Mathematical evaluation of in vitro release profiles of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose matrix tablets containing carbamazepine associated to β-cyclodextrin

European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 177-179

  Koester, Letícia S ^a   Ortega, George G ^a   Mayorga, Paulo ^a   Bassani, Valquiria L ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cyclodextrin; Carbamazepine; First order; Fit factors; Higuchi; Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose; Weibull; Zero order

Indexed keywords

BETA CYCLODEXTRIN; CARBAMAZEPINE; HYDROXYPROPYLMETHYLCELLULOSE;

ARTICLE; COMPLEX FORMATION; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG RELEASE; IN VITRO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KINETICS; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PARAMETER; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TABLET;

BETA-CYCLODEXTRINS; CARBAMAZEPINE; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; METHYLCELLULOSE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; TABLETS, ENTERIC-COATED;

EID: 2942682945     PISSN: 09396411     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2004.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Koester L.S., Xavier C.R., Mayorga P., Bassani V.L. Influence of β-cyclodextrin complexation on carbamazepine release from hydroxypropyl methylcellulose matrix tablets. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 55:2003;85-91
2. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Guidance for Industry: Dissolution Testing of Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms. Rockville. 1997;. Available in http://www.fda.gov/cder/ guidance.htm
3. Moore J.W., Flanner H.H. Mathematical comparison of dissolution profiles. Pharm. Technol. 20:1996;64-74
4. Anderson N.H., Bauer M., Boussac N., Khan-Malek R., Munden P., Sardaro M. An evaluation of fit factors and dissolution efficiency for the comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 17:1998;811-822
5. Yuksel N., Kanik A.E., Baykara T. Comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles by ANOVA-based, model-dependent and -independent methods. Int. J. Pharm. 209:2000;57-67
6. O'Hara T., Dunne A., Butler J., Devane J.A. A review of methods used to compare dissolution profile data. PSTT. 1:1998;214-223
7. Costa P., Lobo J.M.S. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 13:2001;123-133
8. Langenbucher F. Linearization of dissolution rate curves by the Weibull distribution. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 24:1972;979-981
9. Gibaldi M., Feldman S. Establishment of sink conditions of dissolution rate determinations. J. Pharm. Sci. 56:1967;1238-1242
10. Wagner J.G. Interpretation of percent dissolved-time plots derived from in vitro testing of conventional tablets and capsules. J. Pharm. Sci. 58:1969;1253-1257
11. Costa P. An alternative method to the evaluation of similarity factor in dissolution testing. Int. J. Pharm. 220:2001;77-83
12. 2. Pharm. Res. 15:1998;889-896
13. Desai S.J., Singh P., Simonelli A.P., Higuchi W.I. Investigation of factors influencing release of solid drug dispersed in inert matrices II. J. Pharm. Sci. 55:1966;1224-1229