Quantitative Estimation of Eltrombopag in Bulk and Tablet Dosage Form by UV- Spectroscopy
Saroj Kanta Bisoyi*1,2, Debasish Pradhan1, Sudhir Kumar Sahoo2
1University Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utkal University,
Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, 751004, Odisha, India.
2Royal College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Berhampur - 760002, Odisha, India.
*Corresponding Author E-mail: sarojbisoyi2010@gmail.com
ABSTRACT:
The present work aimed to develop a straightforward, simple and cost-effective UV Spectroscopic technique employing methanol and water (1:1) as a solvents. The method focused on a simple, rapid, specific, accurate, precise, and selective approach in the estimation of Eltrombopag in bulk and tablet dosage form for routine analysis. The ICH Q2 (R1) guideline was followed during method development and validation. Eltrombopag is the drug of choice in the treatment of thrombocytopenia and severe aplastic anemia. Eltrombopag is a BCS Class II medication that is sparingly soluble in water and has a pKa of about 3.5. Its solubility varies with pH, becoming more soluble at lower pH levels and more soluble in the organic solvent methanol. The method utilizes water and methanol (1:1), with a maximum absorption wavelength detected at 245nm. The method is specific; no interference with blank and placebo. Linearity in the concentration range of 1.00 to 40.00 µg/mL, exhibiting a high correlation coefficient of 0.999. Precision was demonstrated with an RSD below 2%, while LOD and LOQ were determined as 1.5µg/mL and 4.51µg/mL respectively. The drug recovery rate falls within the range of 99.94 to 100.65%. The solution was stable for 24hours at room temperature condition. The parameters validated were precision, linearity, accuracy, robustness and specificity as per ICH guidelines were found to be satisfactory for the routine analysis of Eltrombopag by UV spectroscopy.
KEYWORDS: Eltrombopag, UV Spectroscopy, Method Development, Validation, ICH.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Eltrombopag (ELP) is a USA-approved therapeutic drug used for the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia in children1-3. It belongs to the class of small-molecule TPO-receptor agonists and is administered orally,4-5 by interacting with the transmembrane domain of the human TPO-receptor, ELP effectively increases platelet production6.
This medication is indicated for adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who has not responded adequately to other treatments or spleen removal surgery 7. ITP is characterized by low platelet counts, leading to unusual bleeding or swelling8. The structure and IUPAC name is as follows.
Figure 1: Structure of Eltrombopag.
The IUPAC name of ELP is Bis (2-aminoethan-1-ol); 3-[(5E)-5-{2-[2(3, 4dimethylphenyl)-5-methyl-3-oxo-2, 3-dihydro-1H-pyrazol-4-yl] hydrazin-1-ylidene} 6oxocyclohexa-1, 3-dien-1-yl] benzoic acid 9.
The ELP UV-spectroscopic method was performed by selecting wavelengths in the UV-visible region of 400–800nm detection. Thus, an attempt was made to develop and validate a UV spectrophotometric method for the estimation of ELP in bulk and tablet dosage form in UV region 200-400nm.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The reagents were weighed using a high-precision electronic weighing balance from Mettler Toledo, Switzerland, while a double-beam UV-visible spectrophotometer (UV-1700,UV-1800) from Shimadzu Companies, Tokyo, Japan, and methanol form Merck make and distill water was employed for analysis. Ultrasonication facilitated the drug's solubilization process.
Solubility:
The solubility of ELP was determined using different solvents such as distilled water, ethanol, methanol, 0.1N hydrochloric acid, 0.1N sodium hydroxide and pH-4.5 acetate buffers was selected as the solvent for method development10.
Preparation of Standard Stock Solution:
Accurately weighed 100mg of ELP and transferred in a 100mL volumetric flask and dissolve with diluents water and methanol (1:1) and final volume was made up with diluents to achieve 1000μg/mL11-12
Preparation of working standard solution:
Working standard solution was prepared by transferring 10mL of standard solution in to a100mL volumetric flask and final volume made up with diluents to get a concentration of 100μg/mL concentration.
Preparation of Sample solution:
Due to the unavailability of a commercial pharmaceutical formulation of ELP in the local market, tablets were prepared in-house containing 50mg of ELP along with common excipients. The sample solution was prepared from these in-house formulated ELP tablets. An accurately weighted amount of powder equivalent to 25mg of ELP was quantitatively transferred into a 100mL volumetric Flask, add diluents and sonicated for 15minutes finally volume made up with diluents. Filter through 0.45μm nylon filter and further diluted 1 mL to 25mL with diluents (10μg/mL)13-14.
λ max Determination:
Using the working standard solution, aliquots of 5mL were pipette into separate 50mL volumetric flasks and diluted with diluents to achieve concentrations of 10 μg/mL respectively. Subsequently, these solutions were scanned in a UV-Vis Spectrophotometer with the wavelength range of 200- 800nm, with methanol and water (1:1) as the blank15-17.
Validation:
It is a structural process aimed to generating documented evidence to ensure that a particular procedure consistently produces outcomes or products that meet predetermined specifications and quality standards. In accordance with the guidelines outlined by the international council for harmonization (ICH) in Q2 (R1), the developed spectrophotometric method further validated using the following critical parameters. This parameter includes system suitability, linearity, accuracy, and precision, limit of detection, limit of quantification, solution stability and robustness18-20.
System suitability:
System suitability tests were conducted to demonstrate the appropriateness of the UV spectrophotometric system employed for the analysis. Six replicates of a standard (10μg/mL) of ELP were prepared from a working standard solution in diluents, and the absorbance at 245nm was measured for each replicate using a UV spectrophotometer. The percentage relative standard deviation (% RSD) of the absorbance was then calculated21.
Specificity:
Blank as diluents, Placebo, Standard, sample was prepared and absorbance was taken at 245nm and checked for any interference22.
Precision:
Precision indicates the closeness of results obtained by multiple measurements of the same homogenized sample. Repeatability (intraday precision and intermediate precision (inter-day precision) were evaluated to demonstrate the precision of the method. Repeatability involved analyzing six replicates of the 10 μg/mL concentration on the same day, while intermediate precision involved analyzing six replicates of the same concentration on the consecutive days. The percentage relative standard deviation of assay results was calculated for both scenarios23,24.
Linearity:
As per ICH Q2 (R1) guidelines, the linearity of the analytical procedure verifies the direct relationship between test results and analyte concentration within the sample. Seven solutions of varying concentrations (1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40μg/mL) were prepared in ethanol from a working standard solution of ELP. The absorbance of each solution at 245nm was recorded, and a calibration curve for absorbance and concentration was plotted. The percentage relative standard deviation and coefficient of correlation were determined through regression analysis25-27.
Accuracy:
Accuracy was assessed through standard addition methods where known amounts of the standard were added at three different levels (80,100 and 120%) of the in-house tablet formulation of ELP and analyzed using the method. %Recovery studies were conducted by spiking ELP standard at these levels and estimating the % recovery for each level28.
Solution stability:
Standard and sample solutions were prepared and absorbance was taken at 245nm for initial time and 24 hour interval and reported the stability of the solution29.
Robustness:
It assess the ability of the method to be reported in slightly change in method parameters like change in wavelength (247nm and 243nm), change in solvent composition (55:45 and 45:55) in different laboratories or under different condition without unexpected differences in results, thus evaluating the robustness of the proposed method30-31.
Limit of detection and limit of quantification:
The limit of detection is the minimum concentration of a substance in a sample that can be detected but is not necessarily precisely quantified. Conversely, the limit of quantification is the lowest concentration of a substance that can be accurately and precisely determined within the sample. These thresholds for the ELP were established according to the ICH guidelines, using the residual standard deviation of response and slope method. This involved utilizing a calibration curve from the linearity study. The LOD was calculated using the formula (3.3* σ)/S, where σ represents the standard deviation of the response, and S is the slope of the calibration curve. Similarly, the LOQ was determined using equation (10* σ)/S 32-35.
Analysis of in-house tablet formulation:
The UV Spectroscopic method proposed was employed to quantify ELP in the prepared in-house tablet formulation. Triplicate analyze revealed that the % amount of the drug found was 95.47%. This indicates the reliability and consistency of the method. It is anticipated that the developed method will be routinely employed for the assessment of ELP in the future investigations
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
Table 1: Solubility study was carried out in different solvents and results are given in table No-1.
|
Solvent |
Solubility |
|
Dist. Water |
Slightly soluble |
|
Ethanol |
Soluble |
|
Methanol |
Soluble |
|
0.1(N) NaOH |
Soluble |
|
0.1(N) HCL |
Insoluble |
|
pH 4.5 acetate buffer |
Insoluble |
Determination of Working Wave Length (λ max):
Standard ELP 10µg/mL was prepared in diluent and scan by using UV spectrophotometer in the range of 200-400nm. The maximum absorbance found at 245nm and UV spectra is given in figure No-2.
Figure 2: UV spectra of ELP
Specificity:
Checked the absorbance of the Blank, Placebo, Standard and test sample solution of tablets by UV-VIS spectrophotometer for the determination of the interference. Table No- 2 shows the results.
Table 2: Specificity
|
Sample |
Absorbance |
% Interference |
|
Blank |
0.000 |
NA |
|
Placebo |
0.000 |
NA |
|
Standard |
0.741 |
NA |
|
Test 25 mg |
0.685 |
NA |
System Precision:
Prepared the standard solution as per the method and checked the absorbance for six times into UV system. The mean, SD and % RSD for absorbance of ELP were calculated. The results are listed in Table No- 3.
Table: 3 System precision data:
|
Sr. No. |
Absorbance of ELP |
|
1 |
0.764 |
|
2 |
0.765 |
|
3 |
0.768 |
|
4 |
0.761 |
|
5 |
0.765 |
|
6 |
0.763 |
|
Mean |
0.764 |
|
SD |
0.003 |
|
%RSD |
0.34 |
Method Precision:
Performed six sample, analyzed as per the test method and Calculated the % RSD for assay (%) of six units and tabulated in Table No - 4.
Table: 4 Method precision data
|
Sr. No |
Absorbance |
% Release of ELP |
|
1 |
0.681 |
95.89 |
|
2 |
0.686 |
96.45 |
|
3 |
0.688 |
95.83 |
|
4 |
0.676 |
95.45 |
|
5 |
0.685 |
95.98 |
|
6 |
0.677 |
95.24 |
|
Mean |
95.81 |
|
|
SD |
0.424 |
|
|
% RSD |
0.44 |
|
Intermediate Precision:
Performed on six units of sample by different analyst, by using different system on different day. Calculated the %RSD for %assay of six preparations. Calculated the overall %RSD for %release of above experiment results along with method precision results. RSD of %assay for twelve results of method precision and intermediate precision. Table No - 5 given the results.
Table: 5 Intermediate precision data
|
% Assay of ELP |
|||
|
Sr. No. |
Absorbance |
Intermediate precision |
Method Precision |
|
1 |
0.685 |
95.29 |
95.89 |
|
2 |
0.693 |
95.04 |
96.45 |
|
3 |
0.691 |
95.09 |
95.83 |
|
4 |
0.696 |
95.60 |
95.45 |
|
5 |
0.688 |
95.65 |
95.98 |
|
6 |
0.689 |
96.12 |
95.24 |
|
Mean |
95.47 |
95.81 |
|
|
SD |
0.408 |
0.424 |
|
|
%RSD |
0.43 |
0.44 |
|
|
Over all Mean |
95.64 |
||
|
Over all SD |
0.44 |
||
|
Over all %RSD |
0.46 |
||
|
Analyst |
Analyst II |
Analyst I |
|
|
UV-Spectrophotometer ID |
UV-1800 |
UV-1700 |
|
Linearity and Range:
The linearity of ELP was determined in the range of 1.00µg/ml to 40.00µg/ml. The results are tabulated in Table –6, calibration spectra and graphically represented in Figure No-3 and 4 respectively.
Table 6: Linearity and Range data
|
Sr.No |
Concentration of ELP µg/Ml in µg/mL |
Absorbance |
|
1 |
1.00 |
0.246 |
|
2 |
5.00 |
0.483 |
|
3 |
10.00 |
0.741 |
|
4 |
15.00 |
0.999 |
|
5 |
20.00 |
1.229 |
|
6 |
25.00 |
1.501 |
|
7 |
30.00 |
1.806 |
|
8 |
35.00 |
2.025 |
|
9 |
40.00 |
2.249 |
|
Slope |
0.051 |
|
|
Intercept |
0.216 |
|
|
Correlation Coefficient |
0.999 |
|
Fig No: 3 Calibration curve of ELP
Fig No: 4 Linearity UV spectra of ELP
Accuracy:
Known amount of ELP spiked at 80%, 100% and 120% of test concentration in triplicate. The amount of ELP was quantified as per the test method. The % recovery was calculated from the amount recovered and actual amount added. The results are given in Table No – 7.
Table No: 7 Accuracy as recovery data
|
Level |
Amount Added in (mg) |
Abs |
Amount Recovered (mg) |
% Recovery |
Mean % Recovery |
SD |
% RSD |
|
Level 1 (80%) |
8.12 |
0.612 |
8.17 |
100.62 |
100.65 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
|
8.16 |
0.615 |
8.21 |
100.61 |
||||
|
8.21 |
0.619 |
8.27 |
100.73 |
||||
|
Level 2 (100%) |
10.32 |
0.769 |
10.27 |
99.52 |
99.94 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
|
10.56 |
0.789 |
10.54 |
99.81 |
||||
|
10.25 |
0.771 |
10.30 |
100.49 |
||||
|
Level 3 (120%) |
12.56 |
0.939 |
12.54 |
99.84 |
100.11 |
0.54 |
0.54 |
|
12.21 |
0.921 |
12.30 |
100.74 |
||||
|
12.45 |
0.93 |
12.42 |
99.76 |
||||
|
Over all Mean |
100.24 |
||||||
|
Over all SD |
0.49 |
||||||
|
Over all % RSD |
0.49 |
||||||
Solution stability:
Prepared one standard and sample solution as per test method and take absorbance by using UV Spectrophotometer at Initial and 24hours. Determine percentage assay at different time intervals. The results are tabulated in Table No – 8.
Table No-8 solution stability data
|
Time (In hours) |
ELP Standard |
ELP Sample |
||
|
Absorbance |
% Difference |
% Assay |
|
|
|
Initial |
0.741 |
- |
95.8 |
- |
|
24 |
0.751 |
1.3 |
97.2 |
1.45 |
Robustness:
Little deviations were made in the method parameters, and the effects of these changes on the outcomes were investigated, in order to evaluate the robustness of the proposed approaches. The results of change in wavelength and change in solvent composition given in table No-10.
Table No-10 Robustness data
|
Parameter |
% Assay
|
% RSD
|
Over All% RSD of Assay |
|
Plus Wavelength (247 nm) |
95.71 |
0.43 |
0.88 |
|
Minus Wavelength (243 nm) |
96.49 |
0.35 |
0.99 |
|
Plus Organic Methanol: Water (55: 45) |
96.75 |
0.89 |
1.14 |
|
Minus Organic Methanol: Water (45: 55) |
96.10 |
0.32 |
0.92 |
Limit of detection and Limit of Quantification:
The ELP limit of detection was determined to be 1.5µg/mL, while its limit of quantification was measured at 4.51µg/mL.
4. CONCLUSION:
An accurate, precise, cost-effective and robust UV-Spectroscopic method has been developed for the quantitative determination of ELP in both bulk and in-house tablet formulations. The method is characterized by its simplicity and rapidity, precision data with %RSD value less than 2. Demonstrate the method’s reproducibility and precision. The recovery range of 98-99% indicates the method is accurate and specific. The high % recovery of the drug suggests that the presence of excipients in the tablet formulation does not interfere with the determination of ELP confirming the method's specificity and reliability. Therefore, the developed method is suitable for routine analysis of ELP in bulk and pharmaceutical formulations.
5. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
In relation to the publishing of this paper, the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The authors extend their gratitude to the Royal College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Berhampur, Odisha for providing facilities for the successful completion of this research.
7. CONTRIBUTION:
Each author contributed a similar contribution to this work.
8. REFERENCES:
1. Kim TO. Despotovic J. Lambert MP. Eltrombopag for use in children with immune thrombocytopenia. Blood Advances. 2018; 2(4) 454-461. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2017010660
2. Burness, C.B. Keating, G.M. Garnock-Jones K.P. Eltrombopag: A Review in Paediatric Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia. Drugs. 76.2016; 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-016-0581-4
3. Giordano P. Lassandro G. Barone A., Cesaro S. Fotzi I. Giona F. Ladogana S. Miano M. Marzollo A. Nardi M. Notarangelo LD. Use of Eltrombopag in children with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): a real life retrospective multicenter experience of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Frontiers in Medicine. 2020; 7: 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00066
4. Ghanima W. Cooper N. Rodeghiero F. Godeau B. Bussel JB. Thrombopoietin receptor agonists:ten years later. Haematologica. 2019; 104(6): 1112-1123. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2018.212845
5. González-Porras JR. Godeau B. Carpenedo M. Switching thrombopoietin receptor agonist treatments in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia. Therapeutic Advances in Hematology. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.1177/20406207198379
6. Bussel J. Kulasekararaj A. Cooper N. Verma A. Steidl U. Semple JW. Will B. Mechanisms and therapeutic prospects of thrombopoietin receptor agonists. In Seminars in Hematology 2019; 56: 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2019.09.001
7. Chaturvedi S. Arnold DM. McCrae KR. Splenectomy for immune thrombocytopenia: down but not out. Blood. The Journal of the American Society of Hematology. 2018; 131(11): 1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-09-742353
8. Stasi R. Newland AC. ITP: a historical perspective. British Journal of Haematology. 2011; 153(4): 437-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08562.x
9. Aabid M. Memon S. Pathan D. Hangad T. Development and validation of a UV spectroscopic method to estimate Eltrombopag olamine along with bulk and in-house formulation. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(11): 5010-5014. https://doi.org/10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00811
10. Sahoo SK. Choudhury PK. Murthy PN., Mishra US. Bisoyi SK. Kumar L. Systematic approach to develop and validate High Performance Liquid Chromatographic method for efavirenz and its degradants. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research. 2024; 12(3): 119-28. https://doi.org/10.69857/joapr.v12i3.586
11. Ahir K. Patel D. Patel M. Dissolution Method Validation with Reverse Phase Chromatographic Method for Determination of ELP Drug Release in Dissolution Samples of Tablets. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Archive. 2020; Dec 15. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3786513
12. Bhairav BA. Chavan MJ. Method Development and Validation for Estimation of Tinofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Pharmaceutical Preparation by UV-Spectroscopy and HPLC with Force Degradation Study. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Health Care. 2021; Mar 1:78-94. 10.18311/ajprhc/2021/26050
13. Rupali H Tiple. Overview on Analytical Method Development. Res. J. Pharm. Dosage Form. and Tech. 2017; 9(3):93-97. 10.5958/0975-4377.2017.00016.7
14. Singh S. Bichala P. Agrawal A. Method Development and Validation of Canagliflozin by using RP-HPLC in Pure and Tablet Dosage Form. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2021; 13. 10.52711/0975-4377.2021.00037
15. Shirole PL. Sanap DP. Jadhav KR. Development and Validation of a UV Spectrophotometric Method for determination of Ondansetron hydrochloride in Bulk and Tablet Dosage Form. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024 Mar 31; 17(3): 1061-1664. DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00165
16. Patel G. Maradia R. Soni T. Suhagia B. Meshram D. Development and validation of UV spectrophotometric method for simultaneous estimation of some SGLT-2 and DPP-4 inhibitor in bulk and pharmaceutical dosage form. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(4): 1606-1610.10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00254
17. Kumar NJ. Sonia K. Manikandan K. Novel validated UV spectroscopic method for the analysis of Ramipril and Olmesartan medoxomil in drug substance as fixed dosage form. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(3): 1442-1446. 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00237
18. ICH Validation of Analytical Procedures, Text and Methodology Q2 (R1), In: Proceedings of International Conference on Harmonization (2005).
19. CDER Review Guidance:Validation of Chromatographic Methods. November 1994.
20. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), Q2B: Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology. US FDA Federal Register, vol. 62, March 1997.
21. Tharlapu SSJ Mohan. Khagga M. Stability Indicating UHPLC Method Development and Validation for Estimation of Eltrombopag and Related Impurities in Tablet Dosage form; Oriental Journal Of Chemistry. 2018; 34(2): 1098-1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/ojc/340262
22. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), Q2B: Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology, US FDA Federal Register, vol. 62, March 1997.
23. Patil A , Meenaxi MM, Shailendra S. Suryawanshi.Patil N. Green Solvent Assisted UV-Spectrophotometric Method for Estimation of Rosuvastatin in Bulk and Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(2): 587-590. 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00096
24. Karthikeyan R. Thangabalan B. Prabahar A E. Kumar PV. New Spectrophotometric Methods for the Determination of Imatinib in Bulk Drug and in Pharmaceutical Formulations. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2009; 2 (3): 578-581.
25. Seervi C. Kirtawade R. Katkar G. Raut C. Bidada J. Dhabale P. Development and Validation of UV Spectrophotometric Method of Fluoxetine in Bulk and Pharmaceutical Formulation. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2010; 3(3): 801-803.
26. Navin Kumar J.Sonia K. Manikandan K. Novel Validated UV Spectroscopic Method for the Analysis of Ramipril and Olmesartan medoxomil in Drug Substance as Fixed Dosage Form. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(3): 1442-6. 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00237
27. Tayar M. Haroon M. Moazeen M. Using and Validation of a new Spectrophotometric method for determination of Vitamin C in Pharmaceutical samples. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(4): 1731-7. 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00285
28. Bisoi C. Acharyya S. Kumar HK. UV Spectrophotometric and UPLC assay methods for the determination of Palbociclib in bulk and Tablet Dosage Form. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(6): 2759-2764. 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00453
29. Sharma JB. Bhatt S. Saini V. Rupesh KG. Kumar M. UV-Visible Spectrophotometric Method Development and Validation for the Estimation of Curcumin and Tetrahydrocurcumin. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(2): 650-654. 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00107
30. Sawant S. Nazareth S. Vernekar S. Development and Validation of a Novel, Cost Effective UV Spectrophotometric Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Cilnidipine and Olmesartan. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(2): 863-869. 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00144
31. Rajmane A. Trivedi R. Nandgude T. Development and Validation of UV Spectrophotometric Method of Pirenzepine Dihydrochloride in API and Stress Degradation Studies. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(6): 2503-2507. 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00418
32. Yadav SP. Hajare AA. Patil KS. Development and Validation of UV Spectrophotometric Method for Doxazosin Mesylate in Bulk and Tablets. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(6): 2675-2680. 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00447
33. Tiple RH. Overview on Analytical Method Development. Res. J. Pharm. Dosage Form. and Tech. 2017; 9(3): 93-97. 10.5958/0975-4377.2017.00016.7
34. Behera B. Mishra US. Sahoo SK. Development and Validation of Stability Indicating RP-HPLC Method for The Analysis of Vilazodone in Bulk form and Marketed Pharmaceutical Dosage Form, Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(9): 4319-4324. 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00707
35. Pooja N. Shrikrishna B. Undare S. Patil RN. Spectrophotometric Method Development and Validation of Prazosin. Research J. Science and Tech. 2016; 8(1): 1-4. 10.5958/2349-2988.2016.00001.2
|
Received on 17.03.2024 Revised on 13.07.2024 Accepted on 30.09.2024 Published on 02.05.2025 Available online from May 07, 2025 Research J. Pharmacy and Technology. 2025;18(5):2101-2106. DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2025.00301 © RJPT All right reserved
|
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License. |
|