Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 225
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017
STUDIES ON FILM COATED PULSATILE RELEASE FORMULATION OF
DIACEREIN
Naimish A. Sarkhejiya1*, Praful D. Bharadia2
1Senior Research Fellow, Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Adalaj, Gandhinagar-382421, Gujarat, India.2Professor, L. M. College of Pharmacy, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India.
ABSTRACTThe objective of this study was to design and evaluate film coated pulsatile release formulationof Diacerein (use as a model drug) according to circadian rhythm. Cores containing Diacereindrug were prepared by direct compression method using croscarmellose sodium as a superdisintegrant. Core tablets were coated sequentially with pH dependent polymer of Eudragit S100and Eudragit L100. Coating solution was prepared by Eudragit S100 and Eudragit L100 aspolymers and Triethylcitrate as a plasticizer. A 23 full factorial design was used for optimizationof formulation. In this design, amount of croscarmellose sodium (% w/w, in core tablet), ratio ofEudragit S100 to Eudragit L100 and % weight gain of coating were evaluated to find Lag timeand In-vitro drug release of pulsatile drug delivery system. Compatibility of drugs with polymerswas assured by FTIR study.KEYWORDS: Pulsatile formulation, Diacerein, film coated tablets, Eudragit S100 and EudragitL100.
INTRODUCTION
Chronopharmaceutics, the drug delivery based on circadian rhythm is recently gaining much
attention worldwide. Various diseases like asthma, hypertension, and arthritis show circadian
variation, that demands time scheduled drug release for effective drug action. [1-3] To follow this
principle, one must have to design the dosage form so that it can be given at the convenient time,
e.g. bed time for the above mentioned diseases with the drug release in the morning. For this, a
pulsatile release profile, where the drug is released completely after a defined lag time, is
advantageous. A pulsatile drug delivery that can be administered at bed time but releases drug in
early morning would be a promising chronotherapeutics system. The majority of drugs are
preferentially absorbed from the small intestine. [4-7] Hence, drug release at site of better
absorption can improve therapeutic efficacy of drug. This is of more concern for drug delivery
that is meant for pulse drug release after a lag period of 6-8h following oral administration of
dosage form.
PHARMA SCIENCE MONITORAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
Journal home page: http://www.pharmasm.com
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 226
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Arthritis patients have a problem related to pain and inflammation in joint during morning time.
It’s mainly due to the diurnal variations in the levels of circulating proinflammatory cytokines,
tumor necrosis factor-α and/or interleukin-6. So, this study deals with formulation of pulsatile
dosage form which will be released drug at right time, right place, and in right amounts, holds
good promises of benefit to the patients. [8-10]
Diacerein, a purified anthraquinone derivative, has rhein (1,8-dihydroxy-3-
carboxyanthraquinone) as its active metabolite, and was first discovered in plants with anti-
inflammatory and analgesic activities. [11] Its wide range of biological activities have been
applied and discussed for several decades. However, the beneficial effect of diacerein has been
associated mainly with joint-derived tissues/cells (i.e., chondrocyte, synovial fibroblast,
subchondral osteoblast etc.) for osteoarthritis treatment. [12-15] Meta-analysis reports have found
diacerein to be significantly superior to placebo and comparable to nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but with better tolerability and safety profiles. [16] To date, there
are no reports describing the therapeutic effects of Diacerein for periodontal diseases. Two
mechanisms of action have been validated: In-vitro inhibition of interleukin-1 (IL-1) synthesis,
the main cytokine involved in cartilage destruction, and activity on the synthesis of
proteoglycans, and hyaluronic acid, the principal component of cartilage. [17]
The goal of present research work in drug delivery is to develop a formulation that meets
therapeutic need relating to particular pathological conditions. Both variations in disease state
and plasma drug concentration need to be taken in consideration in developing a meaningful
drug delivery system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIALS
Diacerein was gifted by Ami Life sciences. Croscarmellose sodium and microcrystalline
cellulose (Avicel PH 112) were gifted from FMC biopolymers, Mumbai, India. Mannitol SD 200
was gifted from ROQUETTE, Ahmedabad, India. Povidone K30 gifted from BASF, Mumbai,
India. Magnesium stearate was gifted from Peter Greven, Mumbai, India. Talc was gifted from
IMERYS, Mumbai, India. Triethyl citrate was gifted from MERK, Mumbai, India. Aerosil 200,
Eudragit S100 and Eudragit L100 were gifted from Evonik, Mumbai, India.
METHODS
Formulation of film coated pulsatile tablets
A 23 full factorial design was used in the present study for optimization of formulation. It is
suitable for investigating the quadratic response surfaces and for constructing a second-order
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 227
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
polynomial model, thus enabling optimization of the pulsatile drug delivery system. In this
design, three factors were evaluated, each at two levels with three center points and experimental
trials were performed at all eleven possible combinations. The effect of three independent
variables,
1. X1= Croscarmellose sodium
2. X2= Ratio of Eudragit S100:Eudragit L100
3. X3= % Weight gain of coating
were studied on the Lag time and In-vitro drug release of pulsatile drug delivery system. These
three independent variables were varied at two different levels as describe in Table 1. Hand book
of pharmaceutical excipients was suggested that 2-5% concentration of croscarmellose sodium
used as a disintegrating agent. So 3 mg and 7.5 mg range of croscarmellose sodium were taken
as a variable. % wt gain and ratio of polymer range were taken from previously trial based.
Preliminary studies provided a setting of the levels for each independent variable. Each of factor
and levels was transformed in such a way that the high level of each factor was (+1) and low
level was (-1).
Table 1: Transformed values for high and low levels
Variables Variable level
Independent Variable -1 1
Cross Carmellose Na (mg) 3 7.5
Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L100 80:20 90:10
% Wt Gain 10 14
Dependent variable
Lag time
T90 % drug release
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 228
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Table 2: Formulation of Different Batches for 23 Full Factorial Designs
For Core tablets
Batch
No
Real Value Transformed Value
Croscarmellose
sodium (mg)
Croscarmellose
sodium (mg)
C1 3 -1
C2 5.25 0
C3 7.5 1
For Coating of tablets
Batch
No
Real Value Transformed Value
Core
tablet
batch No
Eudragit S100 :
Eudragit L100
% Wt
Gain
Core
tablet
batch No
Eudragit S100 :
Eudragit L100
%
Wt
Gain
D1 C1 80:20 10 -1 -1 -1
D2 C3 80:20 10 1 -1 -1
D3 C1 90:10 10 -1 1 -1
D4 C3 90:10 10 1 1 -1
D5 C1 80:20 14 -1 -1 1
D6 C3 80:20 14 1 -1 1
D7 C1 90:10 14 -1 1 1
D8 C3 90:10 14 1 1 1
D9 C2 85:15 12 0 0 0
D10 C2 85:15 12 0 0 0
D11 C2 85:15 12 0 0 0
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 229
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Table 3: Composition of Batches According to 23 Full Factorial Designs
Ingredients C1 C2 C3Core Tablet (quantity in mg/Tablet)
Diacerein 50.00 50.00 50.00Croscarmellosesodium
3.00 5.25 7.50
Mannitol SD 200 50.00 50.00 50.00Povidone K30 4.50 4.50 4.50MCC (Avicel Ph112)
40.50 38.25 36.00
Aerosil 200 1.00 1.00 1.00Mg. Stearate 1.00 1.00 1.00Core Tablet Weight 150.00 150.00 150.00
Ingredients D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11Core TabletBatch No
C1 C3 C1 C3 C1 C3 C1 C3 C2 C2 C2
Coating of Tablet (quantity in mg/Tablet)Core TabletWeight
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
Eudragit S10010.4
810.4
811.7
911.7
914.6
714.6
716.5
016.5
013.3
513.3
513.3
5Eudragit L100 2.62 2.62 1.31 1.31 3.67 3.67 1.83 1.83 2.36 2.36 2.36Triethylcitrate 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79Talc 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.57 1.57 1.57
Total Weight165.06
165.06
165.06
165.06
171.08
171.08
171.08
171.08
168.07
168.07
168.07
% Coating 10 10 10 10 14 14 14 14 12 12 12
Preparation of Core tablets
The Core tablets were prepared according to the composition given in table by direct
compression. [18- 20] By varying the concentration of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel pH 112)
and Croscarmellose sodium, eleven different formulations were prepared. The core tablets were
prepared by direct compression. The tablet ingredients were passed through 40 # sieve, mixed
with each other according to the geometric dilution method & blended for 10 minutes in a
mortar. The Magnesium stearate was passed through 60 # sieve, mixed with above mixture &
blended for 5 minutes in a mortar. Now, this blend was subjected to Preformulation study &
compression. The powder blend was compressed using rotary tablet press.
Preparation of coating solution
The coating solution was prepared by dissolving Eudragit S100 and Eudragit L100 in mixture of
acetone and isopropyl alcohol (50:50) (8% w/w solution) using overhead stirrer and was stirred
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 230
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
until clear solution obtained. Add Triethylcitrate in the solution and stir it for 30 minutes. Add
talc in this solution and stir it for 10 minutes. Solution was prepared based on supplier technical
notes. This solution was then passed through sieve 60 # to remove un-dissolved solids.
Coating of core tablets
Table 4: Process parameters for the coating of core tablets in factorial formulation [19]
Process Parameter Condition
Nozzle Diameter 1.0 mm
Preaheating Temperature 40°-45°C
Preaheating Time 15 min
Inlet Temperture 30°-40°C
Bed Temperature 25°-30°C
Exhaust Temperature 25°-30°C
Gun to Bed Distance 2 to3 Inch
Spray Rate 6 to 10 gm/min
Curing Temperature 50°-60°C
Curing Time 2 hr
The core tablets were coated using Neocota coating machine. Core tablets were coated with a
Eudragit S100 and Eudragit L100 solution in mixture of acetone and isopropyl alcohol, using
triethylcitrate as a plasticizer. Dummy tablets were used in coating to maintain coating pan load.
The polymer solution was sprayed using spray gun onto the core tablets till the desired weight
gain. At each stage the coated tablets were further dried in the coating pan for 2 hr at 50°-60°C.
Percent weight gain was calculated by following equation
% Weight gain=Wt – W0
W0× 100
Where Wt = Weight of tablet after coating;
Wo = Initial weight of tablet.
Check point batch
The values of independent variables selected and composition of checkpoint batch was shown in
Table-5 and Table-6 respectively.
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 231
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Table 5: Independent Variables in Checkpoint Batch
Trial No
Real Value
Croscarmellose Na
(mg)
Eudragit S100 :
Eudragit L100
% Wt
Gain
D12 6 85:15 12
Composition of checkpoint batch
Table 6: Composition of checkpoint batch
Ingredients D12
Core tablet (quantity in mg/Tablet)
Diacerein 50.00
Croscarmellose sodium 3.00
Mannitol SD 200 50.00
Povidone K30 4.50
MCC (Avicel Ph 112) 40.50
Aerosil 200 1.00
Mg. Stearate 1.00
Core Tablet Weight 150.00
Coating of Tablet (quantity in mg/Tablet)
Eudragit S100 13.35
Eudragit L100 2.36
Triethylcitrate 0.79
Talc 1.57
Total Weight 168.07
% Coating 12
Check point batch was prepared similar to the Factorial batches and evaluated for Core tablet and
coated tablet.
EVALUATION OF FORMULATION [22 - 25]
Evaluation of powder blend:
Powder blend of different Batches were evaluated for Physical properties. Factorial formulations
were evaluated for the powder blend property like Bulk density, Tapped density, Carr’s index,
Hausner’s ratio and Angle of repose.
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 232
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Evaluation of core tablets:
The core tablets were evaluated for physical parameters such as weight variation, hardness,
friability, disintegration time and Drug content.
Evaluation of pulsatile tablets:
The Pulsatile release tablets (PRTs) were evaluated for lag time and In-vitro drug release study.
Rupture test (Lag time determination) [26]
The lag time of the tablets is defined as the time required for the outer coat to rupture. It was
determined visually using USP type II dissolution apparatus at 50 rpm. Media for the first 2 hr
was 900 ml of 0.1 N HCl (pH 1.2), then 2 hr was 4.5 acetate buffer and continued in phosphate
buffer pH 6.8 for the next 10 hr or as required.
In-vitro drug release study
The prepared coated tablets were subjected to In-vitro drug release sequentially in three different
suitable dissolution media to assess their ability to provide the desired lag time before drug
release. USP type-II dissolution apparatus was used. The dissolution medium for the first 2 hr
was 900 ml of 0.1 N HCl (pH 1.2) then 2 hr was 4.5 acetate buffer and continued in phosphate
buffer pH 6.8 for the next 10 hr or as required. The temperature of dissolution medium was
maintained at 37 ± 0.5 °C and the paddle was rotated at 50 rpm. An aliquot of 5 ml was
withdrawn at predetermined time intervals and replaced with an equal volume of the fresh
dissolution medium to maintain sink conditions. The samples were filtered through a 0.45 µm
syringe filter and analyzed at 340 nm [22], for the percentage drug release using an UV-Visible
spectrophotometer.
Drug Excipients Compatibility Studies:
The FT-IR spectra of the physical mixture of drugs–polymer were recorded to check interaction
between drugs and polymers. FT IR Spectrum of pure drugs and optimized formulation were
taken for checking compatibility study. The drugs and optimized formulation were previously
ground and mixed thoroughly with potassium bromide, an infrared transparent matrix, at 1:5
(Sample: KBr) ratio, respectively. The KBr discs were prepared by compressing the powders at a
pressure of 5 tons for 5 min in a hydraulic press. Scans were obtained at a resolution of 4 cm−1,
from 4,000 to 600 cm−1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Evaluation of Powder blend
Powder blend of different Batches were evaluated for Physical properties. Factorial formulations
were evaluated for the powder blend property like Bulk density, Tapped density, Carr’s index,
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 233
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Hausner’s ratio and Angle of repose. The Carr’s index was found to be in range of 13.32 to 15.47
which was considered as good flow property. Angle of repose less than 30° indicates good flow
property of the powder blend. The bulk density of all the formulation was in the range of 0.482
to 0.497. Hausner’s ratio of all formulation was below 1.5 indicating good compression
characteristics.
Evaluation of Core tablets
The core tablets were evaluated for physical parameters such as weight variation, hardness,
friability, disintegration time and Drug content. According to the results of post-compression
parameters (tablets), tablets were obtained in the range with uniform thickness and acceptable
weight variations limit as per Pharmacopoeia specifications i.e. less than 7.5% for tablets of 150
mg of weight. The results are shown in Table-7. Hardness was found in the range for all the
factorial batches and friability for the same was found to be less than 1% indicating sufficient
mechanical integrity and strength of the prepared tablets.
Table 7: Evaluation parameters for core tablets of Factorial formulation
Batch C1 C2 C3
Hardness (Kp) * 6.88 ± 1.07 6.72 ± 0.81 6.45 ± 0.50
Diameter (mm) * 7.03 ± 0.011 7.03 ± 0.008 7.02 ± 0.005
Thickness (mm) * 4.06 ± 0.070 4.07 ± 0.029 4.09 ± 0.010
Uniformity of weight
(mg)** 151.33 ± 2.20 150.33 ± 2.79 149.54 ± 2.73
% Friability# 0.21 ± 0.06 0.26 ± 0.12 0.20 ± 0.08
Disintegration time
(min)*# 6.04 ± 0.43 3.03 ± 0.39 2.53 ± 0.71
Drug content (%)*# 99.56 ± 2.38 99.96 ± 1.58 100.62 ± 2.06
Water Content (By
KF) (%)*# 0.81 ± 0.18 0.80 ± 0.22 0.76 ± 0.23*Values are mean ± SD, (n=10), **Values are mean ± SD, (n=20),
#Values are mean ± SD, (n=3), *#Values are mean ± SD, (n=6)
Evaluation of pulsatile tablets
The Pulsatile release tablets (PRTs) were evaluated for Lag time and In-vitro drug release
study. Tablets of all the batches had smooth surface with attractive appearance. Lag time and In-
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 234
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
vitro drug release were significantly affected by concentration of croscarmellose sodium, ratio of
polymer (EudragitS100: Eudragit L100) and weight gain of coating. Lag time of tablets is
shown in Figure 1, which indicate that higher concentration of croscarmellose sodium decrease
lag time.
Figure 1: Lag time of tablets from formulation D1 to D11
In-vitro drug releases profile of tablets are shown in Figure 2 to 4. Eudragit S100 and Eudragit
L100 concentration and % weight gain of coating assist to hold drug release for certain period of
time due to its pH dependent solubility of Eudragit. Formulation D1 and D2 having a less
Eudragit S100 concentration, exhibit less lag time and fast drug release. While in the case of D3
to D8, increased Eudragit S100 concentration, which hold drug release according to its
concentration present in formulation.
Figure 2: In- vitro drug release of Diacerein from formulation D1 to D4
012345678
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11
Lag
tim
e (h
r)
Batch No.
020406080100120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% D
rug
Rele
ase
Time (hr)
D1D2
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 235
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Figure 3: In- vitro drug release of Diacerein from formulation D5 to D8
Figure 4: In- vitro drug release of Diacerein from formulation D9 to D11
Figure 5 and Figure 6 indicate that increased concentration of croscarmellose sodium which
decreased lag time and helps bursting effect for drug release. In case of ratio of Eudragit,
increased Eudragit S100 concentration which increased lag time and increased Eudragit L100
concentration which decreased lag time. Eudragit having a pH dependent solubility which
significantly affected on lag time. Eudragit L100 soluble in pH 5 and above. Eudragit S100
soluble in pH 7 and above. Combination of polymer (EudragitS100: Eudragit L100) were
required for achieved a lag time of 6 hr.
020406080100120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% D
rug
Rele
ase
Time (hr)
D5D6D7D8
020406080100120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% D
rug
Rele
ase
Time (hr)
D9D10D11
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 236
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Significant factors for Lag time
As per ANOVA results, the Model F-value of 6.69 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 4.35% chance that an F-value this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less
than 0.05 indicate model terms are significant.
The "Lack of Fit F-value" of 0.01 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative to the pure
error. There is a 92.30% chance that a "Lack of Fit F-value" this large could occur due to noise.
Non-significant lack of fit is good.
Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors:
Lag Time = 5.87 - 0.059 × A + 0.62 × B + 0.71 × C - 0.016 × AB - 0.031 × AC - 0.18 × AC
Final Equation in Terms of Actual Factors:
Lag Time = - 27.76807 + 0.18000 × croscarmellose sodium + 0.34233 × Eudragit S100: Eudragit
L 100 + 1.88771 × % Weight Gain - 1.44444E-003 × croscarmellose sodium ×
Eudragit S100: Eudragit L100 - 6.94444E-003 × croscarmellose sodium × %
Weight Gain - 0.017625 × Eudragit S100: Eudragit L100 × % Weight Gain
Significant factors for T90% drug release
As per ANOVA results, the Model F-value of 6.22 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 4.92% chance that an F-value this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less
than 0.05 indicate model terms are significant.
The "Lack of Fit F-value" of 16.53 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative to the pure
error. There is a 5.70% chance that a "Lack of Fit F-value" this large could occur due to noise.
Non-significant lack of fit is good.
Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors:
Lag Time = 6.63 - 0.18 × A + 0.39 × B + 0.60 × C + 3.750E-003 × AB + 6.250E-003 × AC -
0.14 × BC
Final Equation in Terms of Actual Factors:
Lag Time = - 17.42723 - 0.12444 × croscarmellose sodium + 0.24650 × Eudragit S100: Eudragit
L 100 + 1.49396 × % Weight Gain + 3.33333E-004 × croscarmellose sodium ×
Eudragit S100: Eudragit L100 + 1.38889E-003 × croscarmellose sodium × %
Weight Gain - 0.014125 × Eudragit S100: Eudragit L100 × % Weight Gain
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 237
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Figure 5: Contour plot and response surface plot of Y1 factor (Lag time)
Figure 6: Contour plot and response surface plot of Y2 factor (T90% Drug Release)
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualLag Time (hr)
Design Points7.28
4.51
X1 = A: croscarmellose NaX2 = B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100
Actual FactorC: % Weight Gain = 12.00
3.00 3.90 4.80 5.70 6.60 7.50
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00Lag Time (hr)
A: croscarmellose Na (mg)
B:
Eu
dra
git
S1
00
: E
ud
rag
it L
10
0 (
Ra
tio
)
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
3
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualLag Time (hr)
Design points below predicted value7.28
4.51
X1 = A: croscarmellose NaX2 = B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100
Actual FactorC: % Weight Gain = 12.00
80.0082.00
84.0086.00
88.0090.00
3.00 3.90
4.80 5.70
6.60 7.50
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
La
g T
ime
(h
r)
A: croscarmellose Na (mg)B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100 (Ratio)
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualT90% Drug Release (%)
Design Points7.73
5.47
X1 = A: croscarmellose NaX2 = B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100
Actual FactorC: % Weight Gain = 12.00
3.00 3.90 4.80 5.70 6.60 7.50
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00T90% Drug Release (%)
A: croscarmellose Na (mg)
B:
Eu
dra
git
S1
00
: E
ud
rag
it L
10
0 (
Ra
tio
)
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
3
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualT90% Drug Release (%)
Design points below predicted value7.73
5.47
X1 = A: croscarmellose NaX2 = B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100
Actual FactorC: % Weight Gain = 12.00
80.0082.00
84.0086.00
88.0090.00
3.00 3.90
4.80 5.70
6.60 7.50
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
T9
0%
Dru
g R
ele
ase
(%
)
A: croscarmellose Na (mg)B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100 (Ratio)
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 238
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
Figure 7: Overlap Contour plot
Evaluation of check point batch D12:
In-vitro dissolution study
Dissolution study of Formulation D12 was carried out in 0.1N HCl, 4.5 acetate buffer and
phosphate buffer pH6.8 and observes the effect of pH on drug release.
Figure 8: In- vitro drug release of Diacerein from formulation D12
From the Results of Dissolution Profile of Check Point Batch D12, it was concluded that there is
no significant difference in Experimental Lag time than that of Predictable one. Data of
Dissolution of batch D12 at different pH of dissolution media reveals that pH had not significant
effect on the lag time. Batch D12 release drug after lag time of 6.21 ± 0.06 hours, which is near
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualOverlay Plot
Lag TimeT90% Drug Release
Design Points
X1 = A: croscarmellose NaX2 = B: Eudragit S100 : Eudragit L 100
Actual FactorC: % Weight Gain = 12.00
3.00 4.13 5.25 6.38 7.50
80.00
82.50
85.00
87.50
90.00Overlay Plot
A: croscarmellose Na (mg)
B: Eu
dragit
S100
: Eud
ragit L
100 (
Ratio
)
Lag Time: 5.3
Lag Time: 6.3T90% Drug Release: 7
3
020406080100120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% D
rug
Rele
ase
Time (hr)
D12
Lag time: 5.84878T90% release 6.58873X1 6.00X2 85.00
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 239
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
to the said hypothesis of the study, 6 hours. Thus, batch D12 was the Optimized Batch of the
present study.
FTIR spectroscopy:
Figure 9: FTIR spectroscopy pure drugs and physical mixtures
Infrared spectra of drugs and polymers were used to study the compatibility between
them. No change in peak shows that there were no interaction between drugs and
polymers. The IR spectrum of the pure drug (Diacerein) and optimized form given in
figure.
The FTIR spectrum of drugs shows characteristic bands at 1768.78 cm-1 of carbonyl
group of ester, COOH (Carboxyl groups) stretching at 3313.71 cm-1 and 1620 cm-1 is
aromatic ring peak.
The FT-IR spectra of the physical mixture of drugs-polymer were recorded to check
interaction between drugs and polymers. The characteristic peak due to pure Diacerein
has appeared in the spectra without any markable change in the position. It indicates that
there were no chemical interaction between Diacerein and polymers.
The results of physical mixtures of drugs and various excipients revealed no considerable
changes in the IR peaks of drugs thereby indicating the absence of any interaction.
CONCLUSION
Consistent lag time, immediate release of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the
requirements for developing the chronotherapeutics was achieved with the developed
formulation. Diacerein was successfully formulated as a modified pulsatile drug deliver after
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 239
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
to the said hypothesis of the study, 6 hours. Thus, batch D12 was the Optimized Batch of the
present study.
FTIR spectroscopy:
Figure 9: FTIR spectroscopy pure drugs and physical mixtures
Infrared spectra of drugs and polymers were used to study the compatibility between
them. No change in peak shows that there were no interaction between drugs and
polymers. The IR spectrum of the pure drug (Diacerein) and optimized form given in
figure.
The FTIR spectrum of drugs shows characteristic bands at 1768.78 cm-1 of carbonyl
group of ester, COOH (Carboxyl groups) stretching at 3313.71 cm-1 and 1620 cm-1 is
aromatic ring peak.
The FT-IR spectra of the physical mixture of drugs-polymer were recorded to check
interaction between drugs and polymers. The characteristic peak due to pure Diacerein
has appeared in the spectra without any markable change in the position. It indicates that
there were no chemical interaction between Diacerein and polymers.
The results of physical mixtures of drugs and various excipients revealed no considerable
changes in the IR peaks of drugs thereby indicating the absence of any interaction.
CONCLUSION
Consistent lag time, immediate release of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the
requirements for developing the chronotherapeutics was achieved with the developed
formulation. Diacerein was successfully formulated as a modified pulsatile drug deliver after
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 239
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
to the said hypothesis of the study, 6 hours. Thus, batch D12 was the Optimized Batch of the
present study.
FTIR spectroscopy:
Figure 9: FTIR spectroscopy pure drugs and physical mixtures
Infrared spectra of drugs and polymers were used to study the compatibility between
them. No change in peak shows that there were no interaction between drugs and
polymers. The IR spectrum of the pure drug (Diacerein) and optimized form given in
figure.
The FTIR spectrum of drugs shows characteristic bands at 1768.78 cm-1 of carbonyl
group of ester, COOH (Carboxyl groups) stretching at 3313.71 cm-1 and 1620 cm-1 is
aromatic ring peak.
The FT-IR spectra of the physical mixture of drugs-polymer were recorded to check
interaction between drugs and polymers. The characteristic peak due to pure Diacerein
has appeared in the spectra without any markable change in the position. It indicates that
there were no chemical interaction between Diacerein and polymers.
The results of physical mixtures of drugs and various excipients revealed no considerable
changes in the IR peaks of drugs thereby indicating the absence of any interaction.
CONCLUSION
Consistent lag time, immediate release of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the
requirements for developing the chronotherapeutics was achieved with the developed
formulation. Diacerein was successfully formulated as a modified pulsatile drug deliver after
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 240
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
predetermine lag time of 5.5 hrs. Croscarmellose sodium is ideal excipient as super disintegrant
and swelling agent while Eudragit S100 and Eudragit L100 is ideal polymer showing predefinate
lag time. Thus this approach of pulsatile/programmable release where in tablet of Diacerein is
taken at bed time, releasing drug in the morning hours when the symptoms are more prevalent
can prove to be a revolution in the treatment of various inflammatory disorders like rheumatoid
arthritis, osteoarthritis and spondylitis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We acknowledge and thank the Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gandhinagar for providing
necessary excipients, infrastructure, constant support and enthusiasm to carry this work.
REFERENCES
1. Lemmer B: Circadian rhythms and drug delivery. Journal of control release 1991; 16:
63-74.
2. Rouge N, Buri P and Doelker E: Drug absorption sites in the gastrointestinal tract and
dosage forms for site specific delivery. Int. J. Pharm 1996; 136: 17-139.
3. Smolensky MH and Peppas NA: Chronobiology, Drug Delivery, and Chronotherapeutics.
Adv Drug Deli Rev 2007; 59: 828-851.
4. Jha N and Bapat S: Chronobiology and chronotherapeutics. Kathmandu University
Medical Journal 2004; 2(8): 384-388.
5. Cutolo M, Villaggio B and Otsa K: Altered circadian rhythms in rheumatoid arthritis
patient play a role in the disease symptoms. Autoimmunity Reviews 2005; 4: 497-502.
6. Belgamwar VS, Gaikwad MV, Patil GB and Surana S: Pulsatile drug delivery system.
Asian Journal of Pharmaceutics 2008; 141-145.
7. Survase S and Kumar N: Pulsatile drug delivery: current scenario. CRIPS 2007; 8: 27-33.
8. Ross AC, Macrae RJ, Walther M and Stevens HNE: chronopharmaceutical drug delivery
from a pulsatile capsule device based on programmable erosion. Journal of Pharm.
Pharmacol 2000; 52: 903-909.
9. Krogel I and Bodmeier R: Pulsatile drug release from an insoluble capsule body
controlled by an erodible plug. Pharmaceutical Research 1998; 15: 474-481.
10. Sawada T, Kondo H, Nakashima H, Sako K and Hayashi M: Time-release
compressioncoated core tablet containing nifedipine for chronotherapy. International
Journal of Pharmaceutics 2004; 280: 103-111.
11. Hunter D, Wise B: Review diacerein is more effective than placebo and is as effective as
NSAIDs for knee and hip osteoarthritis. Evid Based Med 2007; 12: 74.
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 241
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
12. Pujol J, Felisaz N, Boumediene K, Ghayor C, Herrouin J, Bogdanowicz P: Effects of
diacerein on biosynthesis activities of chondrocytes in culture. Biorheology 2000; 37:
177-184.
13. Brandt K: Studies in animal models of osteoarthritis as predictors of a structure-
modifying effect of diacerhein in humans with osteoarthritis. Biorheology 2006; 43: 589-
594.
14. Domagala F, Martin G, Bogdanowicz P, Ficheux H, Pujol JP: Inhibition of interleukin-
1beta-induced activation of MEK/ERK pathway and DNA binding of NF-kappaB and
AP-1: potential mechanism for Diacerein effects in osteoarthritis. Biorheology 2006; 43:
577-587.
15. Alvarez-Soria M, Herrero-Beaumont G, Sanchez-Pernaute O, Bellido M, Largo R:
Diacerein has a weak effect on the catabolic pathway of human osteoarthritis synovial
fibroblast – comparison to its effects on osteoarthritic chondrocytes. Rheumatology
(Oxford) 2008; 47: 627-633.
16. Bartels E, Bliddal H, Schondorff P, Altman R, Zhang W, Christensen R: Symptomatic
efficacy and safety of diacerein in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of
randomized placebo-controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18: 289-296.
17. Ren-Yeong H, Sheng-Hua L, Kwan-Wei S, Jen-Kun C, Wen-Hui F, Wei-Neng L, Sih-Yu
C: Diacerein: A potential therapeutic drug for periodontal disease. Medical Hypotheses
2012; 79: 165-167.
18. Arora V, Gupta V, Singhal R: Advances in direct compression technology. Pharma
Times 2007; 39(2): 26-27.
19. Gupta A, Bilandi A, Kataria M. Tablet coating techniques: concepts and recent trend.
RJP 2012; 3(9): 50-58.
20. Naga S, Nagaraja S: Formulation and evaluation of naproxen sodium rapimelts by direct
compression method. International journal of pharmacy & life sciences 2013; 4(4): 2615-
2620.
21. Safila N, Huma D: Manufacturing of new formulation of Pyridoxine HCL by direct
compression method. Journal of Scientific and Innovative Research 2014; 3(4): 450-453.
22. The Indian Pharmacopoeia, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family welfare,
volume II, The Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Ghaziabad; 2010.
23. Liberman H. Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms. 2nd Ed. Macel Dekker; 1991: 329- 366.
Impact factor: 3.958/ICV: 4.10 ISSN: 0976-7908 242
Naimish et al. / Pharma Science Monitor 8(3), Jul-Sep 2017, 225-242
24. United States pharmacopoeia. USP 27/ NF22; USP convention vol. 2. Rockville; 2004:
2538.
25. Sharma GS, Srikanth MV, Uhumwangho MU, Phani Kumar KS and Ramana Murthy
KV: Recent trends in pulsatile drug delivery systems-A review. International Journal of
Drug Delivery 2010; 2: 200-212.
26. Dandale SS, Deshmane SV and Biyani KR: Formulation and evaluation of pressed
coated pulsatile tablet containing nifedipine. International Journal of Bio. & Pharm.
Res 2013; 4(7): 471-474.