Loknete Shri Dada patil pharate College of pharmacy
"An ultra-thin film containing an active ingredient that dissolves or disintegrates in the saliva at aremarkably fast rate, within few seconds without the aid of water or chewing," is the definition ofa fast-dissolving oral film (FDOF). The most up-to-date oral solid dosage form is fast-dissolving oral films (FDOFs), which provide more comfort and flexibility. It improves the absorption of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) by dissolving them in saliva and allowing them to be swallowed without chewing or water. The oral mucosa is four to a thousand times more permeable than the epidermis, allowing for rapid drug absorption and rapid bioavailability. Formulated drug- opening foams (FDOFs) are made from hydrophilic polymers that dissolve rapidly in the mouth and release the medication into the bloodstream via the buccal mucosa. [1] A fast-dissolving drug delivery method is developed to enhance bioavailability of drugs with modest dosages and significant first-pass metabolism.
1.2 Oral Dissolving Film Theory:
In this setup, a thin film is present. Sublingual administration improves bioavailability because the drug dissolves faster and bypasses first-pass metabolism. Because SA is more easily absorbed, it breaks down and dissolves rapidly in the mouth. The following are the three main types of oral films:
1. Films have a rapid dissolving or releasing time (when held to the mouth).
2. Mucoadhesive films that dissolve (for use in the buccal or gingival area). The third option is buccal mucosa-adhering sustained-release films. [3]
1.3 Mechanism of oral mouth dissolving film theory:
Figure 1: Mechanism of oral mouth dissolving film theory
Figure 2: Mouth-dissolving film
1.4 Need for fast-dissolving drug delivery systems: [4]
Patients with dysphasia may find it easier to take their medication as prescribed when it dissolves quickly. If a medicine is subject to patent protection, the marketing department will find that FDDS is a useful tool for managing the medical life cycle.
METHODS
1 Solvent casting method [81]
Fast dissolving films were prepared by solvent casting method as per the composition shown in table 1.In this method, the required quantity of water soluble polymer Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose was dissolved in distilled water in a beaker (covered with aluminium foil) with continuous stirring on magnetic stirrer to make required percentage of polymer solution and then the weighed quantity of ingredients like lisinopril as drug , glycerol as plasticizer, and menthol a flavor, Saccharin sodium as Sweetening agent was dissolved in distilled water in another beaker and then this mixture was added to the polymer solution. After continuous stirring for 2 hours the solution was left undisturbed for 12 – 16 hours to remove all the air bubbles. This polymeric – drug solution was then poured on to the moulds, allowed to air dry , packed in aluminum foil and then stored in desiccators until use.
Advantages
• Film has a fine gloss and is devoid of flaws like die lines, and it has superior uniformity of thickness and clarity to extrusion.
• The recommended finished film thickness is typically 12-100 m; however different
thicknesses are available to fulfill API loading and dissolving needs. The film has better physical qualitiesand is more flexible.
Disadvantages:
1. The polymer needs to be soluble in water or a volatile solvent.
2. It is ideal to generate a stable solution with a reasonable minimum solid content and viscosity.
3. It must be feasible to create a homogeneous film and be released from the casting support.
6.2.2 Experimental Design [82]
Box–Behnken design was employed to studythe effect of each independent variable on dependent variables Disintegration time (sec), Drug content (%) and Drug release (%) Lisinopril film formulation were prepared by solvent casting method.The Lisinopril film were optimized by using Box-Behnken Experimental Design (3 Factor, 2 Level, and DesignExpert Version 13). The independent variables selected were Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose(mg) (X1), Sodium starch glycolate(mg) (X2) and Glycerol(ml) (X3) with their low and high levels for preparing 13 run of formulations and dependent variable selected were Disintegration time(sec) ,( wetting time (sec)and Drug release (%). Finally optimized was selected for further characterization.
Table 14: DOE suggested and experimental batches
Formulation code |
Lisinopril (mg) |
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (mg) |
Sodium starch glycolate(mg) |
Glycerol (ml) |
Saccharin sodium (mg) |
Menthol (ml) |
Distilled water(ml) |
L1 |
158.96 |
450 |
10 |
0.5 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L2 |
158.96 |
450 |
11 |
0.75 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L3 |
158.96 |
650 |
10 |
0.75 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L4 |
158.96 |
650 |
12 |
0.75 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L5 |
158.96 |
250 |
11 |
1 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L6 |
158.96 |
250 |
11 |
0.5 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L7 |
158.96 |
250 |
10 |
0.75 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L8 |
158.96 |
450 |
10 |
1 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L9 |
158.96 |
650 |
11 |
1 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L10 |
158.96 |
450 |
12 |
1 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L11 |
158.96 |
250 |
12 |
0.75 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L12 |
158.96 |
450 |
12 |
0.5 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
L13 |
158.96 |
650 |
11 |
0.5 |
10 |
Q. S |
Q. S |
Calculation for Petri Dish
Diameter of Petri dish = 9cm Area of circle =
= 3.14 × 4.5 × 4.5
=63.585 cm2
Area of Single patch = L × W Area of Single patch =2×2
= 4 cm2
So, Total no of films = 63.585 / 4
=15.89
Total amount of drug requires = i.e. (Total no of films × Dose of drug) = 15.896×10 Total amount of drug require =158.96 mg
Table 15: List of independent variable and dependent variable on box Behnken design
Independent Variable |
Low (-1) |
High (+) |
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose(mg) |
250 |
450 |
starch glycolate(mg) |
10 |
12 |
Glycerol(ml) |
0.5 |
1 |
Dependent Variable |
Constraint |
|
Disintegration time(sec) |
Maximize |
|
Drug content (%) |
Maximize |
|
Drug release (%) |
Maximize |
|
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
7.1 PREFORMULATION STUDY
7.1.1 Identification of drug
1.1.1.1 Appearance
7.1.1.2 Active pharmaceutical ingredient: Lisinopril
7.1.2 Melting point
The capillary tube method was used to determine the melting point. The melting point of Lisinopril was found to be 164 and recorded melting point of Lisinopril 162-165 °C.
Table 16: Observation of melting point
Drug name |
Observed value |
Reported value |
Lisinopril |
164 |
162-165 |
Figure 10: Melting point of Lisinopril
7.1.3 Solubility study of lisinopril
The solubility study of lisinopril across various mediums reveals that methanol provides the highest solubility at 48.16 mg/mL, making it the most effective solvent for dissolving lisinopril. Ethanol (30.14 mg/mL) and distilled water (29.14 mg/mL) also demonstrate good solubility, suggesting they are suitable alternatives for formulation purposes.
Table 17: Solubility in different Medium
Medium |
Solubility(mg/ml) |
Distilled water |
29.14 |
Methanol |
48.16 |
Ethanol |
30.14 |
Phosphate buffer ph 6.8 |
28.46 |
Phosphate buffer ph 7.4 |
26.54 |
Acidic buffer |
21.46 |
Figure 11: Solubility in different Medium
7.1.2 Spectrophotometric characterization of Lisinopril in UV Spectroscopy
7.1.2.1 Detection of Absorption Maxima (λ max)
Table 18: Observation of λmax
Drug name |
Observed value(nm) |
Reported value(nm) |
Cilnidipine |
210 |
210-220 |
7.1.2.2 Calibration curve
Table 19: Calibration curve in Distilled water
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.015 |
4 |
0.021 |
6 |
0.035 |
8 |
0.052 |
10 |
0.062 |
12 |
0.071 |
Figure 12: Calibration curve in Distilled water
Equation |
y = 0.006x + 0.0004 |
Correlation coefficient |
0.9909 |
7.1.2.2.2 Calibration curve in Methanol
Table 20: Calibration curve in Methanol
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.125 |
4 |
0.235 |
6 |
0.354 |
8 |
0.487 |
10 |
0.587 |
12 |
0.747 |
Figure 13: Calibration curve in Methanol
Equation |
y = 0.061x - 0.004 |
Correlation coefficient |
0.9979 |
7.1.2.2.3 Calibration curve in Ethanol
Table 21: Calibration curve in Ethanol
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.125 |
4 |
0.185 |
6 |
0.350 |
8 |
0.427 |
10 |
0.589 |
12 |
0.647 |
Figure 14: Calibration curve in ethanol
Equation |
y = 0.0556x - 0.0015 |
Correlation coefficient |
0.9895 |
7.1.2.2.4 Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 6.8
Table 22: Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 6.8
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.012 |
4 |
0.125 |
6 |
0.251 |
8 |
0.416 |
10 |
0.520 |
12 |
0.640 |
Figure 15: Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 6.8
Equation |
y = 0.0576x - 0.0652 |
Correlation coefficient |
0.9767 |
7.1.2.2.5 Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 7.4
Table 23: Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 7.4
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.125 |
4 |
0.198 |
6 |
0.224 |
8 |
0.314 |
10 |
0.456 |
12 |
0.489 |
Figure 16: Calibration curve in Phosphate buffer pH 7.4
Equation |
y = 0.0401x + 0.0175 |
Correlation coefficient |
0.9745 |
7.1.2.2.6 Calibration curve in Acidic buffer pH 1.2
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.122 |
4 |
0.132 |
6 |
0.169 |
8 |
0.241 |
10 |
0.3997 |
12 |
0.487 |
Figure 17: Calibration curve in Acidic buffer pH 1.2
7.2 Post Formulation Study
7.2.1 Transparency
Physical appearance of the formulations. The clear transparency indicates that there are no visible particles or impurities present in any of the formulations. Additionally, the optimization of batch L8 suggests that it meets the desired criteria for clarity and uniformity, making it the preferred choice for further development or use in applications requiring clear formulations.
Table 25: Transparency of L1to L13
Formulation code |
Transparency |
L1 |
Clear |
L2 |
Clear |
L3 |
Clear |
L4 |
Clear |
L5 |
Clear |
L6 |
Clear |
L7 |
Clear |
L8 |
Clear |
L9 |
Clear |
L10 |
Clear |
L11 |
Clear |
L12 |
Clear |
L13 |
Clear |
7.2.2Weight Variation
The optimized batch (L8) of the fast dissolving film formulation exhibited a weight variation of 46.4 ± 0.24. This result indicates a consistent weight among different units of the film, ensuring uniformity in dosage. A low variation in weight is crucial for maintaining the quality and efficacy of the pharmaceutical product. Therefore, batch L8 meets the desired standards for weight uniformity in the formulation.
26: Weight Variation L1to L13
Formulation code |
Weight Variation (mg) |
L1 |
54.6±0.01 |
L2 |
62.56±0.02 |
L3 |
58.46±0.03 |
L4 |
89.1±0.01 |
L5 |
79.9±0..05 |
L6 |
87.3±0.12 |
L7 |
91.46±0.03 |
L8 |
46.4±0.24 |
L9 |
79±0.03 |
L10 |
47±0.15 |
L11 |
49±0.02 |
L12 |
36.56±0.06 |
L13 |
62.3±0.005 |
7.2.3 Moisture content
Moisture content data, formulation L8 emerges as the optimized choice due to its comparatively low moisture content of 2.7% ± 0.546.
27: Moisture content L1to L13
Formulation code |
Moisture content (%) |
L1 |
4 ± 0.879 |
L2 |
5 ± 0.546 |
L3 |
4.5 ± 0.442 |
L4 |
6± 0.534 |
L5 |
5.2 ± 0.945 |
L6 |
6.2± 0.764 |
L7 |
7 .1± 0.345 |
L8 |
2.7± 0.546 |
L9 |
5.4± 0.142 |
L10 |
4.6± 0.503 |
L11 |
3±0.511 |
L12 |
2.9±0.234 |
L13 |
3.5±0.141 |
7.2.4 Thickness (mm)
The optimized batch (L8) of the fast dissolving film formulation exhibited a thickness of 0.14 ± 0.010 mm.
28: Thickness (mm) L1to L13
Formulation code |
Thickness(mm) |
L1 |
0.11 ± 0.0.1 |
L2 |
0.13 ± 0.0.2 |
L3 |
0.10 ± 0.01 |
L4 |
0.16 ± 0.005 |
L5 |
0.15 ± 0.03 |
L6 |
0.14 ± 0.04 |
L7 |
0.9 ± 0.005 |
L8 |
0.14 ± 0.010 |
L9 |
0.16 ± 0.005 |
L10 |
0.11 ± 0.05 |
L11 |
0.9±0.01 |
L12 |
0.17±0.02 |
L13 |
0.15±0.04 |
7.2.5 Folding endurance study
The optimized batch (l8) of the fast dissolving film formulation demonstrated excellent folding endurance, with a value exceeding 300.
29: Folding endurance L1to L13
Formulation code |
Folding endurance |
L1 |
> 300 |
L2 |
> 300 |
L3 |
> 300 |
L4 |
150 |
L5 |
209 |
L6 |
> 300 |
L7 |
124 |
L8 |
> 300 |
L9 |
130 |
L10 |
> 300 |
L11 |
> 300 |
L12 |
> 300 |
L13 |
> 300 |
7.2.6 Surface pH
The optimized fast dissolving film formulation (l8) exhibited a pH of 6.1.
Table 30: PH of L1to L13
Formulation code |
ph |
L1 |
6.3±0.002 |
L2 |
6.40. ±003 |
L3 |
6.13±0.06 |
L4 |
6.7±0.07 |
L5 |
6.5±0.07 |
L6 |
6.83±0.06 |
L7 |
7.13±0.05 |
L8 |
6.1±0.06 |
L9 |
6.94±0.03 |
L10 |
6.67±0.04 |
L11 |
6.70±0.06 |
L12 |
6.56±0.05 |
L13 |
6.59±0.012 |
7.2.7 Drug Content (%)
Formulation L8 exhibits the highest drug content among the tested formulations, with a percentage of 96.48%.
Table 31: Drug Content (%) of L1to L13
Formulation code |
Drug Content (%) |
L1 |
87.89 |
L2 |
90.16 |
L3 |
89.98 |
L4 |
93 |
L5 |
86.65 |
L6 |
73.56 |
L7 |
89.13 |
L8 |
96.48 |
L9 |
88.36 |
L10 |
94.56 |
L11 |
79 |
L12 |
78.46 |
L13 |
88.49 |
ANOVA for Linear model Response 2: Drug content
Source |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F- value |
p- value |
|
Model |
343.74 |
3 |
114.58 |
5.62 |
0.0189 |
significant |
A-Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose |
123.95 |
1 |
123.95 |
6.08 |
0.0358 |
|
B-Sodium starch glycolate |
42.60 |
1 |
42.60 |
2.09 |
0.1823 |
|
C-glycerol |
177.19 |
1 |
177.19 |
8.69 |
0.0163 |
|
Residual |
183.52 |
9 |
20.39 |
|
|
|
Cor Total |
527.26 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
Factor coding is coded.
Sum of squares is Type III - Partial
Figure 18: Counter plot
Figure 19: Predicted vs Actual plot
Figure 20: 3D Surface plot
7.2.8 Tensile strength (N/mm²)
The tensile strength of formulation L8 is determined to be 3.4 ± 0.14 N/mm², positioning it as the optimized batch among the formulations tested. This suggests that formulation L8 possesses favorable mechanical characteristics, which are crucial for the integrity and performance of the product.
Table 32: Tensile strength (N/mm²) of L1to L13
Formulation code |
Tensile strength((N/mm²)) |
L1 |
5.3 ± 0.01 |
L2 |
6.9 ± 0.02 |
L3 |
6.8 ± 0.04 |
L4 |
4.3 ± 0.02 |
L5 |
3.9 ± 0.03 |
L6 |
9.5 ± 0.02 |
L7 |
4.1 ± 0.23 |
L8 |
3.4 ± 0.14 |
L9 |
4.8 ± 0.05 |
L10 |
7.6 ± 0.04 |
L11 |
5.4 ± 0.03 |
L12 |
6.7 ± 0.13 |
L13 |
7.4 ± 0.5 |
7.2.9 Percentage elongation (%)
Percentage elongation for various formulations ranges from 13.6% to 45.26%.
Table 33: Percentage elongation (%) of L1to L13
Formulation code |
Percentage elongation (%) |
L1 |
27.4 ± 0.12 |
L2 |
33.2 ± 0.07 |
L3 |
34.2 ± 0.01 |
L4 |
17.0 ± 0.14 |
L5 |
16.8 ± 0.34 |
L6 |
45.26 ± 0.010 |
L7 |
13.6± 0.05 |
L8 |
39.3 ± 0.12 |
L9 |
22.1 ± 0.30 |
L10 |
37.0 ± 0.15 |
L11 |
26.5 ± 0.10 |
L12 |
30.3 ± 0.07 |
L13 |
38.0 ± 0.14 |
7.2.10. in Vitro Disintegration Time
The disintegration time for various formulations of fast-dissolving oral films (batch L8) ranges from 22 to 62 seconds.
Table 34: Disintegration Time of L1to L13
Formulation code |
Disintegration Time(sec) |
L1 |
35 |
L2 |
38 |
L3 |
53 |
L4 |
62 |
L5 |
29 |
L6 |
28 |
L7 |
32 |
L8 |
22 |
L9 |
53 |
L10 |
27 |
L11 |
30 |
L12 |
43 |
L13 |
37 |
ANOVA for Linear model Response 1: disintegration time
Source |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F- value |
p- value |
|
Model |
992.50 |
3 |
330.83 |
4.11 |
0.0431 |
significant |
A-Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose |
924.50 |
1 |
924.50 |
11.48 |
0.0080 |
|
B-Sodium starch glycolate |
50.00 |
1 |
50.00 |
0.6211 |
0.4509 |
|
C-glycerol |
18.00 |
1 |
18.00 |
0.2236 |
0.6476 |
|
Residual |
724.58 |
9 |
80.51 |
|
|
|
Cor Total |
1717.08 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Factor coding is coded.
Sum of squares is Type III - Partial
Figure 21: Counter plot
Figure 22: Predicted vs Actual plot
Figure 23: 3D Surface plot
7.2.11 In Vitro drug release study
The in-vitro diffusion study for the L8 optimized batch shows exceptional performance, with an initial drug release of 20.56% ± 0.04 at 1 minute and reaching a near-complete release of 98.99% ± 0.687 at 10 minutes.
Table 35: Drug release of L1-L6
Time (min) |
L1 |
L2 |
L3 |
L4 |
L5 |
L6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
23.56±0.01 |
19.46±0.03 |
15.46±0.03 |
20.46±0.03 |
17.89±0.005 |
17.89±0.05 |
2 |
35.56±0.02 |
32.56±0.06 |
30.12±0.01 |
30.44±0.05 |
29.45±0.156 |
28.79±0.01 |
3 |
45.63±0.123 |
44.78±0.05 |
41.35±0.156 |
43.56±0.06 |
38.89±0.05 |
35.44±0.02 |
4 |
52.64±0.05 |
50.16±0.04 |
50.66±0.04 |
53.49±0.08 |
49.89±0.063 |
49.76±0.05 |
5 |
62.49±0.03 |
64.64±0.346 |
58.79±0.04 |
61.44±0.07 |
57.89±0.741 |
53.66±0.06 |
6 |
69.25±0.01 |
69.77±0.254 |
63.55±0.632 |
73.89±0.05 |
68.79±0.523 |
69.88±0.05 |
7 |
73.44±0.06 |
74.56±0.03 |
71.46±0.542 |
77.46±0.04 |
74.56±0.03 |
79.98±.01 |
8 |
78.36±0.314 |
81.66±0.02 |
79.86±0.31 |
84.53±0.01 |
80.16±0.04 |
86.56±0.03 |
9 |
84.56±0.03 |
88.66±0.467 |
86.56±0.04 |
89.65±0.02 |
85.66±0.345 |
90.16±0.04 |
10 |
86±0.146 |
90.13±0.05 |
89.46±0.03 |
91±0.01 |
89.87±0.01 |
94.58±0.01 |
All values expressed as mean ± SD (n=3)
Table 36: Drug release of L7-L13
Time (min) |
L7 |
L8 |
L9 |
L10 |
L11 |
L12 |
L13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
16.56±0.04 |
20.56±0.04 |
18.46±0.05 |
13.56±0.05 |
12.55±0.01 |
9.56±0.05 |
8.56±0.425 |
2 |
26.55±0.05 |
29.65±0.05 |
25.46±0.146 |
24.63±0.03 |
20.33±0.05 |
19.87±0.01 |
15.65±0.347 |
3 |
38.79±0.01 |
38.46±0.02 |
34.56±0.364 |
36.87±0.01 |
32.46±0.031 |
21.59±0.324 |
23.49±0.387 |
4 |
47.36±0.05 |
46.78±0.451 |
40.13±0.87 |
43.56±0.06 |
41.38±0.415 |
35.49±0.631 |
30.44±0.14 |
5 |
54.65±0.03 |
53.25±0.01 |
49.65±0.125 |
54.68±0.04 |
49.50.056± |
43.99±0.956 |
39.76±0.462 |
6 |
67.89±0.136 |
63.54±0.02 |
51.32±0.236 |
61.65±0.03 |
53.66±0.03 |
54.87±0.843 |
43.56±0.25 |
7 |
76.56±0.05 |
72.46±0.05 |
60.15±0.123 |
78.36±0.01 |
69.78±0.01 |
61.47±0.14 |
51.36±0.12 |
8 |
83.56±0.06 |
88.13±0.136 |
79.56±0.654 |
82.56±0.364 |
72.35±0.54 |
67.84±01 |
59.34±0.05 |
9 |
89.46±0.05 |
84.56±0.122 |
87.65±0.321 |
88.46±0.325 |
79.88±0.12 |
70.16±0.2 |
67.23±0.631 |
10 |
92.46±0.01 |
98.99±0.687 |
93±0.487 |
92±0.02 |
83±0.51 |
73±0.514 |
71±0.47 |
Figure 24: Drug Release of L1-L13
Kinetic analysis of drug release-
In order to define the release mechanism that gives the best description of the release pattern; the in vitro release data for all optimized batches were fitted to kinetic equations models. The kinetic equations were used i.e., zero, first-order and Higuchi model. Both the kinetic rate constant (k) and the determination coefficient (R2) were calculated and presented in below graphs. The best fit model with the highest determination coefficient (R2) value for optimized batch was Zero order model.
Figure 25: Zero order model of L1-L13
Table 37: Zero Order Model (L8)
Zero Order Model |
|
Formulation Code |
R2 Value |
L8 |
0.9809 |
Figure 26: First order model of L1-L13
Table 38: First Order Model (L8)
First Order Model |
|
Formulation Code |
R2 Value |
L8 |
0.6074 |
Figure 27: Higuchi Model of L1-L13
Table 39: Higuchi Model (L8)
Higuchi Model |
|
Formulation Code |
R2 Value |
L8 |
0.954 |
ANOVA for 2FI model Response 3: Drug release
Source |
Sum Squares of |
df |
Mean Square |
F- value |
p- value |
|
Model |
648.41 |
6 |
108.07 |
4.67 |
0.0413 |
significant |
A-Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose |
29.84 |
1 |
29.84 |
1.29 |
0.2993 |
|
B-Sodium glycolate starch |
97.37 |
1 |
97.37 |
4.21 |
0.0860 |
|
C-glycerol |
303.56 |
1 |
303.56 |
13.13 |
0.0110 |
|
AB |
30.25 |
1 |
30.25 |
1.31 |
0.2962 |
|
AC |
178.36 |
1 |
178.36 |
7.72 |
0.0321 |
|
BC |
9.03 |
1 |
9.03 |
0.3906 |
0.5550 |
|
Residual |
138.71 |
6 |
23.12 |
|
|
|
Cor Total |
787.12 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
Final Equation in Terms of Actual Factors
Drug release |
= |
+274.99738 |
|
-0.261069 |
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose |
-14.18375 |
Sodium starch glycolate |
-101.56750 |
glycerol |
+0.013750 |
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose * Sodium starch glycolate |
+0.133550 |
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose * glycerol |
+6.01000 |
Sodium starch glycolate * glycerol |
The equation in terms of actual factors can be used to make predictions about the response for given levels of each factor. Here, the levels should be specified in the original units for each factor. This equation should not be used to determine the relative impact of each factor because the coefficients are scaled to accommodate the units of each factor and the intercept is not at the center of the design space.
Figure 28: Counter plot
Figure 29: Predicted vs Actual plot
Figure: 30 3D Surface plot
7.2.12 Ex- vivo diffusion study
The ex-vivo diffusion study demonstrates that L8 is the optimized batch, showing superior performance among formulations L1-L13. L8 exhibits rapid initial drug permeation at 1 minute (19.63% ± 0.03), maintains high permeation at 5 minutes (54.18% ± 0.03), and achieves near- complete permeation at 10 minutes (97.89% ± 0.51).
Table 40: Drug permeation of L1-L7
Time (min) |
L1 |
L2 |
L3 |
L4 |
L5 |
L6 |
L7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
12.56±0 .12 |
13.46±0. 05 |
15.60±0. 02 |
14.32±0.05 4 |
18.97±0.06 |
14.56±00 .03 |
14.35± 0.06 |
2 |
24.53±0 .02 |
38.79±0. 31 |
29.87±0. 01 |
26.54±0.03 6 |
28.46±0.01 |
23.55±0. 01 |
25.46±0 .02 |
3 |
39.87±0 .05 |
39.74±0. 01 |
34.12±0. 146 |
38.78±0.74 3 |
37.40.056±0 .453 |
32.45±0. 06 |
35.46±0 .03 |
4 |
49.46±0 .06 |
47.13±0. 02 |
45.66±0. 036 |
40.12±0.32 4 |
42.33±0.221 |
40.18±0. 01 |
45.56±0 .01 |
5 |
57.32±0 .01 |
57.88±0. 03 |
56.49±0. 045 |
51.46±0.34 7 |
54.79±0.654 |
50.16±0. 05 |
53.65±0 .05 |
6 |
68.74±0 .05 |
67.36±0. 354 |
68.47±0. 01 |
63.48±0.51 113 |
62.15±0.716 |
64.53±0. 01 |
66.49±0 .01 |
8 |
79.85±0 .06 |
80.16±0. 345 |
78.46±0. 02 |
67.16±0.02 |
65.49±0.02 |
72.13±0. 05 |
73.56±0 .06 |
9 |
82.46±0 .05 |
80.46±0. 06 |
86.45±0. 04 |
78.45±0.01 |
76.88±0.01 |
84.56±0. 06 |
86.65±0 .01 |
10 |
89.12±0 .01 |
90.12±0. 04 |
89.71±0. 123 |
87.89±0.00 3 |
91.11±0.05 |
93.56±0. 01 |
90.12±0 .01 |
All values expressed as mean ±STD
Table 41: Drug permeation of L8-L13
Time (min) |
L8 |
L9 |
L10 |
L11 |
L12 |
L13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
19.63±0.03 |
15.32±0.01 |
13.46±0.18 |
12.01±0.01 |
11.87±0.87 |
14.56±0.06 |
2 |
38.79±0.01 |
26.53±0.35 |
20.46±0.97 |
21.35±0.02 |
18.96±0.364 |
21.56±0.07 |
3 |
38.79±0.04 |
37.89±0.14 |
37.46±0.87 |
34.55±0.79 |
29.56±0.254 |
30.16±0.05 |
4 |
49.78±0.14 |
43.56±0.34 |
48.32±0.78 |
49.97±0.87 |
37.13±0.387 |
40.13±0.03 |
5 |
54.18±0.03 |
53.14±0.65 |
58.94±0.65 |
52.36±0.54 |
46.25±0.964 |
51.36±0.54 |
6 |
65.87±0.05 |
65.44±0.33 |
69.88±0.34 |
67.46±0.94 |
53.44±0.03 |
61.45±0.63 |
8 |
75.59±0.04 |
78.93±0.62 |
77.65±0.34 |
78.98 ±0.1 |
64.31±0.04 |
72.36±0.74 |
9 |
87.89±0.01 |
86.54±0.87 |
89.13±0.12 |
80.16±0.02 |
75.66±0.05 |
81.13±0.34 |
10 |
97.89±0.51 |
94.56±0.961 |
91.23±0.47 |
88.87±0.01 |
80.13±0.03 |
89.56±0.01 |
Figure 31: % Drug Permeation of L1-L13
7.2.13 Stability study
The stability studies of the L8 optimized batch indicate excellent stability over a 90-day period. The drug content remains consistent at 96.48% throughout the study, demonstrating that the active ingredient's concentration does not degrade over time.
Table 41: Stability studies data of L8 optimized batch
Sr.no |
Time in days |
Drug Content (%) |
Disintegration time (sec) |
In –vitro drug release (%) |
1. |
Initial (0 days) |
96.48 |
22 |
98.99 |
2. |
1 month (30 days) |
96.48 |
22 |
98.99 |
3. |
3 months(90days) |
96.48 |
21 |
98.78 |
CONCLUSION
The formulation study of Lisinopril tablets identified Batch L8 as the most promising candidate due to its superior physical and chemical properties. It displayed consistent weight, ideal pH, appropriate viscosity, high drug content, and an excellent in vitro release profile, with 98.67% of the drug released over 12 hours. The stability of Batch L8 was confirmed through zeta potential measurements and long-term stability testing, making it a suitable candidate for further development and potential clinical application
REFERENCE
Siddhesh Gawari*, S. R. Ghodake, Formulation and Evaluation of Fast Dissolving Film of Lisinopril, Int. J. Sci. R. Tech., 2025, 2 (4), 664-689. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15304422