Research Article - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 3

Application of Statistical Tools-Mixture Optimal Designs on Optimization of Glipizide Controlled Release Tablets

Kunisetti Nagendra Babu* and A Deevan Paul
 
*Correspondence: Kunisetti Nagendra Babu, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai, India, Email:

Author info »

Abstract

The principal aim of this paper is to apply the experimental design of experiments (mixture designs) to formulate a solid dosage form (glipizide controlled release tablets) using push pull osmotic drug delivery systems through the study of the excipients and their proportion in the formulation. The effect of different formulation variable namely, amount of Poly ethylene oxide in push and pull layers, amount of sodium chloride in push layer and effect of percentage weight gain of semi permeable membrane which influence the dissolution on 4 hrs, 8 hrs and 16 hrs was analysed. The design space obtained range between 156.943 mg-160.246 mg of Poly ethylene oxide (3 Lakh Molecular Weight (MW)), 84.5853 mg-84.8986 mg of Poly ethylene oxide (70 Lakh Molecular Weight) and 30.169 mg-32.1584 mg of Sodium chloride. All factors having significant effect on dissolution.

Keywords

Osmotic controlled drug delivery systems, Push pull drug delivery systems, Design of experiments, I-optimal mixture designs

Introduction

Osmotic controlled drug delivery systems is one and only systems for zero order drug release (Release rate is independent on concentration of the drug). This is having following advantages:

• Maintenance of constant blood levels within the therapeutic window

• Enhanced bioavailability

• Reduced inter patient variability

• Decreased dosing frequency

• Improved patient compliance

• Reduced side effects

Glipizide is used along with diet and exercise, and sometimes with other medications, to treat type 2 diabetes (condition in which the body does not use insulin normally and, therefore, cannot control the amount of sugar in the blood). Glipizide is in a class of medications called sulfonylureas (Khavare NB,et al., 2010). Glipizide lowers blood sugar by causing the pancreas to produce insulin (a natural substance that is needed to break down sugar in the body) and helping the body use insulin efficiently. This medication will only help lower blood sugar in people whose bodies produce insulin naturally. Glipizide is not used to treat type 1 diabetes (condition in which the body does not produce insulin and, therefore, cannot control the amount of sugar in the blood) or diabetic ketoacidosis (a serious condition that may occur if high blood sugar is not treated). Due to short biological half-life (2 hr-4 hr) of glipizide, it was easy to extend 24 hours in the body to maintain the glucose levels by using controlled release tablets (Gupta BP,et al., 2010).

The mixture design is the most suitable method used in optimizing the tablet production process. For example, in four components of formulation:

X1+X2+X3+X4=Total sum of variables

There are many types of mixture design: Simplex-lattice design, simplex-centroid design, axial design, and D/I-optimal design. I-optimality minimizes the average prediction variance of model over a region of measurement parameters, so it is more naturally applied when know the form of the model and want "good" prediction over design space. For this reason, I-optimality finds more use in a response surface optimization context. As compared with other designs, I-optimal design has a smaller number of runs and thus needs low cost of experimentation. So, based on this strategy these design selected for this study (Wen H and Park K, 2011) (Tables 1 and 2).

Study Type Design Type Design Model Subtype Runs Blocks
Mixture I-optimal, Coordinate Exchange Quadratic Randomized 12 No Blocks

Table 1: Design studied in optimisation of glipizide controlled release tablets

Component Name Units Type Minimum Maximum
A PEO (MW 3 lakh) Mg Mixture 145 175
B PEO (MW 70 lakhs) Mg Mixture 80 90
C NaCl (Push layer) Mg Mixture 20 40
        Total 275

Table 2: Parameters studied in optimisation of glipizide controlled release tablets

Material and Methods

Materials

Glipizide taken from Orchid Health care, Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) (Grades-3 lakhs Molecular Weight, 50 lakhs Molecular Weight, 70 lakhs Molecular Weight, Opadry cellulose acetate and Opadry Pink taken from Dow and Colorcon respectively (Keraliya RA, et al., 2012). Microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel pH 101) used from Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation (FMC)/Signet Chemical Corporation Pvt Ltd. Magnesium stearate taken from Peter greven/S Zhaveri Pharmachem Pvt ltd. Iron oxide yellow taken from Sensient. NaCl, acetone and other analytical grades taken from Merk (Jamzad S and Fassihi R, 2006).

Methods

Preliminary study of screening the variables: From the literature the viscosity of the polyethylene oxide of low and high Molecular Weight was used in pull and push layer respectively (Verma RK and Garg S, 2004).

Initially, trails are started with low Molecular Weight polyethylene oxide (6 lakhs Molecular Weight) in pull layer and polyethylene oxide (70 lakhs Molecular Weight) for F1 Trail (Zhang Y, et al., 2003).

High Molecular Weight polyethylene oxide (3 lakhs Molecular Weight) in pull layer and polyethylene oxide (70 lakhs Molecular Weight) used for trial F2 (Tables 3 and 4).

Pull layer (drug layer)
Ingredients F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16
Glipizide 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
PEO
(3L MW)
160.00
(6L MW)
160 160.00 150.525 156.944 154.059 154.059 168.43 145.00 168.43 162.503 171.381 171.381 156.944 156.944 160.00
NaCl 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Micro Crystalline Cellulose 30.00 30.00 30.00 39.47 33.06 35.95 35.95 21.57 45.00 21.57 27.5 18.62 18.62 33.06 33.06 30.00
Magnesium stearate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00 211.00
Push layer
PEO
(70L MW)
85.00 90.00 85.00 90.00 85.8945 80.9407 80.9407 80.00 90.00 80.00 90.00 83.6188 83.6188 85.8945 85.8945 85.00
NaCl 30.00 34.475 30.00 34.475 32.1616 40.00 40.00 26.5702 40.00 26.5702 22.497 20.00 20.00 32.1616 32.1616 30.00
Micro crystalline cellulose 15.00 9.53 15.00 9.53 11.95 9.06 9.06 23.43 0.00 23.43 17.51 26.39 26.39 11.95 11.95 15.00
Iron oxide Yellow 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Magnesium stearate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 132.00
Semi permeable membrane (12%)
Opadry CA 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 27 (8%) 34 (10%)
Total 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 384.00 370.00 377.00
Colour coat (3.11%)
Opadry pink 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Total 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 396.00 382.00 389.00

Table 3: Formulation trails of Glipizide controlled release tablets

Time (hrs) F1 F2
0 0 0
1 0 0
2 2 1
4 13 10
8 30 32
16 48 70
20 58 77
24 62 80

Table 4: Percentage cumulative drug release of trails F1 and F2

Preparation of glipizide control release tablets using I-optimal mixture designs: Based on above trails Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) in both layers play a critical role along with Sodium chloride. So, these factors considered as Critical quality attributes (Thombre AG, et al., 2004).

Further, Polyethylene oxide (3 lakhs Molecular Weight) in pull layer, Polyethylene oxide (70 lakhs Molecular Weight) and Sodium chloride in Push layer was optimised using Mixture designs (Trails from F3-F14) (Table 5).

Run Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Response 1 Response 2 Response 3
A:PEO (MW 3 lakh) B:PEO (MW 70 lakhs)  C:NaCl (Push layer) Dissolution 4 hrs Dissolution 8 hrs Dissolution 16 hrs
Mg Mg Mg % % %
F3 160 85 30 10 32 73
F4 150.525 90 34.475 12 30 71
F5 156.944 85.8945 32.1616 10 30 70
F6 154.059 80.9407 40 18 30 68
F7 154.059 80.9407 40 19 31 66
F8 168.43 80 26.5702 7 28 78
F9 145 90 40 16 27 67
F10 168.43 80 26.5702 8 29 76
F11 162.503 90 22.4971 8 26 78
F12 171.381 83.6188 20 6 20 95
F13 171.381 83.6188 20 7 22 96
F14 156.944 85.8945 32.1616 11 29 71

Table 5: Percentage cumulative drug release of trails F3-F14

I-optimal mixture design was used to determine the optimum amount of ingredients used in the formulation toward the responses, which is dissolution at 4 hours, 8 hours and 16 hours of the tablet. The statistical parameters used in evaluating and selecting the best-fitted model are coefficient of determination, adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted), predicted coefficient of determination (predicted), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Standard Deviation (SD), Predicted Residual Sum of Squares (PRESS), lack-of-fit, and regression data (value and value) (Mangukia D, et al., 2012). The statistical analysis also constructs an equation from the best-fitted model. From the equation, the positivity of the coefficient presents the positive contribution toward the response, and vice versa. Also, a contour plot and three-dimensional response surface graph for each response were generated by Design-Expert Software (Tables 6 and 7).

Response Name Units Observations Analysis Minimum Maximum Mean SD Ratio Transform Model
R1 Dissolution 4 hrs % 12 Polynomial 6 19 11.00 4.43 3.17 None Quadratic
R2 Dissolution 8 hrs % 12 Polynomial 20 32 27.83 3.61 1.60 None Quadratic
R3 Dissolution 16 hrs % 12 Polynomial 66 96 75.75 10.04 1.45 None Special Cubic

Table 6: Response of formulation trails F3-F14

Variables A B C AB AC BC ABC
Dissolution 4 hr 5.46759 13.233 33.1018 0.718639 -23.2663 -46.9172  
p-values <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9645 0.0009 0.0348  
Dissolution 8 hrs 20.5752 41.9614 20.8186 -19.755 46.4674 -4.71225  
p-values 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.5394 0.0008 0.8938  
Dissolution 16 hrs 109.423 101.408 101.661 -122.345 -179.161 -155.348 543.964
p-values <0.0001 < 0.0001 <0.0001 0.1131 0.0007 0.0745 0.0073

Table 7: Coefficients table

Formulation and development: Formulation development trails conducted based on the values of mixture design observing the product characteristics and performance parameters like dissolution profile (Lu EX, et al., 2003) (Table 3).

Manufacturing procedure: Based on drug substance flow properties (Poor) wet granulation technique adopted (Aulton ME and Taylor K, 2013) (Figure 1).

Systematic-Review-osmotic

Figure 1: Manufacturing procedure for push-pull osmotic tablet

Based on design space, optimised trials of F5 and F14 was further selected for checking the effect of coating weight gain on drug release (Optimization of semi permeable membrane), F15, F16 trails performed for 8% and 10% weight gain respectively (Table 6).

Evaluation of Osmotic Tablets: These compression parameters are tested for uncoated and coated tablets: Assay, weight variation, hardness, friability, thickness, coating uniformity (for coated tablets), in vitro drug release studies (for coated tablets) (Jain NK, 2008).

These Pre-compression parameters are testes for optimised trails: Bulk density, tapped density, Carr’s index, Hausner’s Ratio, angle of repose and particle size distribution (Figures 2 and 3).

Systematic-Review-coated

Figure 2: Side view of uncoated bi layered, Semi-permeable membrane coated, Top coated osmotic tablets

Systematic-Review-laser

Figure 3: Top view of coated osmotic tablet with surface laser drilling

Results and Discussion

The following pre-compression parameters are obtained for trials F5 and F14:

1. Bulk density (g/mL): 0.42 for pull layer and 0.48 for push layer

2. Tapped density (g/mL): 0.54 for pull layer and 0.58 for push layer

3. Carr’s index (%): 22.2 for pull layer and 17.2 for push layer

4. Hausner’s ratio: 1.28 for pull layer and 1.20 for push layer

5. Flow character: Passable for pull layer and Fair for push layer

6. Angle of Repose: 32 for pull layer and 34 for push layer (Flow property is good)

7. Particle size distribution: #60 retention 22% for pull layer and 34% for push layer and base plate/fines 34% for push and pull layers.

The following Compression parameters are obtained for trials F1-F16:

1. Assay (95%-105%): All are trails are under mentioned range (97%-103%)

2. Average Weight (for 10 Tablets) of Uncoated bilayer tablet (3.43 g ± 3 g): All are trails are under mentioned range (3.41 g-3.46 g).

3. Individual Weight of Uncoated bilayer tablet (343 mg ± 5 mg): All are trails are under mentioned range (340 mg-348 mg).

Contour diagram and 3D diagram of relationship between three variables, A: Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) (3 Lakh Molecular Weight), B: Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) (70 Lakhs Molecular Weight), C: NaCl on Response: Dissolution in 4 hours, 8 hours and 16 hours are mentioned in graphical way (Figures 4-9) (Table 8).

Time (hrs) F15 F16
0 0 0
1 6 2
2 9 4
4 30 22
8 62 56
16 100 100
20 100 100
24 100 100

Table 8: Percentage cumulative drug release of trails F15 and F16

Systematic-Review-using

Figure 4: Contour diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 4 hours (%)

Systematic-Review-relationship

Figure 5:3D diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 4 hours (%)X

Systematic-Review-variables

Figure 6: Contour diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 8 hours (%)

Systematic-Review-diagram

Figure 7: 3D diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 8 hours (%)

Systematic-Review-between

Figure 8: Contour diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 16 hours (%)

Systematic-Review-variables

Figure 9: 3D diagram of relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg) on response 1: dissolution in 16 hours (%)

Optimisation of factors and response using overlay plot and design space obtained range between 156.943 mg-160.246 mg of Poly ethylene oxide (3 Lakh Molecular Weight), 84.5853 mg-84.8986 mg of Poly ethylene oxide (70 Lakh Molecular Weight) and 30.169 mg-32.1584 mg of Sodium chloride (Figure 10).

Systematic-Review-plot

Figure 10: Overlay plot for relationship between three variables by using Design-Expert® Software Trail Version (Component Coding: Actual), A: PEO (MW 3 Lakh) (mg), B: PEO (MW 70 Lakhs) (mg), C: NaCl (Push layer) (mg)

F15 and F16 clearly indicated that the effect of % weight gain of semi permeable membrane on dissolution (Zen NIM, et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Dissolution at 4 hrs, 8 hrs and 16 hrs of Glipizide control release tablets evaluated by using different factors namely Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) 3 lakhs in pull layer and Poly ethylene oxide (PEO) 70 lakhs and NaCl using mixure designs. All factors shows significant effect on dissolution clearly mentioned in contour diagram and 3D diagrams as well as percentage weight gain of semi permeable membrane having significant effect on dissolution.

References

Author Info

Kunisetti Nagendra Babu* and A Deevan Paul
 
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai, India
 

Citation: Babu KN: Application of Statistical Tools-Mixture Optimal Designs on Optimization of Glipizide Controlled Release Tablets

Received: 07-Feb-2022 Accepted: 22-Feb-2022 Published: 01-Mar-2022, DOI: 10.31858/0975-8453.13.3.188-195

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Most Viewed Articles
  • Dental Development between Assisted Reproductive Therapy (Art) and Natural Conceived Children: A Comparative Pilot Study Norzaiti Mohd Kenali, Naimah Hasanah Mohd Fathil, Norbasyirah Bohari, Ahmad Faisal Ismail, Roszaman Ramli SRP. 2020; 11(1): 01-06 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2020.1.01
  • Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of life instrument, short form: Validity in the Vietnamese healthcare context Trung Quang Vo*, Bao Tran Thuy Tran, Ngan Thuy Nguyen, Tram ThiHuyen Nguyen, Thuy Phan Chung Tran SRP. 2020; 11(1): 14-22 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1.3
  • A Review of Pharmacoeconomics: the key to “Healthcare for All” Hasamnis AA, Patil SS, Shaik Imam, Narendiran K SRP. 2019; 10(1): s40-s42 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1s.21
  • Deuterium Depleted Water as an Adjuvant in Treatment of Cancer Anton Syroeshkin, Olga Levitskaya, Elena Uspenskaya, Tatiana Pleteneva, Daria Romaykina, Daria Ermakova SRP. 2019; 10(1): 112-117 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1.19
Most Downloaded
  • Dental Development between Assisted Reproductive Therapy (Art) and Natural Conceived Children: A Comparative Pilot Study Norzaiti Mohd Kenali, Naimah Hasanah Mohd Fathil, Norbasyirah Bohari, Ahmad Faisal Ismail, Roszaman Ramli SRP. 2020; 11(1): 01-06 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2020.1.01
  • Manilkara zapota (L.) Royen Fruit Peel: A Phytochemical and Pharmacological Review Karle Pravin P, Dhawale Shashikant C SRP. 2019; 10(1): 11-14 » doi: 0.5530/srp.2019.1.2
  • Pharmacognostic and Phytopharmacological Overview on Bombax ceiba Pankaj Haribhau Chaudhary, Mukund Ganeshrao Tawar SRP. 2019; 10(1): 20-25 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1.4
  • A Review of Pharmacoeconomics: the key to “Healthcare for All” Hasamnis AA, Patil SS, Shaik Imam, Narendiran K SRP. 2019; 10(1): s40-s42 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1s.21
  • A Prospective Review on Phyto-Pharmacological Aspects of Andrographis paniculata Govindraj Akilandeswari, Arumugam Vijaya Anand, Palanisamy Sampathkumar, Puthamohan Vinayaga Moorthi, Basavaraju Preethi SRP. 2019; 10(1): 15-19 » doi: 10.5530/srp.2019.1.3