Development of hot-melt extrusion as a novel technique for the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.4: Mean standard deviation (SD) and relative standard deviation (RSD) for eachsolution.CTZ after 60s dissolutionsFormulations Mean SD Mean RSD (%) Interpretations of SDAC100 9 1.8 GoodACA10 10 1.8 GoodACE10 8 1.3 GoodPCA90 16 1.8 GoodPCE90 8 1.2 GoodPW 31 2.4 FairVRP after 60s dissolutionsAV100 9 0.6 GoodAVA10 18 1.2 GoodAVE10 8 0.6 GoodPVA90 7 0.4 GoodPVE90 11 0.9 GoodPW 17 1.0 GoodRSDSDx1003.7 In vitro drug release profilesThe dissolution rates of CTZ for both L100 and EZE extrudates were quite fast andapproximately 65% drug was released in 60 min while more than 80% was released in 3 hr(Fig 5.6a). Only a slightly higher release rate was observed for VRP based formulationswhich can be attributed to the less stronger interaction compared to CTZ with polymers in theextrudates [27] . The VRP release obtained after 3hr was above 95% (Fig 5.6b). As a resulteach of the extruded formulations can be applied for fast onset action dosage forms.101 | P a g e
Fig. 5.6a: Release profiles of CTZ extruded formulations (paddle speed 100 rpm, pH 1.2 (6.8after 2 hr), n=3).Furthermore, the difference of the release profiles of different formulations wasinvestigated by calculating the similarity factor (f 2 ). According to the FDA guidelines, releasecurves are considered similar when the calculated f2 is 50–100 [28] . The calculated differencefactor of all extruded formulation are summarised in Table 5.5.Table 5.5: Similarity factor (f2) for comparing release curves of CTZ and VRP formulationsFormulations Difference Factor (f2) Formulations Difference Factor (f2)CTZ/L100 Ref CTZ/L100 74.11CTZ/EZE 74.11 CTZ/EZEWhen CTZ/L100 is RefVRP/L100 49.16 VRP/L100 86.77VRP/EZE 48.80 VRP/EZEWhen VRP/L100 is RefThe derived release profile of extruded formulation containing CTZ/L100 differssignificantly from VRP/L100 and VRP/EZE formulations whereas CTZ/L100 is quite similarto CTZ/EZE. Similarly, VRP/L100 formulation exhibits similar release profile of VRP/EZEformulation as the calculated f2 value falls into 86.77 which in the 50-100 range according tothe aforementioned FDA guidelines.102 | P a g e
Page 3 and 4:
DECLARATION“I certify that this w
Page 6 and 7:
taste masking effect of the process
Page 8 and 9:
CHAPTER 2: DISSOLUTION ENHANCEMENT
Page 10 and 11:
3.2 Powder and ODT characterization
Page 12 and 13:
3.7 In vitro drug release profiles
Page 15:
3.1 Solubility parameters and extru
Page 18 and 19:
polymers.7.2 DSC findings of all AP
Page 20 and 21:
2.4b Diffractograms of FMT formulat
Page 22 and 23:
4.3 Schematic representation of the
Page 24 and 25:
55 exrudates (b) DPD/L100-55 PM (c)
Page 26 and 27:
8.5d A plot of the logarithm of HCS
Page 28 and 29:
L100Eudragit L100L100-55 Eudragit L
Page 30 and 31:
Maniruzzaman M, Rai D, Boateng JS.
Page 32 and 33:
Maniruzzaman M, Boateng JS, Bonnefi
Page 34 and 35:
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1.0 Backgrou
Page 36 and 37:
Table 1.1: HME and other convention
Page 38 and 39:
homogenize but also compress the ex
Page 40 and 41:
properties of polymers and excipien
Page 42 and 43:
particles‘ wettability [46] . A v
Page 44 and 45:
Table 1.2: Different hot-melt extru
Page 46 and 47:
1.8 Aims and objectivesThe purpose
Page 48 and 49:
29. Zheng X, Yang R, Tang X and Zhe
Page 50 and 51:
56. International Conference on Har
Page 52 and 53:
CHAPTER 2: DISSOLUTION ENHANCEMENT
Page 54 and 55:
Fdid ,Vi F2pip , p( Ehi/ ViVi )i =
Page 56 and 57:
used. Each sample was scanned from
Page 58 and 59:
Furthermore, by means of thermodyna
Page 60 and 61:
3.2 Particle size morphology and pa
Page 62 and 63:
Fig. 2.4a: Diffractograms of INM fo
Page 64 and 65:
However, the DSC thermograms of the
Page 66 and 67:
Fig. 2.5b: DSC thermograms of INM a
Page 68 and 69:
Fig. 2.5e: DSC thermograms of FMT a
Page 70 and 71:
Nevertheless, more than 80% FMT was
Page 72 and 73:
6. Caron V, Tajber L, Corrigan OI,
Page 74 and 75:
CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATI
Page 76 and 77:
2.2 Hot-Melt extrusionHot-melt extr
Page 78 and 79:
Committee of the University of Gree
Page 80 and 81:
The PM of formulation II (40% IBU)
Page 82 and 83:
Fig. 3.3: DSC thermograms of pure I
Page 84 and 85: As a general rule, the powder compr
Page 86 and 87: Fig. 3.4: Schematic diagram of ODT
Page 88 and 89: Fig. 3.5: Schematic diagram of ODTs
Page 90 and 91: Fig. 3.7: Schematic diagram of ODTs
Page 92 and 93: F2 0 0.5 0 1 0 1F6 0 0.5 0 1 0 2F7
Page 94 and 95: 6. M.F. Al-Omran, S.A. Al-Suwayeh,
Page 96 and 97: 30. L. Saerens, L. Dierickx, B. Len
Page 98 and 99: leading to significant variations w
Page 100 and 101: 2.6. In vitro drug release studiesI
Page 102 and 103: v2d 2p(4.1)Table 4.1: Calculated so
Page 104 and 105: The observed melting peaks are shif
Page 106 and 107: Fig. 4.2a: Powder XRPD patterns of
Page 108 and 109: Interestingly, no difference was ob
Page 110 and 111: 7 Astree sensors Taste masking effi
Page 112 and 113: The in vitro e-tongue evaluation wa
Page 114 and 115: 3. K. Woertz, C. Tissen, P. Kleineb
Page 116 and 117: 25. B.C. Hancock, P. York, R.C. Row
Page 118 and 119: CHAPTER 5: AN IN VIVO AND IN VITRO
Page 120 and 121: (dispersion forces and polarization
Page 122 and 123: Table 5.1: Sample preparation for t
Page 124 and 125: Table 5.2: Solubility parameters ca
Page 126 and 127: Physical mixtures (PM) and extruded
Page 128 and 129: Fig. 5.2c: Thermograms of CTZ and V
Page 130 and 131: masking effect for active concentra
Page 132 and 133: Fig. 5.5b: Distance and discriminat
Page 136 and 137: Fig. 5.6b: Release profiles of VRP
Page 138 and 139: 17. Woertz K,Tissen C, Kleinebudde
Page 140 and 141: scale or lower. XPS is more accurat
Page 142 and 143: patterns were identified after ener
Page 144 and 145: 3.3 Differential scanning calorimet
Page 146 and 147: Fig. 6.3a: Diffractograms of PRP fo
Page 148 and 149: good agreement with the anticipated
Page 150 and 151: Since L100 contained higher proport
Page 152 and 153: at ~533.01 eV is the combination of
Page 154 and 155: Finally, the XPS analysis confirmed
Page 156 and 157: Fig. 6.6b: 1 H NMR spectra of all P
Page 158 and 159: 6) Bonferoni, M.C.; Rossi, S.; Ferr
Page 160 and 161: 26) Vandencasteele, N.; Reniers, F.
Page 162 and 163: Gibbs free energy change before and
Page 164 and 165: 2.5 Hot-melt extrusion (HME) proces
Page 166 and 167: 2.11 X-ray photoelectron spectrosco
Page 168 and 169: Table 7.2: DSC findings of all APIs
Page 170 and 171: 3.4 In vivo and in vitro taste mask
Page 172 and 173: Fig. 7.3c: Normalised DI (%) of all
Page 174 and 175: Table 7.4: Binding energy calculati
Page 176 and 177: PRP/ polymers extruded in compariso
Page 178 and 179: atom as NH + 4 . This observed N 1s
Page 180 and 181: 8.0 ConclusionsThe presence of inte
Page 182 and 183: 20. Davies MC, Wilding IR, Short RD
Page 184 and 185:
CHAPTER 8: SUSTAINED RELEASE HYDROC
Page 186 and 187:
2.3 Preparation of formulation blen
Page 188 and 189:
medium pH was maintained as 1.2 by
Page 190 and 191:
Fig. 8.1: SEM images of [(a), (b)]
Page 192 and 193:
Fig. 8.2b: DSC transitions of HCS/E
Page 194 and 195:
in the range of 10-12 kP. However,
Page 196 and 197:
ate and time on the basis of Eq. (8
Page 198 and 199:
Fig. 8.5c: A plot of the cubic root
Page 200 and 201:
when n > 0.89. From the results of
Page 202 and 203:
14. Lam PL, Lee KKH,Wong RSM, Cheng
Page 204 and 205:
Furthermore, HME has successfully b
Page 206 and 207:
Supp. Fig. 2: XPS O 1s peaks for PR
Page 208 and 209:
Supp. Fig. 4: O 1s BE peaks for L10
Page 210 and 211:
8.2 s 6.2 s 3.8 s 1.8 s 200 msS
Page 212 and 213:
12.2 s 9.0 s 6.2 s 3.8 s 1.8 s
Page 214 and 215:
Supplementary table 1: Solubility p
Page 216 and 217:
N = 55000/ 219.2 = 250.912Density:
Page 218 and 219:
(4) Eudragit L100, N = (125000/202
show all

Development of hot-melt extrusion as a novel technique for the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?