Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Design Optimization and Evaluation of Gastric Floating Matrix Tablet of Glipizide

Lalit Singh1 , Arun Nanda2, Saurabh Sharma3, Vijay Sharma1

1Department of Pharmaceutics, SRMSCET, Pharmacy, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh; 2Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences MDU, Rohtak, Haryana; 3Vivek College of Technical Education, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, India.

For correspondence:-  Lalit Singh   Email: lalit4u78@rediffmail.com   Tel:+919412602860

Received: 5 October 2012        Accepted: 11 October 2013        Published: 24 December 2013

Citation: Singh L, Nanda A, Sharma S, Sharma V. Design Optimization and Evaluation of Gastric Floating Matrix Tablet of Glipizide. Trop J Pharm Res 2013; 12(6):869-876 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v12i6.2

© 2013 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To formulate an optimized gastric floating drug delivery system (GFDDS) containing glipizide with carbomers and cellulosic polymers.
Method: Central composite design (CCD) was employed in formulating the GFDDS using hydroxypropyl methylcellulose K4M (HPMC K4M) (A) and Carbopol 934P (CP934P) (B), as independent variables. Floating lag time (FLT), total floating time (TFT) and time required to release 50 % of the drug (T50) were selected as dependent variables. The dissolution data obtained were fitted to various release models and the floating profiles of the formulations analyzed.
Results: HPMC K4M loading clearly enhanced  floating properties while CP934P showed negative effect on floating properties but was helpful in controlling drug release. The quadratic mathematical model developed was used to predict optimum formulations. The computer optimization process, contour plots and response surface plots predicted the concentration of independent variables A and B to be 47.32 and 8.4 mg, respectively, for maximum TFT and T50 at the same time for least FLT.  Predicted concentration of independent variables showed the same results experimentally, with -0.75 - 1.47 percentage errors.
Conclusion: CCD demonstrated the role of the derived equations, contour plots and response surface plots in predicting the values of independent variables for the preparation and optimization of glipizide gastric floating matrix tablet.

Keywords: Effervescent, Floating tablet, Design of Experiment, Release kinetics, Central composite design, Optimization

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.523 (2021)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 39 (2021)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates