Detpon Preechagoon

Publications (2)3.08 Total impact

• Article: Formulation development of morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets and its bioequivalence study in healthy Thai volunteers.

  Detpon Preechagoon, Viroj Sumyai, Suvatna Chulavatnatol, Poj Kulvanich, Thanee Tessiri, Khanittha Tontisirin, Thaned Pongjanyakul, Verawan Uchaipichat, Sirikul Aumpon, Chaiyasit Wongvipaporn
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study were to develop morphine sulfate sustained-release tablet formulations and to evaluate the bioequivalence compared with a commercial brand. The physicochemical properties of the formulated and commercial tablets were determined and compared. The bioequivalence investigation was carried out in 15 healthy male volunteers who received a single dose in a randomized two-way crossover design. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 24 h. Morphine concentration was assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detector. The log-transformed C(max) and AUC(s) were statistically compared by analysis of variance, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratio of the log-transformed C(max) and AUC(s) between the most promising developed formulation and the commercial product were determined. It was found that the dissolution rate profile of a developed formulation was similar to the commercial brand. Their similarity and difference factors were well within limits. In the bioequivalence study, the AUC(last) and AUC(inf) between the test and the reference products were not statistically different (p = 0.227 and p = 0.468, respectively), with the 90% CIs of 83.4-102.6% and 87.7-139.4%, respectively. However, the C(max) of the two formulations was significantly different (p = 0.019). The 90% CI of the developed formulation was 72.0-93.0% compared to the commercial product. In vitro dissolution of locally prepared morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets was comparable to commercial brand. However, the results justified the conclusion of lack of bioequivalence of the developed product to the commercial one.
  AAPS PharmSciTech 09/2010; 11(3):1449-55. · 1.43 Impact Factor
• Article: Formulation development and stability testing of oral morphine solution utilizing preformulation approach.

  Detpon Preechagoon, Viroj Sumyai, Khanittha Tontisirin, Sirikul Aumpon, Thaned Pongjanyakul
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Prefomulation approach utilizing the fractional-ordered randomized blocked design was employed for the formulation development and stability testing of morphine solution. Factors expecting to affect the stability of morphine were evaluated, i.e., vehicle, antioxidant, chelating agent, and pH of the solution. Eight formulations of a possible 16 were prepared according to the block design. The stability of the preparations was tested after 35 days of storage. The data of preformulation study were used for formulation development. The presence of glycerin and ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid in the formulation, and the pH of the solution adjusted to 4, stabilized morphine. The concentration of morphine decreased drastically in the formulations containing sodium metabisulfite, and those pH adjusted to 6. After 35 days, only 65% of morphine was found in the formulation containing sodium metabisulfite and pH adjusted to 6. The results of preformulation study were used for preparing oral morphine preparations. Samples were kept in amber glass bottles and stored at 4 degrees C and 25 degrees C/75% RH for 13 months. No precipitation of the four formulations was detected. Only a decrease of odor and a small increase of pH value of the preparations (< 0.3 units) were observed. More than 97% of morphine remained in all samples. The samples were free from microbial contamination. Stable morphine solution formulations can be achieved with the utilization of the preformulation approach. They were stable more than 13 months when stored at 4 degrees C and 25 degrees C/75% RH.
  Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences: a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques 01/2005; 8(2):362-9. · 1.65 Impact Factor