See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283256014

Formulation and Optimization of Immediate Release Tablet of Sitagliptin

Phosphate using Response Surface Methodology

Article · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 2,158

1 author:

Sunita Shakya
Deurali-Janta Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
1 PUBLICATION   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Anti-diabetic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunita Shakya on 27 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

Formulation and Optimization of Immediate Release Tablet of

Sitagliptin Phosphate using Response Surface Methodology
Sunita Shakya
Department of Pharmacy, Kathmandu University, Kavre, Nepal.
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The objective of this study was to design and evaluate Sitagliptin Phosphate immediate release
(IR) 50 mg tablet using Response Surface Methodology for the managemant of Type-II diabetes mellitus.
Response surface methodology (RSM) computations for this optimization study were performed
employing Minitab 16. Different formulations of immediate release were prepared by applying 2 factor 2
level Central Composite Design (CCD) using Minitab 16 which gave 13 formulation for each layer. The
amount of Sodium Starch Glycollate (SSG) and Croscarmellose Sodium (CCS) in IR layer were used as
independent variables and the percent drug release at 15 minutes were selected as dependent (response)
variables for optimization. All the formulation were prepared and evaluated using appropriate analytical
technology. Based on the in-vitro dissolution data (dependent variable/response), the composition of
formulation with optimum drug release for immediate release were identified and employed to formulate
optimized tablets followed by its evaluation. All the physico-chemical parameters of the tablets were
found satisfactory.The optimized Sitagliptin Phosphate IR tablet disintegrated in 14 sec and showed an
initial release of Sitagliptin 99.072% within 15 minutes.

Keywords: Response Surface Methodology, immediate release, Sitagliptin Phosphate, Type-II diabetes
mellitus, Superdisintegrants.

Accepted On: 01.09.2015

alone or in combination with other anti-
1. Introduction hyperglycemic drugs. The elimination half life of
sitagliptin is 12.4 hours.
Sitagliptin is the first in a new class drugs that
inhibit the proteplytic activity of dipeptidyl
peptidase-4 (DPP-4). It was approved by the US
FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus
in October 2006. Sitagliptin phosphate is 1,2,4-
triazolo[4,3-a]pyrazine,7-[(3R)-3-amino-1-oxo-4-
(2,4,5-trifluorophenyl)butyl]-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-3-
(trifluoromethyl),phosphate (Fig.1) with molecular
formula C16H15F6N5O.H3O4P.H2O, and a
molecular weight of 523.32 g/mole. According to Fig.1. Structure of Sitagliptin Phosphate
the Biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS)
sitagliptin is a Class III (high solubility, low In the development of tablet dosage form, an
permeability)/borderline Class I (high solubility, important issue is to design an optimized
high permeability) [1]. formulation with an appropriate dissolution rate in
Sitagliptin prolongs the activity of proteins that a short time period and minimum number of trials.
increases the release of insulin after blood sugar The statistical experiment designs most widely
rises, such as after meal. Sitagliptin is rapidly used in optimization experiments are termed
absorbed after oral administration with absolute "Response surface designs or Response surface
bioavailability of approximately 87 %. Co- methodology (RSM)" utilizing a polynomial
administration of a high-fat meal does not affect equation [2]. Different types of RSM designs
the pharmacokinetics of Sitagliptin. It can be given include 3- level factorial design, central composite

www.gtia.co.in 7
International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

design (CCD), Box-Behnken design and D- Phosphate Anhydrous (DCPA) as diluents, Avicel
optimal design [2]. One of the most popular pH 101 as binder, Magnesium Stearate as
response surface methodologies is central lubricants and Brilliant Blue Lake as colouring
composite design (CCD). The CCD is an effective agent. All ingredients sifted through sieve no. #60
design that is ideal for sequential experimentation was thoroughly mixed and lubricated.
and allows a reasonable amount of information for The lubricated powder was then compressed using
testing the lack of fit while not involving an 10 station compression machines with round,
unusually large number of design points [2]. circular punches of diameter 9.1mm. Hence, the
Pharmaceutical products designed for oral delivery tablets produced were subjected to In-Vitro
are mainly immediate release type or conventional evaluation and the formulation was optimized.
drug delivery systems, which are designed for
immediate release of drug for rapid absorption [3]. Table 1: Two level full factorial central composite
The immediate action from the tablets can be StdOrder RunOrder CCS(%) SSG(%)
attained by fast disintegration of tablets within the 10 1 3.500 6.500
gastrointestinal tract. The use of super- 6 2 5.621 6.500
disintegrants, surfactants and water soluble 5 3 1.379 6.500
polymers in low concentration also enhances the 12 4 3.500 6.500
dissolution of immediate release tablets. 3 5 2.000 8.000
Crospovidone, Croscarmellose sodium (CCS) and 1 6 2.000 5.000
Sodium starch glycolate (SSG) are the 9 7 3.500 6.500
superdisintegrants that helps in immediate release 8 8 3.500 8.621
of drug from dosage forms. 7 9 3.500 4.379
11 10 3.500 6.500
2. Materials and Methods 4 11 5.000 8.000
2 12 5.000 5.000
2.1 Materials 13 13 3.500 6.500
Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (Glenmark
Generics Ltd., India), Croscarmellose Sodium 2.2.2 Tablet Assay and Physical Evaluation
(DMV-fonterra Excipients, The Netherlands), Twenty tablets were taken and crushed to powder
Sodium Starch Glycollate (Maruti Chemicals, with mortar and pestle. Powder equivalent to 50
Ratanpur, India), Dibasic Calcium Phosphate mg of Sitagliptin Phosphate (average weight) was
Anhydrous (Hindustan Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., India), taken and diluted with mobile phase up to 100 ml
Magnesium Stearate (Amishi Drugs and Chemical of volumetric flask. After sonication for 10
Pvt. Ltd, India) and Avicel PH 101(FMC minutes, solution was filtered through filter paper
Biopolymer, Ireland). All the materials used were (No. 42). The total amount of drugs within the
provided by Deurali Janta Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd tablets was analysed after appropriate dilution of
as gift samples. test solution by using HPLC method as described
below against the reference solution of Sitagliptin
2.2 Methods pure powder prepared in the same method.
2.2.1 Preparation of Sitagliptin 50mg Tablets Column: Inertsil C18, 150mm × 4.6mm, 5µ
Sitagliptin 50mg tablets were prepared by direct particle size
compression method by using two different types Mobile phase: 0.05M phosphate buffer of pH 5.8:
of superdisintegrants. Composition of the thirteen Acetonitrile in ratio = (65:35 v/v)
formulations of sitagliptin tablet using Two level Detection wavelength: UV detection with 254nm
full factorial central composite Design (CCD) has Injection volume: 20µl
been illustrated in Table 1. Based on this Tablets were also evaluated for hardness (n-10),
%concentration of CCS and SSG, composition of friability (n=20), weight variation (n=20) and
thirteen formulations has been designed with an thickness (n=10).
average tablet weight of 250mg as illustrated in
Table 2. SSG and CCS were used as disintegrating
agent for burst release of tablet, Dibasic Calcium

www.gtia.co.in 8
International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

Table 2. Formulation of Sitagliptin Tablet as per CCD

Sitagliptin Magnesium BBL Avicel
CCS SSG DCPA Total
Phosphate Stearate Colour pH 101
(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
FS-1 65.700 8.75 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-2 65.700 14.05 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 112.50 250.00
FS-3 65.700 3.45 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 123.10 250.00
FS-4 65.700 8.75 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-5 65.700 5.00 20.00 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-6 65.700 5.00 12.50 37.500 3.500 0.500 125.30 250.00
FS-7 65.700 8.75 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-8 65.700 8.75 21.55 37.500 3.500 0.500 112.50 250.00
FS-9 65.700 8.75 10.95 37.500 3.500 0.500 123.10 250.00
FS-10 65.700 8.75 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-11 65.700 12.50 20.00 37.500 3.500 0.500 110.30 250.00
FS-12 65.700 12.50 12.50 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00
FS-13 65.700 8.75 16.25 37.500 3.500 0.500 117.80 250.00

2.2.3 Tablet Assay and Physical Evaluation 10 ml of aliquot were withdrawn at 5, 10, 15, 20
Twenty tablets were taken and crushed to powder and 30 minutes with replacement of fresh media
with mortar and pestle. Powder equivalent to 50 and filtered through whatman Filter paper No. 1.
mg of Sitagliptin Phosphate (average weight) was Solution samples were analysed by UV
taken and diluted with mobile phase up to 100 ml spectrophotometer at 266 nm for Sitagliptin
of volumetric flask. After sonication for 10 Phosphate. Limits: Not less than 80% (Q) of the
minutes, solution was filtered through filter paper labeled amount of Sitagliptin is dissolved in
(No. 42). The total amount of drugs within the 30minutes.
tablets was analysed after appropriate dilution of
test solution by using HPLC method as described 2.2.5 Optimization Data analysis
below against the reference solution of Sitagliptin Response surface methodology (RSM)
pure powder prepared in the same method. computations for this optimization study were
Column: Inertsil C18, 150mm × 4.6mm, 5µ performed employing Minitab 16. Polynomial
particle size equations including interaction and quadratic
Mobile phase: 0.05M phosphate buffer of pH 5.8: terms for dissolution of release tablet were
Acetonitrile in ratio = (65:35 v/v) generated for all the response variables using
Detection wavelength: UV detection with 254nm multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA)
Injection volume: 20µl approach. Polynomial equation for factorial design
Tablets were also evaluated for hardness (n-10), in general form is given by:
friability (n=20), weight variation (n=20) and Y = B + B X + B X + B X + B X +
thickness (n=10). B X X ……..………………………… (1)
Where,
2.2.4 Drug Release Study Y is dependent variable,
Drug release from 6 tablets of each formulation, in B0 is intercept representing the arithmetic average
triplicate, was determined using USP Type I of thirteen batches/runs and
apparatus (basket) where 900 ml of distilled water B1 is estimated coefficient for factor X1.
was used as medium maintained at 37±0.5oC at The main effects (X1 and X2) represent the average
100 RPM [4]. The release rates from the tablets result of changing one factor at a time from its low
were conducted in a dissolution medium for 30 to high value. They are the coded levels of the
minutes. independent variable(s). The interaction term
(X1X2) shows how the response changes when two

www.gtia.co.in 9
International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

factors are simultaneously changed. The 3. Result and Discussions

polynomial terms (X12 and X22) are included to 3.1 Drug Content and Physical Evaluation
investigate non-linearity. Drug content in various formulations varied
In the linear model equation, the positive sign of between 98.00 and 102.75% (mean 100.25%).
the coefficient indicates a synergistic effect while Tablet weights varied between 248.50 mg and
a negative term indicates an antagonistic effect 260.20 mg (mean 253.00 mg), thickness between
upon the response. The largest coefficient means 3.47 mm and 3.67 mm (mean 3.55 mm), hardness
the casual factor has more potent influence on the between 5.00 kg/cm2 and 6.50 kg/cm2 (mean 5.67
response. The statistical validity of the kg/cm2) and friability ranged between 0.65% and
polynomials was established on the basis of 0.30% (mean 0.45%). The friability values of none
ANOVA provision in Minitab 16. of the formulations exceeded 1%. The results
indicated that the tablets were mechanically stable.
2.2.6 Release Profiles Comparison Disintegration time was found in the range of 11-
Similarity and Dissimilarity Factor are more 17 seconds. Thus all the physical parameters of the
adequate to dissolution profile comparisons when tablets were practically within control.
more than three or four dissolution time points are
available. 3.2 In-vitro Drug Realease Studies
Similarity Factor Dissolution study of all formulations was
Similarity between the two products is assessed by conducted as per dissolution method described in
using similarity factor. The similarity factor (Fs) is method 2. Dissolution profiles of different
a logarithmic transformation of the sum-squared formulation are illustrated in Fig.2 and Fig.3.
error of differences between the test Tj and
reference products Rj over all points [5]. 120
 ".$
F = 50   1 +   ∑  −  !  100%

Cumulative Drug release

100
…………………....... (2)
Where n is the sampling number, Rj and Tj are the 80
% dissolved of reference and the test products at 60
(%)

each time points j respectively. fs value higher than

40
50 and close to 100 show the similarity of the
dissolution profiles [5]. 20
0
Dissimilarity Factor
The difference factor (Fd) measures the percent 0 10 20 30 40
FS-1 FS-2 FS-3
error between two curves over all time points: FS-4 FS-5 FS-6
∑*
Time (minutes)
+,-(")
F& = ' ∑*
. 100……………… (3) Fig.2. Drug release profile for IR formulation (FS-1 to
+,- (
FS-6)
The percentage error is zero when the test and
drug reference profiles are identical and increase 120
Cumulative Drug

proportionally with the dissimilarity between the 100

release (%)

two dissolution profiles. fd values should be close 80

to 0 to be similar. In general, the values lower than 60
15 or between 0 and 15 show the similarity of the 40
dissolution profiles [5]. 20
0
2.2.7 Comparison of Formulated Tablets
with Marketed Tablets 0 10 20 30 40
FS-7 FS-8 FS-9 FS-10
Optimized batch compared with marketed tablet FS-11 FS-12 FS-13
for dissolution study to know about the dissolution Time (minutes)
profile of the optimized batch. Fig.3. Drug release profile for IR formulation (FS-7 to
FS-13)

www.gtia.co.in 10
International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

The results of drug release show that all of the dissolution as 100.021%. Hence, the optimized IR
above formulations released not less than 85% of formulation was selected with concentration of
the drug (Q=80%) within 15 minutes, which lies 4.59% of CCS (i.e. 11.48 mg /tablet) and 5.57% of
within the specification for immediate release SSG (i.e. 13.92 mg/tablet).
dosage form [6].
3.4 Optimization for the Sitagliptin Immediate
3.3 Optimized Immediate Release Formulation Release
Dissolution of all the formulations were within Equation derived from the regression coefficients
limits i.e. NLT 85% (Q=80%). With response of Immediate drug release at 15 minutes is
target of dissolution at 15 minutes set 100% ± expressed as equation 4,
10%, the optimization plot (Fig.4) suggested the / = 22.150 + 13.9561 + 16.5602
optimal value of factors by the vertical red line or − 0.21911 − 1.08622
value at top row in red i.e. CCS 4.59% (11.48 mg) − 1.16812 … … … . . . 4
and SSG 5.57% (13.92 mg) of the total weight of Where, X1 is CCS, X2 is SSG, X1X1, X2X2 and
tablet. Horizontal dotted blue line in Fig.4 X1X2 are their interaction terms.
represents the predicted response from the optimal Equation 4 reflects that regression coefficient of
values of factors. Composite desirability of SSG is more as compared to CCS which indicates
obtaining the targeted response is 0.997 out of 1 that SSG have more contribution towards the
and the grey region in the graph represents zero response. The CCS and SSG have positive effect
composite desirability. on drug release whereas the interaction between
Optimal CCS S SG
D High
Cur
0.99769 Low
5.6213
[4.5928]
8.6213
[5.5786]
CCS-CCS, SSG-SSG and interaction between
1.3787 4.3787
CCS and SSG have an antagonistic effect on drug
release. From ANOVA analysis, it was found that
Composite
Desirability SSG (P = 0.019) is significant factor than CCS (P
0.99769
= 0.345) whereas Interaction between CCS and
CCS (P = 0.567), the interaction between SSG and
SSG (P = 0.316) and interaction between CCS and
Diss 15
Targ: 100.0
SSG (P = 0.377) are not significant.
y = 100.0231
d = 0.99769

3.5 Comparison of Drug Release with Market

Fig.4. Optimization plot for immediate release tablet Formulations
Comparison of dissolution profiles of optimized
Contour Plot of Diss 15 vs SSG, CCS
Sitagliptin tablet with marketed product MP1 was
8.5
Diss 15
performed. The results showed that the dissolution
8.0 85.0
<
–
85.0
87.5
profile of optimized tablet and MP1 market have
87.5
90.0
–
–
90.0
92.5
similar pattern of drug release. The cumulative
7.5
92.5
95.0
–
–
95.0
97.5
drug release is reported in Table 3. The release
7.0 97.5 – 100.0
> 100.0
profiles obtained are shown in Fig.6.
SSG

6.5
CC S = 4.58684
SSG = 5.57354
6.0 Diss 15 = 100.021 Table 3: In-vitro drug release profile of the Optimized
5.5
Tablet and Marketed Product
5.0
Cumulative % drug
release
4.5
Time interval Sitagliptin
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
MP1
CCS Phosphate
Fig.5. Contour plot of drug release at 15 minutes of (Siptin 50)
(OPS)
Immediate release tablet
15 minutes 99.072 94.107
Similarly, CCS 4.59% (11.48 mg) and SSG 5.57% 30 minutes 100.443 95.257
(13.92 mg) concentration was flag in contour plots
as shown in Fig.5. It showed the desired target

www.gtia.co.in 11
 International Journal of Pharmacy, Biology and Medical Sciences Vol. 4. No. 1 & 2. ISSN 2319 -3026 (Jan-Dec 2015)

Cumulative Drug Release (%) 120 References:

100 [1] Gadsby, Roger, Efficacy and Safety of
80 Sitagliptin in the Treatment of Type 2
Diabetes, Clinical Medicine: Therapeutics (1),
60 2009, pp. 53–62.
40 [2] Pal T. K, Mandal U, Gowda V, Ghosh A,
Selvan S, Solomon S, Formulation and
20
Optimization of Sustained Release Matrix
0 Tablet of Metformin HCl 500 mg Using
0 10 20 30 40 Response Methodology, The Pharmaceutical
Society of Japan, Volume 127(8), 2007, pp.
MP1 Optimized Batch
1281-1291.
Time (minutres) [3] Aulton ME, Pharmaceutics – The Science of
Fig. 6. Showing Dissolution Profile of MP1 Market Dosage Form Design, 2nd Edition, Harcourt
Product and Optimized Batch for Immediate Release Publishers Limited, 2002, pp. 410-417.
[4] FDA-Recommended Dissolution Method,
3.6 Similarity and Dissimilarity Factor http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/dis
The predicted values from the response optimizer solution/ (Date of Access: 29.01.2014).
were compared with the value observed from [5] P. Costa, J.M. Sousa Lobo, Modelling and
optimized batch with the application of similarity Comparision of Dissolution Profiles, European
and dissimilarity factor. The data are depicted in Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 13, 2001,
Table 4 which shows that the cumulative drug pp.123 –133.
release obtained from the optimized formulation [6] Guidance for Industry: Dissolution Testing of
was similar to the predicted cumulative drug Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms,
release. FDA, August 1997.
Table 4. Similarity and Dissimilarity factors between
Predicted and Observed Drug Release Percentage of
Optimized batch
Drug Release
Percentage of Similarity Dissimilarity
Time
Immediate Release Factor Factor
(minutes)
Fs Fd
Predicted Observed

15 100.021 99.072 95.961 0.949

4. Conclusion
It can be concluded that the immediate release
tablet of Sitagliptin Phosphate can be developed
and optimized using response surface
methodology. The optimized immediate release
tablet provided the satisfactory drug release profile
with an increased therapeutic efficacy for the
managemant of Type-II diabetes mellitus.

www.gtia.co.in 12

View publication stats