Skip to main content
Log in

Formulation and Evaluation of Bioadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery of Tizanidine Hydrochloride Tablets

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

Abstract

The study aim was concerned with formulation and evaluation of bioadhesive buccal drug delivery of tizanidine hydrochloride tablets, which is extensively metabolized by liver. The tablets were prepared by direct compression using bioadhesive polymers such as hydroxylpropyl methylcellulose K4M, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose alone, and a combination of these two polymers. In order to improve the permeation of drug, different permeation enhancers like beta-cyclodextrin (β-CD), hydroxylpropyl beta-cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD), and sodium deoxycholate (SDC) were added to the formulations. The β-CD and HP-β-CD were taken in 1:1 molar ratio to drug in formulations. Bioadhesion strength, ex vivo residence time, swelling, and in vitro dissolution studies and ex vivo permeation studies were performed. In vitro release of optimized bioadhesive buccal tablet was found to be non-Fickian. SDC was taken in 1%, 2%, and 3% w/w of the total tablet weight. Stability studies in natural saliva indicated that optimized formulation has good stability in human saliva. In vivo mucoadhesive behavior of optimized formulation was performed in five healthy male human volunteers and subjective parameters were evaluated.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Squier CA, Wertz PW. Structure and function of the oral mucosa and implications for drug delivery. In: Rathbone MJ, editor. Oral mucosal drug delivery. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1996. p. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gibaldi M. The number of drugs administered buccally is increasing. Clin Pharmacol 1985;3:49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harris D, Robinson JR. Drug delivery via the mucous membranes of the oral cavity. J Pharm Sci 1992;81:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis SS, Daly PB, Kennerley JW, Frier M, Hardy JG, Wilson CG. Design and evaluation of sustained release formulations for oral and buccal administration. In: Bussmann WD, Dries RR, Wagner W, editors. Controlled release nitroglycerin in buccal and oral form. Basle: Karger; 1982. p. 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schor JM, Davis SS, Nigalaye A, Bolton S. Susadrin transmucosal tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1983;9:1359–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ishida M, Nambu N, Nagai T. Mucosal dosage form of lidocaine for toothache using hydroxypropyl cellulose. Chem Pharm Bull 1982;30:980–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bremecker KD, Strempel H, Klein G. Novel concept for a mucosal adhesive ointment. J Pharm Sci 1984;73:548–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gandhi RB, Robinson JR. Bioadhesion in drug delivery. Ind J Pharm Sci 1988;50:145–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shojaei AH. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: a review. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 1998;1(1):15–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nagai T, Machida Y. Advances in drug delivery: mucosal adhesive dosage forms. Pharm Int 1985;6:196–200.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chattarajee SC, Walker RB. Penetration enhancer classification. In: Smith EW, Maibach HI, editors. Percutaneous penetration enhancement. Boca Raton: CRC; 1995. p. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aungst BJ, Rogers NJ. Comparison of the effects of various transmucosal absorption promoters on buccal insulin delivery. Int J Pharm 1989;53:227–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee VHL, Yamamoto A, Kompella UB. Mucosal penetration enhancers for facilitation of peptide and protein drug absorption. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1991;8:91–192.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pitha J, Harman SM, Michel ME. Hydrophilic cyclodextrin derivatives enable effective oral administration of steroidal hormones. J Pharm Sci 1986;75:165–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burnside BA, Keith AD, Snipes W. Microporous hollow fibers as a peptide delivery system via the buccal cavity. Proc Int Symp Control Release Bioact Mater 1989;16:93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang J, Niu S, Ebert C, Stanley TH. An in-vivo dog model for studying recovering kinetics of the buccal mucosa permeation barrier after exposure to permeation enhancers: apparent evidence of effective enhancement without tissue damage. Int J Pharm 1994;101:15–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Steward A, Bayley DL, Howes C. The effect of enhancers on the buccal absorption of hybrid (BDBB) alpha interferon. Int J Pharm 1994;104:145–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ebert CD, Heiber SJ, Dave SC, Kim SW, Mix D. Mucosal delivery of macromolecules. J Control Release 1994;28:37–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoogstraate AJ, Wertz PW, Squier CA, Bos Van Geest A, Abraham W, Garrison MD, Verhoef JC, Junginger HE, Bodde’ HE. Effects of the penetration enhancer glycodeoxycholate on the lipid integrity in porcine buccal epithelium in vitro. Eur J Pharm Sci 1997;5:189–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nance PW, Bugaresti J, Shellenberger K, the North American Tizanidine Study Group. Efficacy and safety of tizanidine in the treatment of spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury. Neurology 1994;44:S44–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. United Kingdom Tizanidine Trial Group. A double blind, placebo-controlled trial of tizanidine in the treatment of spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1994;44:S70–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wagstaff AJ, Bryson HM. Tizanidine: a review of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability in the management of spasticity associated with cerebral and spinal disorders. Drugs 1997;53:435–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.. Zanaflex® (tizanidine hydrochloride) tablets and capsules prescribing information. Hawthorne: Acorda Therapeutics; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moffat AC. Clark’s isolation and identification of drugs. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2006. p. 691.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tanaka M, Yanagibashi N, Fukuda H, Nagai T. Absorption of salicylic acid through the oral mucous membrane of hamster cheek pouch. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo) 1980;28:1056–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zuber M, Chemtob C, Chanmeil J. Sci Tech Pharm 1979;8:1.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bandyopadhyay AK, Metia PK. In vitro evaluation of novel mucoadhesive buccal tablets of oxytocin prepared with diospyros peregrina fruits mucilage. Yakugaku Zasshi 2008;128:603–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mumtaz AM, Ch’ng HS. Design of a dissolution apparatus suitable for in situ release study of triamcinolone acetonide from bioadhesive buccal tablets. Int J Pharm 1995;121:129–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Remuñán-López C, Portero A, Vila-Jato JL, Alonso MJ. Design and evaluation of chitosan/ethyl cellulose mucoadhesive bilayered devices for buccal drug delivery. J Control Release 1998;55:143–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sujatha K, Chitra K, Hettiarachchi DS, Vinay Krishna M, Vasantha J. Spectrophotometric determination of tizanidine hydrochloride. Indian J Pharm Sci 2003;65:519–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. United States Pharmacopoeia, National Formulary. By authority of united state Pharmacopoeia Convention, Inc., Meeting at Washington, 2004, p. 2302.

  33. Gupta A, Garg S, Khar RK. Measurement of bioadhesive strength of mucoadhesive buccal tablets: design of an in vitro assembly. Indian Drugs 1993;30:152–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Nakamura F, Ohta R, Machida Y, Nagai T. In vitro and in vivo nasal mucoadhesion of water soluble polymers. Int J Pharm 1996;134:173–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tirosh B, Baluom M, Nassar T, Friedman M, Rubinstein A. The effect of Eudragit RL-100 on the mechanical and mucoadhesion properties of polycarbophil dosage forms. J Control Release 1997;45:57–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ritthidej GC, Phaechamud T, Koizumi T. Moist heat treatment on physicochemical change of chitosan salt films. Int J Pharm 2002;232:11–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bottenberg P, Cleymaet R, Muynek CD, Remon JP, Coomans D, Slop D. Development and testing of bioadhesive, fluoride-containing slow-release tablets for oral use. J Pharm Pharmacol 1991;43:457–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Be’cirevi’c-La’can M, Jug M. Influence of hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin complexation on piroxicam release from buccoadhesive tablets. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004;21:251–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kashappa Goud Desai H, Pramod Kumar TM. Preparation and evaluation of a novel buccal adhesive system. AAPS PharmSciTech 2004;5:35.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Periolia L, Ambrogia V, Angelicia F, Riccia M, Giovagnolia S, Capuccellab M, Rossia C. Development of mucoadhesive patches for buccal administration of ibuprofen. J Control Release 2004;99:73–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001;13(2):123–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Longer MA, Robinson JR. Fundamental aspects of bioadhesion. Pharm Int 1986;7:114–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Park H, Robinson JR. Mechanisms of mucoadhesion of poly (acrylic acid) hydrogels. Pharm Res 1987;4:457–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lehr CM, Bouwstra JA, Schacht EH, Junginger HE. In vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive properties of chitosan and some other natural polymers. Int J Pharm 1992;78:43–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Peppas NA, Bury PA. Surface interfacial and molecular aspects of polymer bioadhesion on soft tissues. J Control Release 1985;2:257–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Challa R, Ahuja A, Ali J, Khar RK. Cyclodextrins in drug delivery: an updated review. AAPS PharmSciTech 2005;6:E329–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gandhi R, Robinson J. Mechanisms of penetration enhancement for transbuccal delivery of salicylic acid. Int J Pharm 1992;85:129–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Choi HG, Kim CK. Development of omeprazole buccal adhesive tablets with stability enhancement in human saliva. J Control Release 2000;68:397–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the St. Peter’s Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Warangal, and Jangaon Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jangaon, Warangal, India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gazzi Shanker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shanker, G., Kumar, C.K., Gonugunta, C.S.R. et al. Formulation and Evaluation of Bioadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery of Tizanidine Hydrochloride Tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech 10, 530–539 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-009-9241-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-009-9241-2

Key words

Navigation