Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 800–810 | Cite as

Formulation, Characterisation and Stabilisation of Buccal Films for Paediatric Drug Delivery of Omeprazole

  • Sajjad Khan
  • Joshua S. Boateng
  • John Mitchell
  • Vivek Trivedi
Research Article

Abstract

This study aimed to develop films for potential delivery of omeprazole (OME) via the buccal mucosa of paediatric patients. Films were prepared using hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC), methylcellulose (MC), sodium alginate (SA), carrageenan (CA) and metolose (MET) with polyethylene glycol (PEG 400) as plasticiser, OME (model drug) and L-arg (stabiliser). Gels (1% w/w) were prepared at 40°C using water and ethanol with PEG 400 (0–1% w/w) and dried in an oven (40°C). Optimised formulations containing OME and L-arg (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) were prepared to investigate the stabilisation of the drug. Tensile properties (Texture analysis, TA), physical form (differential scanning calorimetry, DSC; X-ray diffraction, XRD; thermogravimetric analysis, TGA) and surface topography (scanning electron microscopy, SEM) were investigated. Based on the TA results, SA and MET films were chosen for OME loading and stabilisation studies as they showed a good balance between flexibility and toughness. Plasticised MET films were uniform and smooth whilst unplasticised films demonstrated rough lumpy surfaces. SA films prepared from aqueous gels showed some lumps on the surface, whereas SA films prepared from ethanolic gels were smooth and uniform. Drug-loaded gels showed that OME was unstable and therefore required addition of L-arg. The DSC and XRD suggested molecular dispersion of drug within the polymeric matrix. Plasticised (0.5% w/w PEG 400) MET films prepared from ethanolic (20% v/v) gels and containing OME: L-arg 1:2 showed the most ideal characteristics (transparency, ease of peeling and flexibility) and was selected for further investigation.

KEY WORDS

buccal drug delivery omeprazole oral films paediatric plasticiser 

References

  1. 1.
    Garg SK, Danodia A, Dangi V, Dhakar RC. Buccal adhesive drug delivery system: safer delivery of biotherapeutics. Drug Del Ther. 2011;1(2):35–45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sudhakar Y, Kuotsu K, Bandyopadhyay A. Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery—A promising option for orally less efficient drugs. J Contr Rel. 2006;114:15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boateng JS, Okeke O. Chitosan-based films for sustained release of peptides: a new era in buccal delivery? Ther Del. 2014;5(5):497–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sohi H, Ahuja A, Ahmad FJ, Khar RK. Critical evaluation of permeation enhancers for oral mucosal drug delivery. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2010;36(3):254–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dixit RP, Puthli SP. Oral strip technology: overview and future potential. J Contr Rel. 2009;139(2):94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddhiqui N, Garg G, Sharma P. A short review on “A Novel Approach in Oral Fast-Dissolving Drug Delivery System and Their Patents”. Adv Biol Res. 2011;5(6):291–303.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yehia SA, El-Gazayerly ON, Basalious EB. Design and in vitro/in vivo evaluation of novel mucoadhesive buccal discs of an antifungal drug: relationship between swelling, erosion, and drug release. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(4):1207–17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birudaraj R, Mahalingam R, Li X, Jasti B. Advances in buccal drug delivery. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2005;22(3):295–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salamat-Miller N, Chittchang M, Johnston TP. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57(11):1666–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kianfar F, Chowdhry B, Antonijevic M, Boateng J. Formulation development of a carrageenan based delivery system for buccal drug delivery using ibuprofen as a model drug. J Biomater Nano Biotech. 2011;2(5A):582–95.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pawar H, Tetteh J, Boateng J. Preparation and characterization of novel wound healing film dressings loaded with streptomycin and diclofenac. Coll Surf B: Biointerf. 2013;102:102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rai D, Maniruzzaman M, Boateng J. Development and characterisation of sodium alginate and HPMC films for mucosal drug delivery. Int J Biotech. 2010;11(3–4):169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boateng J, Mani J, Kianfar F. Improving drug loading of mucosal solvent cast films using combination of hydrophilic polymers with amoxicillin and paracetamol as model drugs. BioMed Res Int. 2013;2013:8. doi: 10.1155/2013/198137. Article ID 198137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kianfar F, Antonijevic M, Chowdhry B, Boateng J. Lyophilized wafers comprising carrageenan and pluronic acid for buccal drug delivery using model soluble and insoluble drugs. Coll Surf B: Biointerf. 2013;103:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morales J, McConville J. Manufacture and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77(2):187–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi H-G, Jung J-H, Yong CS, Rhee C-D, Lee M-K, Han J-H, et al. Formulation and in vivo evaluation of omeprazole buccal adhesive tablet. J Contr Rel. 2000;68(3):405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boateng J, Stevens H, Eccleston G, Auffret A, Humphrey J, Matthews K. Development and mechanical characterization of solvent-cast polymeric films as potential drug delivery systems to mucosal surfaces. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35(8):986–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim K, Kim D, Paik U, Kim S. Effect of the molecular weight of poly(ethylene glycol) on the plasticization of green sheets composed of ultrafine BaTiO3 particles and poly(vinyl butyral). Mater Res Bull. 2003;38(1):1021–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehrsch G, Sojka R, Koehn A. Surfactant effects on soil aggregate tensile strength. Geoderma. 2012;189–190:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alexander A, Ajazuddin M, Swarna M, Sharma M, Tripathi D. Polymers and permeation enhancers: specialized components of mucoadhesives. Stamford J Pharm Sci. 2011;4(1):91–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang Y, Dave R, Pfeffer R. Polymer coating/encapsulation of nanoparticles using a supercritical anti-solvent process. J Supercrit Fluids. 2004;28(1):85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abruzzo A, Bigucci F, Cerchiara T, Cruciani F, Vitali B, Luppi B. Mucoadhesive chitosan/gelatin films for buccal delivery of propranolol hydrochloride. Carbo Polym. 2012;87(1):581–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Figueiras A, Sarraguça J, Pais A, Carvalho R, Veiga F. The role of L-arginine in inclusion complexes of omeprazole with cyclodextrins. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(1):233–40.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar A, Negi Y, Bhardwaj N, Choudhary V. Synthesis and characterization of methylcellulose/PVA based porous composite. Carbo Polym. 2012;88(4):1364–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sajjad Khan
    • 1
  • Joshua S. Boateng
    • 1
  • John Mitchell
    • 1
  • Vivek Trivedi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and ScienceUniversity of Greenwich at MedwayKentUK

Personalised recommendations