FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF COLON TARGETED MATRIX TABLETS CONTAINING EXTRACT OF SOLENOSTEMMA ARGEL (HARGEL)
Objective: The objective of the present study is to formulate colon targeted matrix tablets containing Solenostemma argel extract using guar gum alone or in combination with either HPMC K15M, with Eudragit S100, or with both them.
Methods: The Hargel colon targeted matrix tablets were prepared by wet granulation method. The prepared matrix tablets were evaluated for the weight variation, hardness, friability, and in-vitro drug release study in three different media. The formulations showed compliance with pharmacopoeial standards except that containing guar gum alone.
Results: There was no interaction between drug, polymer and other excipients. It was confirmed by FTIR studies. Among the formulations, GHE2 (i.e. containing triple polymer mixture) showed good results in release retardation and other physicochemical properties of matrix tablets when compare to other formulations.
Conclusion: The optimum formulation (GHE2) was stable when it was stored at 450/75% RH for 3 months. The formulation GHE2 was considered the most suitable formula for targeted the colon.
Peer Review History:
Received 30 July 2019; Revised 9 August; Accepted 3 September, Available online 15 September 2019
UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.
Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.5/10
Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 9.0/10