Comparative evaluation of the use of dry binders in a physical mixture or as a coprocessed dry binder in matrix tablets with extended drug release

Open access


This paper evaluates and compares the properties of directly compressible tabletting materials and matrix tablets containing a combination of α-lactose monohydrate and microcrystalline cellulose in the 3:1 ratio in a physical mixture and in a coprocessed dry binder. Tested parameters include flow properties, compressibility, compactibility and the rate of drug release from tablets. Compressibility is evaluated by means of the energy profile of the compression process. Compactibility is evaluated by means of the tensile strength of the tablets. Dissolution testing is done using the rotating basket method. Dissolution profiles are evaluated by non-linear regression analysis.

Total energy of compression and plasticity values were higher in tabletting materials with the coprocessed dry binder. Increasing additions of polyvinyl alcohol decreased the values of total energy of compression, plasticity, tensile strength of tablets and drug release rate. Dissolution behaviour of tablets, which contained the physical mixture or coprocessed dry binder and the same amount of polyvinyl alcohol, was comparable.

1. P. Gupta, S. K. Nachaegari and A. K. Bansal, Improved Excipient Functionality by Coprocessing, in Excipient Development for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Drug Delivery Systems (Eds. K. A. Katdare, M. V. Chaubal) Informa Healthcare USA 2006, pp. 109–126.

2. K. Satish, S. K. Nachaegari and A. K. Bansal, Coprocessed excipients for solid dosage forms, Pharm. Tech. 28 (2004) 52–64.

3. M. C. Gohel and P. D. Jogani, A review of coprocessed directly compressible excipients, J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 8 (2005) 76–93;

4. P. M. Belda and J. B. Mielck, The tabletting behavior of Cellactose compared with mixtures of celluloses with lactoses, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 42 (1996) 325–330.

5. J. D. Allen, Improving DC with SMCC, Manuf. Chemist. 67 (1996) 19–20.

6. B. E. Sherwood and J. W.Becker, A new class of high-functionality excipients: Silicified microcrystalline cellulose, Pharm. Technol. 22 (1998) 78–88.

7. P. C. Schmidt and C. J. Rubensdorfer, Evaluation of Ludipress as a multipurpose excipient for direct compression. Part 1. Powder characteristics and tabletting properties, Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 20 (1994) 2899–2925;

8. K. G. Wagner and J. A. Dressler, A corn starch/alpha -lactose monohydrate compound as a new directly compressible excipient, Pharm. Ind. 64 (2002) 992–999.

9. J. Mužíková, P. Svačinová and A. Srbová, A study of a novel coprocessed dry binder composed of α-lactose monohydrate, microcrystalline cellulose and corn starch. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 22 (2017) 964–971;

10. H. Kathpalia and K. Jogi, Coprocessed excipients – a review, WJPR 3 (2014), 3863–3885.

11. G. K. Bolhuis and N. A. Armstrong, Excipients for Direct Compaction – an update, Pharm. Dev. Technol. 11 (2006) 111–124;

12. J. S. M. Gar and M. H. Rubinstein, Compaction properties of cellulose-lactose direct-compression excipient, Pharm. Tech. Int. 15 (1991) 24–27.

13. Meggle Excipients & Technology, Technical Brochure MicroceLac®100. Firm. Lit., access date March 25, 2015.

14. Kerry, Product document. DisintequikTM MCC 25. Firm. Lit., access date March 28, 2015.

15. Meggle Excipients & Technology. Technical Brochure Cellactose® 80. Firm. Lit., access date October 13, 2017.

16. European Pharmacopoeia, 9th ed., Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2017.

17. G. Ragnarsson, Force-displacement and Network Measurements, in Pharmaceutical Powder Compaction Technology (Eds. G. Alderborn and Ch. Nyström), Marcel Dekker Inc., New York 1996, pp. 77–96.

18. A. Stamm and C. Mathis, Verpressbarkeit von Festen Hilfsstoffen für Direkttablettierung, Acta Pharm. Technol. 22 (1976) 7–16.

19. J. T. Fell and J. M. Newton, Determination of tablet strength by diametral-compression test, J. Pharm. Sci. 59 (1970) 688–691;

20. C. E. Bos, G. K. Bolhuis, H. van Doorne and C. F. Lerk, Native starch in tablet formulations: properties on compaction, Pharm. Weekbl. Sci. 9 (1987) 274–282;

21. P. Costa and J. M. Sousa Lobo, Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 13 (2001) 123–133;

22. S. Dash, P. N. Murthy, L. Nath and P. Chowdhury, Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlled drug delivery systems, Acta Pol. Pharm. 67 (2010) 217–223;

23. V. A. Belousov, Choice of optimal pressure values in tabletting medicinal powders, Khim. Farm. Zh. 10 (1976) 105–111.

24. Y. Lei, Q. Zhou, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Sun and I. Noda, Analysis of crystallized lactose in milk powder by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy combined with two-dimensional correlation infrared spectroscopy, J. Mol. Struct. 974 (2010) 88–93;

25. H. S. Mansur, C. M. Sadahira, A. N. Souza and A. A. P. Mansur, FTIR spectroscopy characterization of poly (vinyl alcohol) hydrogel with different hydrolysis degree and chemically crosslinked with glutaraldehyde, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 28 (2008) 539–548;

26. A. Michoel, P. Rombaut and A. Verhoye, Comparative evaluation of co-processed lactose and microcrystalline cellulose with their physical mixtures in the formulation of folic acid tablets, Pharm. Dev. Technol. 7 (2002) 79–87;

27. A. T. M. Serajuddin and C. I. Jarowski, Effect of diffusion layer pH and solubility on the dissolution rate of pharmaceutical bases and their hydrochloride salts. II: salicylic acid, theophylline and benzoic acid, J. Pharm. Sci. 74 (1985) 148–154;

Acta Pharmaceutica

The Journal of Croatian Pharmaceutical Society

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.071
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.623

CiteScore 2017: 1.46

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.362
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.642


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 71 71 34
PDF Downloads 29 29 14