3, b4, b5 is the regression
coefficients and X1, X2 are the independent variables levels of which were selected from the
preliminary experiments,X1 and X2 stand for the main effect; X1 X2 are the interaction terms
that shows how the response changes when two factors are simultaneously changed. X 1 2 and
X2 2 are quadratic terms of the independent variables to evaluate the nonlinearity. 1, 11, 12
Experiments were carried out systematically to analyze the effect of different concentrations
of disintegrants on the wetting time and in-vitro dispersion time of the tablets, using a
response surface methodology and to develop an optimized formulation. As per composition
shown in Table 1, formulations were prepared according to the rotatable central composite
design by direct compression with 8mm punch (General Machinery Co., Mumbai) using
different proportions of studied superdisintegrants, mannitol as a diluent, sodium saccharin as
sweetening agent, aerosil with talc as a flow promoter. Mango flavor was used as flavoring
agent in tablet.
EVALUATION OF TABLETS
Hardness: The crushing strength of the tablets was measured using a Pfizer hardness tester.
Three tablets from each formulation batch were tested randomly and the average reading was
noted.13, 14
Friability: Friability test was performed according to I.P. using a Roche Friabilator (Kumar
Mfg. Ltd).Previously weighed twenty tablets were rotated at 25 rpm for four minute. The
weight loss of the tablets after measurement was calculated using the following formula13,14
Percentage friability = Initial weight Final weight x 100
Initial weight
Weight variation: After compression, twenty tablets from prepared formulations were
selected randomly, weighed individually and calculated average weight. As per
Pharmacopoeial weight variation test, the individual tablet weights are compared with their
average weight.13,14
Content uniformity: To assure uniform potency for tablets of low dose drugs, content
uniformity test is performed. From each formulation batch, ten tablets were randomly
sampled, powdered, dissolved in methanol and sonicated for 20 min. The volume was make
up to 100 ml with distilled water. The solution was filtered through Whatman fil ter paper no.
41, suitably diluted and individually estimated for the drug content, using UV-VIS
spectrophotometer(UV-2450, Shimadzu) at 230 nm. The mean percent drug content was
calculated as an average of three determinations.1,15,21
Wetting time: This study is performed according to previously reported method by Sindhu
Abraham et al. Twice folded tissue paper (12cmx10.75cm )was placed in 9ml pH 6.8
simulating saliva in Petri dish having internal diameter 9cm.A tablet was placed on the paper
and the time taken for complete wetting was noted. Three tablets from each formulation were
randomly selected and the average wetting time was noted. 1,7
In-vitro dispersion time: In vitro dispersion time was measured according to previously
reported method by Sindhu Abraham et al. This method was performed by dropping a tablet
in a 10ml measuring cylinder containing 6ml of pH 6.8 simulating saliva fluid buffer
solution.
1, 7
the range 3.5 4.5 kg/cm2 and friability not more than 0.72 % , the value of drug content was
found to be uniform in ranges from 97.70 to 100.48 % with average percentage deviation in
acceptable Pharmacopoeial limits. The percentage deviation for weight variation was within
the acceptable Pharmacoepial limits ( 7.5%).
The polynomial equation relating the responses and the independent variables was:
Wetting time =16- 3.84 X1-3.12 X2-0.50 X1X2-2.06 X12+0.69 X22 -----(2)
Dispersion time=21- 3.36 X1-3.00 X2-0.75 X1X2-1.88X12+0.87 X22----- (3)
The values of the coefficients X1-X2 are related to the effect of these variables on the WT
and DT. Coefficients of more than one, represents interaction and shows how the response
changes when two factors are simultaneously changed. Coefficients of higher order terms,
represents quadratic relationship and are included to investigate nonlinearity. The polynomial
equation can be used to draw conclusions after considering the magnitude of each coefficient
and the mathematical sign it carries (i.e., positive or negative). A negative sign of coefficient
for SSG(X1) and CCS(X2) represents antagonistic effect of these variables. A positive sign of
the coefficient represents increasing WT and DT with X1 and X2. The significance of the
different formulation variables and their interactions was compared using analysis of variance
(ANOVA) at a significance level of p<0.05. The ANOVA results of lack of fit and pure error
for independant variables provides the mean response and an estimate of pure experimental
uncertainty. The p<0.05 value for independant variables given in Table 3 suggested that the
both superdisintegrants have significant effects on the wetting and dispersion time.
Contour plots: Various RSM computations for the current optimization study were
performed employing Design Expert Software, Two dimensional (2D) contour plots were
constructed based on the model polynomial functions using Design Expert Software.
Presentation of the data as graphs can help to show the relationship between the independent
and dependent variables. The plot for WT was found to be linear at high levels of X1 and X2
with slight curvature at low levels of X1 and X2. Similar changes observed with dispersion
time graph. It was determined from the contour plot that minimum values of WT and DT
could be obtained with increasing concentrations of an X1 and X2.The addition of
disintegrant to the tablet is usually necessary to achieve or improve the tablet disintegration.
The prediction of disintegration time of tablet formulations by mathematical model can be
difficult because of the numerous parameters influencing such response. In fact, the type and
concentration of disintegrant, the disintegration mechanisms (i.e., swelling or capillary
forces), and the compression force can affect the disintegration behavior in different ways 17, 20.
However, in this study, this variable showed a satisfactory coefficient of determination. This
can be attributed to the lower level of interaction observed between independent variables. As
expected, due to the wicking action of disintegrants the tablet disintegration time was
primarily affected by the amount of superdisintegrants in the formulation
18,19
CCS linear term were the primary factors responsible for the decrease in the tablet wetting
and dispersion time. This was followed by, the interaction between the 2 factors (X1X2) and
SSG quadratic term which also showed a negative effect on the response variable that is
decreasing wetting time and dispersion time. However, the increase of the superdisintegrants
concentration resulted in a negative effect, decreasing the disintegration time .The response
surface plots showing the effect of amount of SSG (X1) and amount of CCS (X2) on the
response WT (Y1) and DT (Y2) are shown in Figure 1.
The results in Table 5 demonstrated a good relationship between predicted and experimental
values, confirming the validity of the model. The hardness of F formulation batch was found
to be 3(0.7)kg/cm2. The percentage friability of F was 0.68 %. The average drug content
was found to be 98.35 % of the theoretical value. The percentage deviation for 20 tablets was
within the acceptable Pharmacoepial limits ( 7.5%). The formulation F showed rapid
dissolution rate and 93.75 % cumulative drug release within 30 minutes.
CONCLUSION:
The effect of superdisintegrants on wetting time and in-vitro dispersion time of sublingual
tablets of Zaleplon solid dispersion was studied by central composite design (CCD) and
response surface methodology (RSM). The study demonstrated that SSG and CCS modifies
the wetting time and in vitro dispersion time. The optimum formula containing 2.55 and 2.74
% (w/w) of SSG, CCS respectively showed minimum wetting time and in vitro dispersion
time. At these conditions, the tablet showed a wetting time of 18 ( 1.73 ) sec and dispersion
time of 25 (2.64) sec. It was observed that responses were in close accord with the predicted
values of optimized formulation, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of the optimization
procedure in developing sublingual tablet formulation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The authors want to thank Precise Chemipharma Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai for providing gift
samples of Zaleplon.
REFERENCES:
1) Sindhu Abraham, Basavaraj B.V, Bharath S, Deveswaran R, Sharon Furtado and
Madhavan V, Formulation and optimization of sublingual tablets of Rabeprazole
sodium, International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research,
Volume 5, Issue 2, Article-010,50-54, November December 2010.
2) Mona H. Aburahma, Hanan M. EL-Laithy, Yassin El-Said Hamza, Preparation and In
Vitro/In Vivo Characterization of Porous Sublingual Tablets Containing Ternary
Kneaded Solid System of Vinpocetine with -Cyclodextrin and Hydroxy Acid, Sci
Pharm. ,78: 363379, 2010.
3)
A Pyrazolopyrimidine
Sedative-Hypnotic
Agent for the Treatment of Insomnia, Clinical Therapeutics,Vol. 22, NO. 11, 2000.
5) B. Beer, D. E. Clody, R. Mangano, M. Levner,P. Mayer, and J. E. Barrett,A Review
of the Preclinical Developmentof Zaleplon, a Novel Non-Benzodiazepine Hypnotic
for the Treatment of Insomnia, CNS Drug Reviews, Vol. 3, NO. 3, 207-224, 1997 .
6) C F P George, The Lancet , Vol 358 , 1623-1625, November 10, 2001.
7) Venkata Ramana Reddy , Sathyanarayana Dondeti, Manavalan R, Sreekanth
J,Development and Characterization of compressed ODT formulation of insoluble
low bitter drug, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences,Vol 2,
Issue 2,102-106,2010.
8)
10) Amit Gupta, Ram S. Gaud, S. Ganga ,Development, evaluation and optimization of
extended release buccal tablets prepared using progressive hydration technology,
International Journal of Drug Delivery, 37-48. .2009.
11) Ajay Solankia, Jolly Parikha and Rajesh Parikh, Preparation, Characterization,
Optimization, and Stability Studies of Aceclofenac Proniosomes, Iranian Journal of
Pharmaceutical Research ,7 (4): 237-246 , 2008.
12) Parasuram Rajam Radhika, Tapan kumar Pal, Thangavel Sivakumar, Optimization of
Glipizide sustained release matrix tablet formulation by central composite designresponse surface methodology, Journal of Pharmacy Research Vol.2.Issue 1., 94-102,
January 2009 .
13) Sheeba F R, Giles D, Rameshwari S, Jeya Anandhi J, Formulation and evaluation of
Nifedipine, sublingual tablets, Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research
Vol.2 Issue 3, July- 44-48, Issn 0974-2441, September 2009.
14) NG Raghavendra Rao, Upendra Kulkarni, Development of Carbamazepine fast
dissolving tablets: Effect of functionality of Hydrophillic carriers on solid dispersion
technique, Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical And Clinical Research, Vol.3 Issue 2, 114117,Issn 09742441, April-June 2010.
15) Atish Waghmare, Yogesh Pore, and Bhanudas Kuchekar, Development and
Characterization of Zaleplon Solid Dispersion Systems:A Technical Note, AAPS
PharmSciTech, Vol. 9, No. 2, 536-543,June2008.
16) Subhadeep Chowdhury, Subhabrota Majumdar, Statistical optimization of fixed dose
combination of Glimepiride and Atorvastatin Calcium in immediate release tablet
formulation, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, ISSN0975-1491 ,Vols 2, Suppl 4, 194-200, 2010.
17) Luiz Alberto Lira Soares, George Gonzlez Ortega, Pedro Ros Petrovick, and Peter
Christian Schmidt, Optimization of Tablets Containing a High Dose of Spray-Dried
Plant Extract: A Technical Note, AAPS PharmSciTech , 6 (3) Article 46 , E 367-71,
2005.
18) Battu S.K, Repka M.A, Majumdar S, Madhusudan R.Y. Formulation and evaluation
of rapidly disintegrating fenoverine tablets: effect of superdisintegrants. Drug Dev Ind
Pharm., 33(11), 1225-32, Nov 2007.
19) Suresh V Kulkarni, Ranjit Kumar P, Basavaraj, Someshwara Rao b, Ramesh b, Ashok
kumar P, Effect of superdisintegrants on formulation of taste masked fast
disintigrating lisinopril tablets. Int J Curr Pharm Res, Vol 3, Issue1, 1114.
20) Shangraw R, Mitrevej A, Shah M. A new era of tablet disintegrant. Pharm Technol.
Y57, 4:49, 1980.
21) Leon Lachman, Herbert A. Lieberman, Josef L. Kanig, The Theory and Practice of
Industrial Pharmacy, 3rd ed., 300-01, 1990.
10
INGREDIENTS(MG)
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F7
F8
F11
F12
70
70
Zaleplon-SDa
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
SSG
1.76
10.24 9
CCS
10.24
1.76
Saccharine sodium
Mango flavor
qs
qs
qs
qs
qs
qs
qs
qs
qs
Talc
Aerosil
Mannitol
56
57.76
66.24
66.24 62
68
57.76 62
Total
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
62
150 150
Table 2: CCD with the responses for wetting time and In-vitro dispersion time
Parameters
F1 F2 F3 F4
13 25 18
12 18 30 22
F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
16 20 9
10 15
21 24 15 17 22
11
Soure
Sum of DF Mean
F
P
Squares
Square Value Value
Prob >F
Wetting time
Model
233.03
46.61
9.41
0.0052 Significant
X1
118.03
118.03 23.84
0.0018
X2
77.94
77.94
15.74
0.0054
X1 X2
0.20
0.6667
X1 2
29.59
29.59
5.98
0.0444
X2 2
3.29
3.29
0.66
0.4420
Residuals 34.66
4.95
Lack of
fit
34.66
11.55
Pure
error
0.000
0.000
Total
267.69
12
In-vitro dispersion time
Model
197.85
39.57
8.87
0.0061 Significant
X1
90.45
90.45
20.27
0.0028
X2
71.82
71.82
16.10
0.0051
X1 X2
2.25
2.25
0.50
0.5006
X1 2
24.46
24.46
5.48
0.0517
X2 2
5.33
5.33
1.19
0.3107
Residuals 31.23
4.46
Lack of
fit
31.23
10.41
Pure
error
0.000
0.000
Total
229.08
12
12
Ingredients
Quantities (mg)
Zaleplon-SD
70
SSG
3.83
CCS
4.12
Saccharine sodium 3
Mango flavor
qs
Talc
Aerosil
Mannitol
66.05
Total
150
Table 5: Comparison chart of predicted and experimental values for optimized formulation
Dependent variables
Optimized formulation
Predicted value
Experimental Value
20
18 1.73
24
25 2.64
13
Figure 1: Response surface plots showing the effect of amount of X1 and X2 on wetting time
fig. (A, A), Dispersion time fig. (B, B)
14