Smart UV spectrophotometric methods based on simple mathematical filtration for the simultaneous determination of celecoxib and ramipril in their pharmaceutical mixtures with amlodipine: A comparative statistical study.

Two newly introduced pharmaceutical mixtures of amlodipine/celecoxib and amlodipine/ramipril were developed to manage hypertension and the associated osteoarthritis. The current work presents three newly developed UV spectrophotometric methods depending on minimal mathematical manipulations on the zero-order spectrum namely: absorption correction, induced dual-wavelength, and Fourier self deconvoluted method; for the simultaneous determination of celecoxib and ramipril in their pharmaceutical combined dosage forms with amlodipine. In absorption correction and induced dual-wavelength method, celecoxib and ramipril were determined at 253 and 222 nm for absorption correction and (251-270 nm) and (222-230 nm) for induced dual-wavelength method, respectively from the zero-order spectrum after calculating the absorption correction and equality factors for amlodipine. Amlodipine itself was determined at 361 nm from the zero-order spectrum in both methods. In Fourier self deconvoluted method, celecoxib and amlodipine zero-order spectra were deconvoluted, using the spectrophotometer software built-in Fourier wavelet function, and then was determined at 360 and 269 nm, respectively. The proposed methods were simple, accurate, and sensitive requiring minimal mathematical manipulations saving the time needed for analysis. The methods were linear over the range of (5-60 μg/ml), (5-30 μg/ml), and (5-110 μg/ml) for each of amlodipine, celecoxib, and ramipril, respectively. The limit of detection was in the range of (0.5781-0.7132 μg/ml) for amlodipine, (0.6497-1.0450 μg/ml) for celecoxib, and (0.0001-0.0003 μg/ml) for ramipril that indicated the sensitivity of these suggested methods. All methods were validated as per ICH recommendations regarding linearity, range, accuracy, precision, and selectivity. A statistical comparative study executed for the proposed methods with each other and with the reported methods showed no significant difference between the proposed methods and the reported methods.