Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Porous Versus Nonporous Mucoadhesive Films as Buccal Delivery System of Glibenclamide

  • Research Article
  • Published:
AAPS PharmSciTech Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present research work focused on the comparative assessment of porous versus nonporous films in order to develop a suitable buccoadhesive device for the delivery of glibenclamide. Both films were prepared by solvent casting technique using the 32 full factorial design, developing nine formulations (F1–F9). The films were evaluated for ex vivo mucoadhesive force, ex vivo mucoadhesion time, in vitro drug release (using a modified flow-through drug release apparatus), and ex vivo drug permeation. The mucoadhesive force, mucoadhesion time, swelling index, and tensile strength were observed to be directly proportional to the content of HPMC K4M. The optimized porous film (F4) showed an in vitro drug release of 84.47 ± 0.98%, ex vivo mucoadhesive force of 0.24 ± 0.04 N, and ex vivo mucoadhesion time of 539.11 ± 3.05 min, while the nonporous film (NF4) with the same polymer composition showed a release of 62.66 ± 0.87%, mucoadhesive force of 0.20 ± 0.05 N, and mucoadhesive time of 510 ± 2.00 min. The porous film showed significant differences for drug release and mucoadhesion time (p < 0.05) versus the nonporous film. The mechanism of drug release was observed to follow non-Fickian diffusion (0.1 < n < 0.5) for both porous and nonporous films. Ex vivo permeation studies through chicken buccal mucosa indicated improved drug permeation in porous films versus nonporous films. The present investigation established porous films to be a cost-effective buccoadhesive delivery system of glibenclamide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Bhanja S, Ellaiah P, Choudhury R, Murthy KVR, Panigrahi B, Padhy SK. Formulation, development and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal patches of methotrexate. J Adv Pharm Res. 2010;1:17–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rossi S, Sandri G, Caramella CM. Buccal drug delivery: a challenge already won? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2005;2:59–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Swamy PV, Kumar AT, Shirsand SB, Patil AN, Farhana L. Design and evaluation of buccal patches of granisetron hydrochloride. Ind J Pharm Edu Res. 2010;44:95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chaudhary R, Qureshi MS, Patel J, Panigrahi UP, Giri IC. Formulation, development and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal patches of methotrexate. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2010;1:357–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McElnay JC, Hughes CM. Drug delivery—buccal route. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC, editors. Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology. New York: Dekker; 2002. p. 800–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wong CF, Yuen KH, Peh KK. Formulation and evaluation of controlled release Eudragit buccal patches. Int J Pharm. 1999;178:11–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel VM, Prajapati BG, Patel MM. Formulation, evaluation and comparison of bilayered and multilayered mucoadhesive buccal devices of propranolol hydrochloride. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2007;8:E1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nafee NA, Ismail FA, Boraie NA, Mortada LM. Mucoadhesive buccal patches of miconazole nitrate: in vitro/in vivo performance and effect of ageing. Int J Pharm. 2003;264:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Satishbabu BK, Srinivasan. Formulation and evaluation of buccoadhesive films of atenolol. Ind J Pharm Sci. 2008;70:175–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Park CR, Munday DL. Evaluation of selected polysaccharide excipient in buccoadhesive tablets for sustained release of nicotine. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2004;30:609–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Alur HH, Johnston TP, Mitra AK. Peptides and proteins: buccal absorption. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC, editors. Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology. New York: Dekker; 2001. p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Philip AK, Srivastava M, Pathak K. Buccoadhesive gels of glibenclamide: a means for achieving enhanced bioavailability. Drug Deliv. 2009;16:405–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaudanavar PS, Bagali RS, Patil SM, Chandashkhara S. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films of glibenclamide. Der Pharmacia Lettre. 2010;2:382–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marikanti R, Kumar AK, Nagaraju I, Sowjanya TL, Srikanth B, Venkateswarlu G. Design and in vitro evaluation of drug release and bioadhesive properties from buccoadhesive tablets of glibenclamide for systemic delivery. J Chem Pharm Res. 2010;2:291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anders R, Merkle HP. Evaluation of laminated mucoadhesive patches for buccal drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 1989;49:231–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ilango R, Kavimani S, Mullaicharam AR, Jayakar B. In vitro studies on buccal strips of glibenclamide using chitosan. Ind J Pharm Sci. 1997;59:232–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Muzib YI, Kumari KS. Mucoadhesive buccal films of glibenclamide: development and evaluation. Int J Pharm Investig. 2011;1:42–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Attama AA, Akpa PA, Onugwu LE, Igwilo G. Novel buccoadhesive delivery system of hydrochlorothiazide formulated with ethyl cellulose–hydroxypropyl methylcellulose interpolymer complex. Sci Res Essays. 2008;3:343–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Semalty M, Semalty A, Kumar G, Juyal V. Development of mucoadhesive buccal films of glipizide. Int J Pharm Sci Nanotechnol. 2008;1:184–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60:110–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Park H, Robinson JR. Physico-chemical properties of water insoluble polymers important to mucin epithelial adhesion. J Control Rel. 1985;2:47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Junginger HE, Hoogstaate JA, Verhoef JC. Recent advances in buccal drug delivery and absorption—in vitro and in vivo studies. J Control Release. 1999;62:149–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen JL, Cyr GN. Compositions producing adhesion through hydration. In: Manly RS, editor. Adhesion in biological systems. London: Academic Press; 1970. p. 163–81.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Koland M, Charyulu RN, Prabhu P. Mucoadhesive films of losartan potassium for buccal delivery: design and characterization. Ind J Pharm Educ Res. 2010;44:315–23.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Majithiya RJ, Raval AJ, Umrethia ML, Ghosh PK, Murthy RSR. Enhancement of mucoadhesion by blending anionic, cationic and nonionic polymers. Drug Deliv Technol. 2008;8:40–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Morales JO, McConville JT. Manufacture and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77:187–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanism of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. 1983;15:25–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pathak K. Mucoadhesion—a prerequisite or a constraint in nasal drug delivery? Int J Pharm Investig. 2011;2:62–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rao MRP, Borate SG, Thanki KC, Ranpise AA, Parikh GN. Development and in vitro evaluation of floating rosiglitazone maleate microspheres. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35:834–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Desai KGH, Kumar TMP. Preparation and evaluation of a novel buccal adhesive system. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004;5:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jain A, Ghosh B, Nayak S, Soni V. A study of transdermal delivery of glibenclamide using iontophoresis. Int J Health Res. 2009;2:83–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Anlar S, Capan Y, Hincal A. Physico-chemical and bioadhesive properties of polyacrylic acid polymers. Pharmazie. 1993;48:285–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are thankful to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Sikkim, India) for providing the gift sample of glibenclamide.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutics, Rajiv Academy for Pharmacy, P.O. Chattikara, Mathura, 281001, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Ajay Kumar, Vikas Bali, Manish Kumar & Kamla Pathak

Authors
  1. Ajay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vikas Bali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manish Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kamla Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamla Pathak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, A., Bali, V., Kumar, M. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Porous Versus Nonporous Mucoadhesive Films as Buccal Delivery System of Glibenclamide. AAPS PharmSciTech 14, 1321–1332 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-013-0014-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-013-0014-6

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation