The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of formulation variables on different evaluation properties such as cumulative percentage release and swelling index in development of two layered buccal mucoadhesive system consisting of a highly water soluble drug risedronate sodium. The mucoadhesive systems were developed with varied concentrations of the polymers (1-2%) using plasticizer/permeation enhancer (25–50% w/w of polymer). Two layered films comprised of risedronate sodium with chitosan (85% deacetylated) and hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (HPMC 4KM) interpolymer complex of different ratios were prepared by solvent casting method. An impermeable backing membrane of ethyl cellulose was incorporated into the films. The study shows the effect of multipolymeric films on the release of a bisphosphonates derivative. The optimized formulations showed films with uniform drug content ( ), thickness ( ？mm to ？mm), mucoadhesivity ( ？g), and controlled drug release profile up to a period of 10 hours. The films were also studied for swelling index, moisture uptake, viscosity, folding endurance, water vapor transmission rate, and mucoadhesive time. 1. Introduction The selection of suitable polymers for manufacturing a drug delivery system is a major and important factor when formulation of controlled release buccal delivery systems for enhancing mucoadhesivity and obtaining controlled release profile is considered. A drug delivery system using a single polymer may not give the desired drug release profile when compared to blending polymers to get suitable and desired results with mucoadhesive drug delivery systems [1]. Buccal mucosa is an attractive route for the delivery of drugs through systemic route, because of its relatively good permeability with a rich blood supply. A drug can be easily applied and localized to the application site and can be removed from the site whenever necessary. Buccal films are highly flexible and easily tolerated by the patients. It also ensures accurate dosing of the drug. During the last decade, bioadhesive polymers received considerable attention as platforms for buccal controlled drug delivery due to their ability to localize the dosage form in specific regions to enhance bioavailability [2]. Due to their small size and thickness, they have improved patient compliance, compared to tablets. Since mucoadhesion implies attachment to the buccal mucosa, films can be formulated to exhibit a systemic or local action. Films releasing drug towards the buccal mucosa exhibit the advantage of avoiding the first pass effect by
References
[1]
V. A. Perumal, D. Lutchman, I. Mackraj, and T. Govender, “Formulation of monolayered films with drug and polymers of opposing solubilities,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 358, no. 1-2, pp. 184–191, 2008.
[2]
V. M. Patel, B. G. Prajapati, and M. M. Patel, “Design and characterization of chitosan-containing mucoadhesive buccal patches of propranolol hydrochloride,” Acta Pharmaceutica, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 61–72, 2007.
[3]
J. O. Morales and J. T. McConville, “Manufacture and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal films,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 187–199, 2011.
[4]
S. S. Shidhaye, N. S. Saindane, S. Sutar, and V. Kadam, “Mucoadhesive bilayered patches for administration of sumatriptan succinate,” AAPS PharmSciTech, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 909–916, 2008.
[5]
A. A. Attama, P. A. Akpa, L. E. Onugwu, and G. Igwilo, “Novel buccoadhesive delivery system of hydrochlorothiazide formulated with ethyl cellulose-hydroxypropyl methylcellulose interpolymer complex,” Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 343–347, 2008.
[6]
D. Y. Mitchell, R. A. Eusebio, N. A. Sacco-Gibson et al., “Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of risedronate on single-dose oral administration to healthy volunteers,” The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 258–265, 2000.
[7]
C. Narendra, M. S. Srinath, and B. Prakash Rao, “Development of three layered buccal compact containing metoprolol tartrate by statistical optimization technique,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 304, no. 1-2, pp. 102–114, 2005.
[8]
V. M. Patel, B. G. Prajapati, and M. M. Patel, “Design and in vitro characterization of eudragit containing mucoadhesive buccal patches,” International Journal of PharmTech Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 783–789, 2009.
[9]
M. S. El-Samaligy, S. A. Yahia, and E. B. Basalious, “Formulation and evaluation of diclofenac sodium buccoadhesive discs,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 286, no. 1-2, pp. 27–39, 2004.
[10]
N. A. El-Gendya, G. A. Abdelbary, M. H. El-Komya, and A. E. Saafanc, “Design and evaluation of a bioadhesive patch for topical delivery of gentamicin sulphate,” Current Drug Delivery, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 50–57, 2009.
[11]
C. F. Wong, K. H. Yuen, and K. K. Peh, “Formulation and evaluation of controlled release Eudragit buccal patches,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 178, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 1999.
[12]
N. A. Nafee, N. A. Boraie, F. A. Ismail, and L. M. Mortada, “Design and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal patches containing cetylpyridinium chloride,” Acta Pharmaceutica, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 199–212, 2003.
[13]
M. Alagusundaram and S. K. Uma, “Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal film of famotidine,” International Journal of Pharma Excipients, pp. 102–108, 2008.
[14]
N. A. Nafee, F. A. Ismail, N. A. Boraie, and L. M. Mortada, “Mucoadhesive buccal patches of miconazole nitrate: in vitro/In vivo performance and effect of ageing,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 264, no. 1-2, pp. 1–14, 2003.
