Table 1.
Equilibrium solubility of TMS and TPCs in the selected vehicles.
Fig 1.
Solid-state properties of different samples: Telmisartan (TMS), soy phosphatidylcholine (SPC), TMS-PC complex (TPC), and the physical mixture of TMS and SPC.
(A) Differential scanning calorimetric thermograms. (B) Powder X-ray diffraction patterns.
Fig 2.
Ternary phase diagram of Capryol 90 (oil), tween 80 (surfactant), and tetraglycol (cosurfactant).
Light gray and dark gray areas indicate self-microemulsifying regions and experimental regions, respectively.
Table 2.
Variables and responses used in the D-optimal mixture design.
Table 3.
Mixture design for optimization of TPC-loaded SMEDDS formulation and the associated response data.
Table 4.
Summary of results of statistical analysis and model equations for the measured responses.
Table 5.
Analysis of variance for full cubic model of the measured responses.
Fig 3.
Effects of independent variables on the response factors, Y1, Y2, and Y3.
(A) Three-dimensional response surface plot for the effects of the independent variables. (B) Contour plots for the effects of X1 and X2 on the responses. (Y1, droplet size (nm); Y2, TMS solubilization (mg/mL); and Y3, the percentage of drug released in 15 min (%)).
Fig 4.
Overlay contour plot of the optimized TPC-loaded SMEDDS formulation.
Upper box shows the target and limit values for optimization. Values in the lower box represent the percentage of three components and the predicted responses for the optimized formulation with a desirability value.
Table 6.
Predicted and observed values of optimized TPC-loaded SMEDDS formulation.
Fig 5.
Dissolution profiles of raw TMS (■) and optimized TPC-loaded SMEDDS formulation (□) in different media of distilled water, pH 1.2, pH 4, and pH 6.8.
Values represent the mean ± SD (n = 3).