Pharmaceutics

Formulation Development, Evaluation and Comparative Study

of Effects of Super Disintegrants in Cefixime Oral Disintegrating
Tablets
Remya KS, Beena P, Bijesh PV, Sheeba A
Nazareth College of Pharmacy, Othera P.O, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta (Dist.), Kerala - 689 546, India

Address for correspondence: Miss. Remya K. S.; E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The present work was aimed at formulation development, evaluation and comparative study of the effects of
superdisintegrants in Cefixime 50 mg oral disintegrating tablets. The superdisintegrants used for the present
study were sodium starch glycolate and crosscarmellose sodium. The formulated tablets were evaluated for
various tableting properties, like hardness, thickness, friability, weight variation, disintegration time and
dissolution rate. Comparative evaluation of the above-mentioned parameters established the superiority of
the tablets formulated with crosscarmellose sodium to those formulated with sodium starch glycolate.

Key words: Cefixime, superdisintegrants, oral disintegrating tablets

DOI: 10.4103/0975-1483.66794

INTRODUCTION disintegrating tablets/mouth dissolving tablets. An oral

disintegrating tablet is a solid
Disintegrants are agents added to tablet formulations
to promote the break-up of the tablet into smaller
fragments in an aqueous environment, thereby
increasing the available surface area and promoting a
more rapid release of the drug substance. In more
recent years, several newer disintegrants have been
developed, often called “super disintegrants.” These
newer substances can be used at lower levels than
conventionally used disintegrants. Three major
mechanisms and factors affecting tablet
disintegration are suggested as swelling, porosity and
capillary action and deformation. Three major group
of compounds that have been developed as
superdisintegrants are modified starches, cross-linked
polyvinylpyrrolidone and modified cellulose.

One of the major streams of application of

superdisintegrants is in the formulation of oral
J Young Pharm Vol 2 / No 3 1
dosage form that disintegrates and
dissolves in the mouth, either on or
beneath the tongue or in the buccal cavity
without water, within 60 s or lower. The
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER) defines, in the orange book, an
oral disintegrating tablet as, “A solid
dosage form containing medicinal
substances, which disintegrates rapidly,
usually within a matter of seconds, when
placed upon the tongue.” At present, oral
disintegrating tablets are the only quick-
dissolving dosage form recognized by
FDA and listed in the approved drug
products with therapeutic equivalence
evaluations.[1,2]

The drug selected for the study was

cefexime trihydrate, which is used in the
treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract
infections.[3,4] The aim of the study was to
formulate an oral disintegrating tablet of
cefixime trihydrate using two
superdisintegrants separately
(crosscarmellose sodium and sodium
starch glycolate), and to select the best
among the two based on the disintegration
time and other tableting properties.

2 J Young Pharm Vol 2 / No 3

 Remya, et al. J Young Pharm. 2010;2(3):
234-239
MATERIALS AND METHODS Bulk density = M/Vo

Materials Tapped density

Cefixime trihydrate was procured from Aurobindo Accurately weighed quantity of powder is introduced
Pharma Ltd . Sodium starch glycolate and into a measuring cylinder. Mechanically tap the
croscarmellose sodium were procured from DK cylinder containing the sample by raising the cylinder
Enterprises, while magnesium stearate and talc was and allowing it to drop under its own weight using a
from Nice Chemicals . suitable mechanical tapped density tester at a nominal
rate of 300 drops/min. Tap the cylinder 500 times and
Methodology
measure the tapped volume (Va). Repeat the operation
Preformulation studies[5-7] for an additional 750 tappings and again measure the
Preformulation study is defined as an investigation of tapped volume as (Vb).
the physical and chemical properties of drug substance
If the difference between Va and Vb is <2%, Vb is the
alone and when combined with the excipients. The
final tapped volume (Vf). If the difference is higher,
overall objective of preformulation testing is to
repeat the tapings for an additional 1,250 times, and
generate information useful to the formulator in
then the tapped density can be calculated using the
developing a stable and bioavailable dosage form that
following formula (United States pharmacopoeia,
can be mass produced. The commonly investigated
2004)
preformulation parameters include angle of repose,
bulk density/tapped density, pour density, Carr’s Tapped density = M/Vf
compressibility index and Hausner ratio.
Where, M = weight of the sample taken; Vf = final tapped
Angle of repose volume
It is determined by allowing a powder to flow through
a funnel and fall freely on to a surface. Further Carr’s index
addition of powder is stopped as soon as the pile
touches the tip of the funnel. A circle is drawn around The compressibility index of granules can be
the pile without disturbing it. The height and diameter determined using Carr’s compressibility index, and can
of the resulting cone are measured. The same be determined by the following formula:
procedure is repeated three times and the average value
is taken. Angle of repose is calculated by using the (Tapped density
following equation: –
Pour density)
Tan θ = h/r Carr’s index (%) X 100
= Tapped
Where, h = height of the powder cone; r = radius of the density
powder
Hausner ratio
150–250 ml. A 100-ml cylinder is used for apparent volumes
Bulk density between 50 and 100 ml. Fill the cylinder carefully. Carefully level
the powder without compacting, if necessary, and read the unsettled
Unless otherwise specified, pass a quantity of material apparent volume (Vo). Calculate the bulk density, in g/ml, using the
sufficient to complete the test through a 1.00-mm (no. formula,
18) screen to break up agglomerates that may have
formed during storage. Into a dry 250-ml cylinder
introduce, without compacting, approximately 100 g of
the test sample (M) weighed with 0.1% accuracy. If it is
not possible to use 100 g, the amount of the test sample
and the volume of the cylinder may be modified. Select
a sample mass having an untapped apparent volume of
 Development and study of effects of super disintegrants
The Hausner ratio can be determined using the
following IR studies of drug and drug with superdisintegrants
formula: were carried out in order to check the compatibility
between the drug and the excipients.
Tapped density
Hausner ratio (%) = X 100 Pour Formulation development
density
The methodology selected for the preparation of cefixime
Compatibility studies oral disintegrating tablets is direct compression. About 10
formulations were prepared, of which five
formulations included varying concentrations of the Six tablets were evaluated to determine the average
superdisintegrant sodium starch glycolate and five of thickness.
crosscarmellose sodium. The list of ingredients is
given in Tables 1 and 2. Disintegration test

Tablet evaluation[8-10] Introduce one tablet into each tube and add a disc to
each tube. Suspend the assembly in the beaker
The selected batches made in bulk were subjected to containing the specified liquid and operate the
evaluations as per Indian pharmacopoeia. apparatus for a specified period of time. The tablet
passes the test if all tablets have disintegrated. If one
Weight variation or two tablets fail to disintegrate, repeat the test on 12
additional tablets, such that not <16 of the total of 18
Twenty tablets were selected at random, weighed and tablets tested disintegrate. If the tablets adhere to the
the average weight was calculate. Not more than two disc, repeat the test by omitting the disc. The
of the individual weights should deviate from the preparation complies with the test if all the tablets in
average weight by more than 5%. the repeat test disintegrate.

Friability Dissolution studies/in vitro release studies

For each formulations, preweighed tablet samples (20 Medium

tablets) were placed on the friabilator, which is then 0.05 M potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.2, prepared
operated for 100 revolutions. The tablets were then by dissolving 6.8 g of monobasic potassium phosphate
dusted and reweighed. Conventional compressed in 1,000 ml of water and adjusting with 1N sodium
tablets that loose <0.5–1.0% of their weight are hydroxide to a pH of 7.2, 900 ml.
considered acceptable.
Apparatus
Hardness Dissolution apparatus with 100 rpm.
Tablet hardness of each formulation was determined Time
using a Monsanto hardness tester . Results were Forty-five minutes.
calculated from the average results of six tablets.
Procedure
Thickness
The amount of cefixime released was determined by
Tablet thickness is determined using vernier calipers. measuring the absorbance of the sample withdrawn at
280 nm in comparison with a standard solution having
a

Table 1: Formulation of cefixime with sodium starch glycolate

Ingredients S 1( mg) S2(mg) S3(mg) S4(mg) S5(mg)
Cefixime trihydrate 55.90 55.90 55.90 55.90 55.90
Microcrystalline cellulose 214.30 211.50 - - 217.10
Pregelatinised starch - - 214.30 211.50 -
Sodium starch glycolate 5.60 8.40 5.60 8.40 2.80
 Remya, et al. J Young Pharm. 2010;2(3):
Magnesium stearate 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
234-239
Talc 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80
Average weight ( mg) 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00

Table 2: Formulation of cefixime with cross carmellose sodium

Ingredients C 1( mg) C2(mg) C3(mg) C4(mg) C5(mg)
Cefixime trihydrate 55.90 55.90 55.90 55.90 55.90
Microcrystalline cellulose 214.30 211.50 - - 217.10
Pregelatinised starch - - 214.30 211.50 -
Sodium starch glycolate 5.60 8.40 5.60 8.40 2.80
Magnesium stearate 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
Talc 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80
Average weight ( mg) 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00
Table 3: Physicochemical evaluation of the
formulations known concentration of USP cefixime reference standard
Parameters Formulation with Formulation with (RS) in the same medium.
cross carmellose sodium starch
mean value of glycollate
(C1 – C5) (S1 – S5) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Angle of repose 24 ° 37’ 2.1’’ 27° 25’ 13.02’’
Bulk density / tapped 0.6517 0.7117
density
Preformulation studies
Pour density 0.5140 0.5761
Carr’s compressibility index 21.12 19.05 Values of the preformulation studies are given in Table
Hausner ratio 1.26 1.23 3, from which it is evident that all the parameters
analyzed showed satisfactory flow properties and
compression characteristics.
Table 4: Tablet ingredients for scale up batch
Compatibility studies
Ingredients Quantity/ Quantity Quantity
tablet (mg) for 50 for 50
tablets (g) tablets (g) IR spectra of cefixime, sodium starch glycolate,
(S3) (C 1) crosscarmellose sodium and combinations are given in
Cefixime trihydrate 55.90 2.795 2.795 Figures 1–5. The results of the FTIR spectral analysis
Microcrystalline 214.30 10.715 10.715
cellulose showed that the peaks and the pattern of the spectra
Sodium starch glycolate 5.60 0.280 ---- were similar in all cases, which indicated that there
Cross carmellose sodium 5.60 ---- 0.280
was no chemical interaction or decomposition of
Magnesium stearate 1.40 0.070 0.070
Talc 2.80 0.140 0.140
cefixime during the preparation of the tablets.
Pineapple flavor q.s q.s q.s
Tarazarine lake q.s q.s q.s Formulation
Average weight (mg) 280.00 ---- ----
Because the aim of the project was to formulate
cefixime 50 mg DT tablet, which disintegrated within
Table 5: Evaluation parameters of the best
formulations 1 min, priority was given so as to get good results with
cost-effectiveness of the product.
Tablet evaluation Formula S3 Formula C1
parameters
Diameter 0.96 0.95
From the tables and histograms, it was evident that the
Thickness 0.36 0.38 formulations C1 and S3 stood ahead in all the tableting
Hardness 3.0 3.5 properties and in disintegration performance. Both the
Friability 0.751 0.725 batches were prepared in bulk [Table 4] and
Weight variation pass pass confirmatory evaluation tests were carried out.
Disintegration time (sec) 42 32
Dissolution rate (%) 94.56 96.37
DT stands satisfactory with the time limit of <1 min for all

Table 6: Evaluation of tabletting parameters

Tablet parameters Formula S1 Formula S2 Formula S3 Formula S4 Formula S5
Thickness (cm) 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.36
Hardness (kg/cm2) 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.6
Friability (%) 0.750 0.751 0.526 0.640 0.575

Table 7: Evaluation of tabletting parameters

Tablet parameters Formula C1 Formula C2 Formula C3 Formula C4 Formula C5
Thickness(cm) 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.37
Hardness (kg/cm2) 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6
Friability (%) 0.538 0.751 0.752 0.638 0.575

Table 8: Disintegration profile of the formulations

Formula S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Disintegration time in seconds 65 60 42 50 54 35 45 48 49 53
 100
%T 95

2613.37

2758.02

709.76
2491.86
90

2696.30
2929.67 2947.03

1263.29
1224.71
3544.92

2918.10
85 100

1421.44
3190.04
%T 95
3186.18

2850.59
2854.45

1546.80

1325.01
3137.97

1157.21
80
3298.05

3153.40
90

1535.23
1664.45 1751.24

1598.88

1112.85
3461.99 3494.77

1060.78
75

85

1764.75
70

65

80

60
Figure 1: IR spectrum of cefixime Figure 2: IR spectrum of crosscarmellose sodium
55
4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 75
Cefixime1/cm

70
100
%T 97.5

95

65
2931.60

707.83

2916.17
92.5
576.68

1766.67

1427.23
90
100
60
1598.88

1664.45
3407.98

3394.48
1155.28

87.5

1164.92
%T 95

78
1103.21

997.13
1114.
90 85 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500

1060.78
Cross carmilos Na1/cm

1026.06
1016.42

82.5

4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500
formula 11/cm
85
80

77.5

Figure 3: IR spectrum of sodium starch glycollate 80

Figure 4: IR spectrum of cefixime tablet blend with crosscarmellose
75
sodium

75

70
Time in seconds

80
65
4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500
60
100
NaStarch Glycolate1/cm
40
20
2902.67

%T 90
3139.90

1427.23

0
80
1321.15
3201.61

1163.00

70
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
3384.84

1112.85

Formulations
1058.85

60
1020.27

50

40

Figure 5: IR spectrum of cefixime tablet blend with sodium starch

30 Figure 6: Disintegration profile of the selected batch
glycolate
20

the batches, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Now, the

Evaluation of tableting properties of the selected
question exists for fixing the best batch among the rest.
4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500

batches confirm the standards prescribed in Indian

formula 21/cm

Hence, for the comparative study, one with the same

pharmacopoeia. The results are given in Tables 6 and
percentage was selected (2%). The batches S3 and C1
7.
were selected to carry out further evaluation [Table 5].
Disintegration time was found to be within 1 min and
 With the proof of different evaluation parameters
listed in Table 8, it was concluded that C 3 (CCS) was
60
the best formulation.
Time in seconds

40 Comparative evaluation studies proved that

crosscarmelose is superior to sodium starch glycolate.
20

0 REFERENCES

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 1. Carter JC. The role of disintegrants in solid oral dosage manufacturing.

Formulations Carter Pharmaceutical Consulting Inc., 2002-6
2. Raymond C R, Paul JS, Sian CO. 5th ed. Hand book of Pharmaceutical
Excipients. London: Pharmaceutical Press and American Pharmacist
association; 2006.
3. Department of heath, social services and public safety, British
Figure 7: Disintegration profile of the selected batch Pharmacopoeia, London: The stationary office on behalf of MHRA; 2005.
4. McMillan A, Young H. The treatment of Pharyngeal Gonirrhoea with
a single oral dose of Cefixime. Int J STD AIDS 2007;18:253-4.
the percentage drug release, which confirms the in 5. Leon L, liberman, Kanig. 2nd ed.The Theory and practice of Industrial
vitro bioavailability, was found to be 94.56 and 96.37, pharmacy. Bombay: Varghese publishing house; 1991.
respectively, for S3 and C1, which proves the credibility 6. Aulton ME, editor . Pharmaceutics, The science of dosage form design.
of the selected products. The results are given in Table 2nd ed. Sydney: Churchill livingstone; 2002.
7. Loyd VA, Nicholas GP, Howard CA. 8th ed. Ansel’s pharmaceutical
8. sosage forms and drug delivery systems. London: Lippincott Williams
and Willkins; 2005.
With reference to Table 5, a comparison of the 8. Ministry of health and family welfare; Government of India. Indian
different parameters like hardness, friability, Pharmacopoeia, Delhi: Controller of Publications; 1996.
9. Shirsand SB, Suresh S, Para MS, Swamy PV, Kumar DN. Plantago
disintegration and dissolution was carried out and ovata mucilage in the design of Fast disintegrating tablets. Indian J
superiority of the tablets formulated with Pharm Sci 2009;71:41-5.
crosscarmellose was established. 10. Mundada AS, Meshram DR, Mishra M, Bhalekar MR, Avari JG.
Formulation and evaluation of bitterless rapidly disintegrating tablet of
Famotidine using ion exchange resins. Int J Pharm Excipients
CONCLUSION 2008;7:23-5.

The aim of the present project is formulation

Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
development, evaluation and comparative study of
superdisintergrants in the Cefixime 50 mg oral
disintegrating tablet.