Search results for: Mojahed. al-jamrah

Authors: Ahmed. Abdel Bary, Omneya. Khowessah, Mojahed. al-jamrah

Abstract:

Introduction: The major challenge with the design of oral dosage forms lies with their poor bioavailability. The most frequent causes of low oral bioavailability are attributed to poor solubility and low permeability. The aim of this study was to develop solid nanodispersed tablet formulation of Glimepiride for the enhancement of the solubility and bioavailability. Methodology: Solid nanodispersions of Glimepiride (GMP) were prepared using two different ratios of 2 different carriers, namely; PEG6000, pluronic F127, and by adopting two different techniques, namely; solvent evaporation technique and fusion technique. A full factorial design of 2 3 was adopted to investigate the influence of formulation variables on the prepared nanodispersion properties. The best chosen formula of nanodispersed powder was formulated into tablets by direct compression. The Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) analysis and Fourier Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) analysis were conducted for the thermal behavior and surface structure characterization, respectively. The zeta potential and particle size analysis of the prepared glimepiride nanodispersions was determined. The prepared solid nanodispersions and solid nanodispersed tablets of GMP were evaluated in terms of pre-compression and post-compression parameters, respectively. Results: The DSC and FTIR studies revealed that there was no interaction between GMP and all the excipients used. Based on the resulted values of different pre-compression parameters, the prepared solid nanodispersions powder blends showed poor to excellent flow properties. The resulted values of the other evaluated pre-compression parameters of the prepared solid nanodispersion were within the limits of pharmacopoeia. The drug content of the prepared nanodispersions ranged from 89.6 ± 0.3 % to 99.9± 0.5% with particle size ranged from 111.5 nm to 492.3 nm and the resulted zeta potential (ζ ) values of the prepared GMP-solid nanodispersion formulae (F1-F8) ranged from -8.28±3.62 mV to -78±11.4 mV. The in-vitro dissolution studies of the prepared solid nanodispersed tablets of GMP concluded that GMP- pluronic F127 combinations (F8), exhibited the best extent of drug release, compared to other formulations, and to the marketed product. One way ANOVA for the percent of drug released from the prepared GMP-nanodispersion formulae (F1- F8) after 20 and 60 minutes showed significant differences between the percent of drug released from different GMP-nanodispersed tablet formulae (F1- F8), (P<0.05). Conclusion: Preparation of glimepiride as nanodispersed particles proven to be a promising tool for enhancing the poor solubility of glimepiride.

Keywords: glimepiride, solid Nanodispersion, nanodispersed tablets, poorly water soluble drugs

Procedia PDF Downloads 460

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 556