Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 3311–3321 | Cite as

Comparative Study for Optimization of Pharmaceutical Self-Emulsifying Pre-concentrate by Design of Experiment and Artificial Neural Network

  • Kinjal J. Parikh
  • Krutika K. Sawant
Research Article

Abstract

The present investigation aimed to optimize the critical parameters affecting the globule size of self-emulsifying drug delivery system. Based on preliminary screening, three critical parameters, viz., amount of oil, surfactant, and co-surfactant were found to affect the globule size. I-optimal mixture design and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) were used to optimize the formulation with respect to minimum globule size. Comparative study was carried out to identify which optimization technique gave better predictability for the selected output parameter. R-value and MSE values were taken into consideration for comparison of both techniques. Using Response Surface Methodology-based I-optimal mixture design approach, the R2 value was found to be 0.9867, whereas with ANN technique, it was found to be 0.99548. The predicted size for the optimized batch by I-optimal design was 122.377 nm, whereas by ANN, it was 119.6783 nm against the actual obtained size of 118.2 ± 2.3 nm. This analysis indicated superior predictability of output for given input variables by ANN as compared to model-dependent DoE I-optimal design approach.

KEY WORDS

self-emulsifying pre-concentrate formulation optimization I-optimal design multiple regression artificial neural network 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Chirag Makvana and Ankit Desai for their help in coding evaluation. The authors would also like to thank Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara, India, for providing Iloperidone as gift sample.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gupta S, Chavhan S, Sawant KK. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system for adefovir dipivoxil: design, characterization, in vitro and ex vivo evaluation. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 2011;392(1):145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh AK, Chaurasiya A, Singh M, Upadhyay SC, Mukherjee R, Khar RK. Exemestane loaded self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS): development and optimization. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(2):628–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandyopadhyay S, Katare O, Singh B. Optimized self nano-emulsifying systems of ezetimibe with enhanced bioavailability potential using long chain and medium chain triglycerides. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2012;100:50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sawant KK, Patel MH, Patel K. Cefdinir nanosuspension for improved oral bioavailability by media milling technique: formulation, characterization and in vitro–in vivo evaluations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2016;42(5):758–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter CJH, Trevaskis NL, Charman WN. Lipids and lipid-based formulations: optimizing the oral delivery of lipophilic drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:231–48.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray J, Roth BL. The pipeline and future of drug development in schizophrenia. Mol Psychiatry. 2007;12(10):904–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang T, Yang Y, Wang H, Sun F, Zhao X, Jia J, et al. Using dissolution and pharmacokinetics studies of crystal form to optimize the original iloperidone. Cryst Growth Des. 2013;13(12):5261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ige PP, Agrawal K, Patil U. Enhanced in vitro dissolution of Iloperidone using Caesalpinia Pulcherrima mucoadhesive microspheres. Beni-Suef Univ J Appl Sci. 2015;4(1):26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mandpe L, Kyadarkunte A, Pokharkar V. Assessment of novel iloperidone- and idebenone-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers: brain targeting efficiency and neuroprotective potential. Ther Deliv. 2013;4(11):1365–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh B, Kapil R, Nandi M, Ahuja N. Developing oral drug delivery systems using formulation by design: vital precepts, retrospect and prospects. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8(10):1341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh B, Bhatowa R, Tripathi CB, Kapil R. Developing micro-/nanoparticulate drug delivery systems using design of experiments. Int J Pharm Investig. 2011;1(2):75.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-973X.82395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eriksson L, Johansson F, Kettaneh-Wold N, Wikström C, Wold S. Analysis of factorial designs (Level 1) in design of experiments: principles and applications. Stockholm: MKS Umetrics AB; 2008. p. 85–92.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones B, Goos P. I-optimal versus D-optimal split-plot response surface designs. J Qual Technol. 2012;44(2):85–101.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2012.11917886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer RK, Nachtsheim CJ. The coordinate-exchange algorithm for constructing exact optimal experimental designs. Technometrics. 1995;37(1):60–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Desai KM, Survase SA, Saudagar PS, Lele S, Singhal RS. Comparison of artificial neural network (ANN) and response surface methodology (RSM) in fermentation media optimization: case study of fermentative production of scleroglucan. Biochem Eng J. 2008;41(3):266–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agatonovic-Kustrin S, Beresford R. Basic concepts of artificial neural network (ANN) modeling and its application in pharmaceutical research. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;22(5):717–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basheer I, Hajmeer M. Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. J Microbiol Methods. 2000;43(1):3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Date AA, Nagarsenker M. Design and evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) for cefpodoxime proxetil. Int J Pharm. 2007;329(1):166–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yavas O, Do N, Tam AC, Leung PT, Leung WP, Park HK, et al. Temperature dependence of optical properties for amorphous silicon at wavelengths of 632.8 and 752 nm. Opt Lett. 1993;18(7):540–2.  https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.18.000540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holm R, Jensen I, Sonnergaard J. Optimization of self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEDDS) using a D-optimal design and the desirability function. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2006;32(9):1025–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medarević DP, Kleinebudde P, Djuriš J, Djurić Z, Ibrić S. Combined application of mixture experimental design and artificial neural networks in the solid dispersion development. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2016;42(3):389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM. Two-level factorial designs in response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 81–160.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anand P, Siva Prasad B, Venkateswarlu C. Modeling and optimization of a pharmaceutical formulation system using radial basis function network. Int J Neural Syst. 2009;19(02):127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dayhoff JE, DeLeo JM. Artificial neural networks. Cancer. 2001;91(S8):1615–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Svozil D, Kvasnicka V, Pospichal J. Introduction to multi-layer feed-forward neural networks. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 1997;39(1):43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hashad RA, Ishak RA, Fahmy S, Mansour S, Geneidi AS. Chitosan-tripolyphosphate nanoparticles: optimization of formulation parameters for improving process yield at a novel pH using artificial neural networks. Int J Biol Macromol. 2016;86:50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel D, Sawant KK. Self micro-emulsifying drug delivery system: formulation development and biopharmaceutical evaluation of lipophilic drugs. Curr Drug Deliv. 2009;6(4):419–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel D, Sawant KK. Oral bioavailability enhancement of acyclovir by self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEDDS). Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2007;33(12):1318–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patel K, Sarma V, Vavia P. Design and evaluation of Lumefantrine–oleic acid self nanoemulsifying ionic complex for enhanced dissolution. DARU. 2013;21(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar M, Pathak K, Misra A. Formulation and characterization of nanoemulsion-based drug delivery system of risperidone. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35(4):387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sawant K, Pandey A, Patel S. Aripiprazole loaded poly (caprolactone) nanoparticles: optimization and in vivo pharmacokinetics. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;66:230–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thakkar H, Nangesh J, Parmar M, Patel D. Formulation and characterization of lipid-based drug delivery system of raloxifene-microemulsion and self-microemulsifying drug delivery system. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paul R. Multicollinearity: causes, effects and remedies. Indian Agric Stat Res Inst. 2008;4:2005–29.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hathout RM, Woodman TJ. Applications of NMR in the characterization of pharmaceutical microemulsions. J Control Release. 2012;161(1):62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dynamic light scattering, Common terms defined. Inform White Paper - Malvern Instruments Limited. 2011:1–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alam FM, McNaught KR, Ringrose TJ. A comparison of experimental designs in the development of a neural network simulation metamodel. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2004;12(7):559–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arulsudar N, Subramanian N, Murthy R. Comparison of artificial neural network and multiple linear regression in the optimization of formulation parameters of leuprolide acetate loaded liposomes. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005;8(2):243–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel KA, Brahmbhatt PK. A comparative study of the RSM and ANN models for predicting surface roughness in roller burnishing. Procedia Technol. 2016;23:391–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anand K, Shrivastava R, Tamilmannan K, Sathiya P. A comparative study of artificial neural network and response surface methodology for optimization of friction welding of Incoloy 800 H. Acta Metall Sin-EngL. 2015;28(7):892–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyThe M S University of BarodaVadodaraIndia

Personalised recommendations