Spectrophotometric methods for determination of glimepiride and pioglitazone hydrochloride mixture and application in...

Simple, accurate, and precise four spectrophotometric methods were developed and validated for simultaneous determination of glimepiride and pioglitazone hydrochloride in their pharmaceutical formulation. The first spectrophotometric method was the dual-wavelength which determined glimepiride at 219.0 and 228.0 nm and pioglitazone hydrochloride at 268.0 nm. The second one is the first derivative of ratio spectra (DD1) spectrophotometry in which the peak amplitudes were used at 238.0 nm and 268.0 nm for glimepiride and pioglitazone hydrochloride, respectively. The third method is ratio subtraction in which glimepiride was determined at 228.0 nm in the presence of pioglitazone hydrochloride which was determined by extended ratio subtraction at 268.0 nm. The fourth method was the ratio difference to determine glimepiride and pioglitazone hydrochloride. Beer's law was confirmed in the concentration range 2.50-15.00 µg mL-1, and 10.00-50.00 µg mL-1 for glimepiride and pioglitazone respectively for the four methods. The proposed methods were used to determine both drugs in their pure powdered form with mean percentage recoveries of 99.91 ± 1.117% for glimepiride and 99.76 ± 0.911% for pioglitazone hydrochloride in method (A). In method (B), the mean percentage recoveries were 100.12 ± 0.89% for glimepiride and 100.02 ± 1.06% for pioglitazone hydrochloride. In method (C) glimepiride was 100.01 ± 0.592% and 99.85 ± 0.845% for pioglitazone hydrochloride by extended ratio subtraction. And finally, in method (D) the mean percentage recoveries were 100.66 ± 0.670% for glimepiride and 99.92 ± 0.988% for pioglitazone hydrochloride. The developed methods were successfully applied for the determination of glimepiride and pioglitazone hydrochloride in pure powder and dosage form. The suggested methods were also used to determine both compounds in laboratory-prepared mixtures. The accuracy, precision, and linearity ranges of the developed methods were determined. The results obtained were compared statistically with the official method, and there was no significant difference between the proposed methods and the official method for accuracy and precision.