Advertisement

Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 189–194 | Cite as

Quantitative evaluation of mucoadhesive polymers to compare the mucoadhesion

  • Cho-A Lee
  • Bo-Sik Kim
  • Cheong-Weon ChoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems has received noticeable attentions in the pharmaceutical field, resulted in the adhesion of the drug to the tissue for a prolonged period of time. Three kinds of methods such as tensile strength test, mucin particle method and rheology were used to compare the quantitative mucoadhesion of mucoadhesive polymers. Carbomer 940, chitosan, hydroxypropylcellulose, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose were used as mucoadhesive polymers. The mucoadhesion by tensile strength tester using rat stomach were in the order of hydroxypropylcellulose, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, chitosan and carbomer 940. Similarly, in mucin particle method, mucoadhesion was in order of hydroxypropylcellulose, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, chitosan and carbomer 940. The viscosity of mixture with mucin solution was in the order of hydroxypropylcellulose, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, carbomer 940 and chitosan. Still, there is little on the quantitative comparison of individual mucoadhesive polymer using the same mucoadhesion test. So, this study could be a basic data for the selection of mucoadhesive polymer.

Keywords

Mucoadhesion Viscosity Tensile strength Zeta potential Mucoadhesive polymers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

All authors (C.A. Lee, B.S. Kim, C.W. Cho) declare that they have no conflict of interest. This study was supported by Chungnam National University.

References

  1. Abbas S, Karangwa E, Bashari M, Hayat K, Hong X, Sharif HR, Zhang X (2015) Fabrication of polymeric nanocapsules from curcumin-loaded nanoemulsion templates by self-assembly. Ultrason Sonochem 23:81–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aka-Any-Grah A, Bouchemal K, Koffi A, Agnely F, Zhang M, Djabourov M, Ponchel G (2010) Formulation of mucoadhesive vaginal hydrogels insensitive to dilution with vaginal fluids. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 76:296–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrés-Guerrero V, Molina-Martínez IT, Peral A, de las Heras B, Pintor J, Herrero-Vanrell R (2011) The use of mucoadhesive polymers to enhance the hypotensive effect of a melatonin analogue, 5-MCA-NAT, in rabbit eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:1507–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS (2009) Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 71:505–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aslani A, Ghannadi A, Najafi H (2013) Design, formulation and evaluation of a mucoadhesive gel from Quercus brantii L. and coriandrum sativum L. as periodontal drug delivery. Adv Biomed Res 2:21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Baloğlu E, Ozyazici M, Hizarcioğlu SY, Karavana HA (2003) An in vitro investigation for vaginal bioadhesive formulations: bioadhesive properties and swelling states of polymer mixtures. Farmaco 58:391–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Behl CR, Pimplaskar HK, Sileno J, deMeireles J, Romeo VD (1998) Effects of physicochemical properties and other factors on systemic nasal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 29:89–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho FC, Bruschi ML, Evangelista RC, Gremiao MPD (2010) Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Braz J Pharm Sci 46:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chawla V, Saraf SA (2012) Rheological studies on solid lipid nanoparticle based carbopol gels of aceclofenac. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 92:293–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chien YW (1992) Nasal drug delivery systems. In: Swacrbrick J (ed) Novel drug delivery systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 139–196Google Scholar
  11. Cleary J, Bromberg L, Magner E (2004) Adhesion of polyether-modified poly(acrylic acid) to mucin. Langmuir 20:9755–9762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cui F, Qian F, Yin C (2006) Preparation and characterization of mucoadhesive polymer-coated nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 316:154–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidovich-Pinhas M, Harari O, Bianco-Peled H (2009) Evaluating the mucoadhesive properties of drug delivery systems based on hydrated thiolated alginate. J Control Rel 13:638–644Google Scholar
  14. Duchene D, Touchard F, Peppas NA (1988) Pharmaceutical and medical aspects of bioadhesive systems for drug administration. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 14:283–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari F, Bertoni M, Rossi S, Bonferoni MC, Caramella C, Waring MJ, Aulton ME (1996) Comparative rheomechanical and adhesive properties of two hydrocolloid dressings: dependence on the degree of hydration. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 22:1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fini A, Bergamante V, Ceschel GC (2011) Mucoadhesive gels designed for the controlled release of chlorhexidine in the oral cavity. Pharmaceutics 3:665–679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaserod O, Jolliffe IG, Hampson FC, Dettmar PW, Skjak-Braek G (1998) The enhancement of the bioadhesive properties of calcium alginate gel beads by coating with chitosan. Int J Pharm 175:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gurny R, Meyer JM, Peppas NA (1984) Bioadhesive intraoral release systems: design, testing and analysis. Biomaterials 5:336–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagerstrom H, Edsman K (2001) Interpretation of mucoadhesive properties of polymer gel preparations using a tensile strength method. J Pharm Pharmacology 53:1589–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagesaether E, Hiorth M, Sande SA (2009) Mucoadhesion and drug permeability of free mixed films of pectin and chitosan: an in vitro and ex vivo study. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 71:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hascicek C, Gonul N, Erk N (2003) Mucoadhesive microspheres containing gentamicin sulfate for nasal administration: preparation and in vitro characterization. Farmaco 58:11–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hassan EE, Gallo JM (1990) A simple rheological method for the in vitro assessment of mucin-polymer bioadhesive bond strength. Pharm Res 7:491–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Illum L (2003) Nasal drug delivery—possibilities, problems and solutions. J Control Rel 87:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Illum L, Jabbal-Gill I, Hinchcliffe M (2001) Chitosan as a novel nasal delivery system for vaccines. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 51:81–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishizu K, Yamashita M, Lchimura A (1997) Microsphere synthesis by emulsion copolymerization of methyl methacrylate with poly(acrylic acid) macromonomers. Polymer 38:5471–5474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones DS, Woolfson AD, Brown AF (1997) Textural, viscoelastic and mucoadhesive properties of pharmaceutical gels composed of cellulose polymers. Int J Pharm 151:23–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee CF (2002) The effect of aqueous medium contains poly(acrylic acid) on the morphology of composite polymer particle produced by two stages soapless seeded emulsion polymerization. Polymer 43:5763–5769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mikos AG, Peppas NA (1990) Bioadhesive analysis of controlled-release systems. IV. An experimental method for testing the adhesion of microparticles with mucus. J Control Rel 12:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortazavi SA (1995) An in vitro assessment of mucus/mucoadhesive interactions. Int J Pharm 124:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nielsen LS, Schubert L, Hansen J (1998) Bioadhesive drug delivery systems. I. Haracterisation of mucoadhesive properties of systems based on glyceryl mono-oleate and glyceryl monolinoleate. Eur J Pharm Sci 6:231–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Park H, Robinson JR (1985) Physico-chemical properties of water insoluble polymers important to mucin/epithelial adhesion. J Control Rel 2:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pawar D, Goyal AK, Mangal S, Mishra N, Vaidya B, Tiwari S, Jain AK, Vyas SP (2010) Evaluation of mucoadhesive PLGA microparticles for nasal immunization. AAPS J 12:130–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillipson M, Johansson MEV, Henriksnas J, Petersson J, Gendler SJ, Sandler S, Persson AEG, Hansson GC, Holm L (2008) The gastric mucus layers:constituents and regulation of accumulation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 295:G806–G812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ponchel G, Touchard F, Wouessidjewe D, Duchene D, Peppas NA (1987) Bioadhesive analysis of controlled-release systems. III. Bioadhesive and release behavior of metronidazole-containing poly(acrylic acid)–hydroxypropyl methylcellulose systems. Int J Pharm 38:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romanazzi G, Gabler FM, Margosan D, Mackey BE, Smilanick JL (2009) Effect of chitosan dissolved in different acids on its ability to control postharvest gray mold of table grape. Phytopathology 99:1028–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Salamat-Miller N, Chittchang M, Johnston TP (2005) The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57:1666–1691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Smart JD, Kellaway IW, Worthington HEC (1984) An in vitro investigation of mucosa-adhesive materials for use in controlled drug delivery. J Pharm Pharmacology 36:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sonia TA, Sharma CP (2011) Chitosan and its derivatives for drug delivery perspective. In: Jayakumar R, Prabaharan M, Muzzarelli RAA (eds) Chitosan for biomaterials I. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sudhakar Y, Kuotsu K, Bandyopadhyay AK (2006) Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery:a promising option for orally less efficient drugs. J Control Rel 114:15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Takeuchi H, Thongborisute J, Matsui Y, Sugihara H, Yamamoto H, Kawashima Y (2005) Novel mucoadhesion tests for polymers and polymer-coated particles to design optimal mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57:1583–1594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tanaka Y, Ueyama H, Ogata M, Daikoku T, Morimoto M, Kitagawa A, Imajo Y, Tahara T, Inkyo M, Yamaguchi N, Nagata S (2014) Evaluation of nanodispersion of iron oxides using various polymers. Indian J Pharm Sci 76:54–61PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Tangri P, Madhav NVS (2011) Oral mucoadhesive drug delivery systems: a review. Int J Biopharm 2:36–46Google Scholar
  43. Taylan B, Capan Y, Guven O, Kes S, Hincal AA (1996) Design and evaluation of sustained-release and buccal adhesive propranolol hydrochloride tablets. J Control Rel 38:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teng CLC, Ho NFH (1987) Mechanistic studies in the simultaneous flow and adsorption of polymer-coated latex particles on intestinal mucus I: methods and physical model development. J Control Rel 6:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thongborisute J, Takeuchi H (2008) Evaluation of mucoadhesiveness of polymers by BIACORE method and mucin-particle method. Int J Pharm 354:204–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilloo SK, Rasala TM, Kale VV (2011) Mucoadhesive microparticulate drug delivery system. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 9:52–56Google Scholar
  47. Tobyn MJ, Johnson JR, Dettmar PW (1995) Factors affecting in vitro gastric mucoadhesion I. Test conditions and instrumental parameters. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 41:235–241Google Scholar
  48. Woertz C, Preis M, Breitkreutz J, Kleinebudde P (2013) Assessment of test methods evaluating mucoadhesive polymers and dosage forms: An overview. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 85:843–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Pharmacy and Institute of Drug Research and DevelopmentChungnam National UniversityDaejeonSouth Korea
  2. 2.College of Pharmacy and Institute of Drug Research and DevelopmentChungnam National UniversityDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations