Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:7 | Cite as

Novel Dissolution Method for Oral Film Preparations with Modified Release Properties

  • Isabell SpeerEmail author
  • Maren Preis
  • Jörg Breitkreutz
Research Article Theme: Advancements in Dissolution Testing of Oral and Non-Oral Formulations
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Advancements in Dissolution Testing of Oral and Non-Oral Formulations

Abstract

Oromucosal film preparations have gained popularity in pharmaceutical research and development. Therefore, oral films have been integrated into the monograph “oromucosal preparations” of the European Pharmacopeia in 2012. Regulatory authorities explicitly demand dissolution studies for films, but neither refer to suitable methods nor established specifications. Test methods described in the literature are often limited to immediate release formulations or not applicable to investigate the drug release of films with prolonged release profiles considering the different stages of gastrointestinal transit. The aims of this study were to develop a dissolution test method, which is suitable to investigate the drug release of film preparations with immediate as well as modified release profiles and to explore the potential of the test setup considering some physiological characteristics. Therefore, a conventional flow-through cell was equipped with in-house built sample holders. Three-dimensional printing technology was used for prototyping one of the sample holders. Four different types of films were investigated, such as ODFs with immediate (ODFIR) and prolonged release (ODFPR) characteristics as well as a double-layer film (ODFDL), produced with a water-insoluble shielding layer. Anhydrous theophylline was used as a model drug for all film types. Introducing special fixtures for oral films to a conventional flow-through cell enables successful determination of the drug release behavior of oral film preparations with immediate as well as modified release properties. Investigating ODFDL, the application of film sample holders with backing plates such as film sample holder with backing plate (FHB) and 3D printed film sample holder (FH3D) showed prolonged release profiles with 14.6 ± 1.30% theophylline dissolved within 2 h for FHB compared to 92.9 ± 3.33% for the film sample holder without backing plate (FH). This indicates their suitability to examine the integrity of the shielding layer. The application of the backing plate further decreased the drug release of ODFPR < 315 to 61.0 ± 1.69% dissolved theophylline within 2 h using FHB compared to 82.3 ± 0.74% using FH, due to a reduced ODF surface exposed to the dissolution medium. The potential of the dissolution test setup to consider physiological conditions of the human gastrointestinal transit was investigated by applying different flow rates and media compositions to simulate conditions within the oral cavity, stomach, and intestine. For the application of a low flow rate of 1 ml/min, comparable to the salivary flow within the oral cavity, decreased theophylline release was observed, while similar release profiles were obtained for flow rates between 2 and 8 ml/min. Substantial impact on the theophylline release was exerted by varying the composition of the dissolution medium. Since the drug release from ODFPR is controlled by diffusion through a water-insoluble matrix, ion species and concentration strongly affect the release behavior. In the future, IVIVC studies have to be performed to explore, whether obtained data can be used to predict drug release behavior of ODFs during the human gastrointestinal transit.

KEY WORDS

oromucosal preparations orodispersible films mucoadhesive buccal films multilayer films shielding layer unidirectional drug release dissolution testing prolonged drug release physiological conditions flow-through cell USP 4 film sample holder 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Prof. Dr. N. Roewer and Dr. J. Broscheit (Sapiotec GmbH) for their support. We also thank S. Niese and S. Stich (Heinrich Heine University) for their help constructing the film sample holders. For the donation of excipients, we would like to thank Ashland, Evonik, and Shin-Etsu Chemical.

References

  1. 1.
    Preis M, Woertz C, Kleinebudde P, Breitkreutz J. Oromucosal film preparations: classification and characterization methods. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2013;10(9):1303–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FDA. Data standards of structured product labeling 2012 Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DataStandards/StructuredProductLabeling/ucm162038. Accessed 03 July 2018.
  3. 3.
    Pharmacopoeia E. Oromucosal preparations. Strasbourg, France: European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM) 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preis M, Woertz C, Schneider K, Kukawka J, Broscheit J, Roewer N, et al. Design and evaluation of bilayered buccal film preparations for local administration of lidocaine hydrochloride. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014;86(3):552–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shidhaye SS. Mucoadhesive bilayered patches for administration of sumatriptan succinate. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(3):909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Puratchikody A, Prasanth VV, Mathew ST, Kumar BA. Development and characterization of mucoadhesive patches of salbutamol sulfate for unidirectional buccal drug delivery. Acta Pharma. 2011;61(2):157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffmann E, Breitenbach A, Breitkreutz J. Advances in orodispersible films for drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8(3):299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krampe R, Visser JC, Frijlink HW, Breitkreutz J, Woerdenbag HJ, Preis M. Oromucosal film preparations: points to consider for patient centricity and manufacturing processes. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(4):493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Speer I, Preis M, Breitkreutz J. Prolonged drug release properties for orodispersible films by combining hot-melt extrusion and solvent casting methods. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018;129:66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sievens-Figueroa L, Pandya N, Bhakay A, Keyvan G, Michniak-Kohn B, Bilgili E, et al. Using USP I and USP IV for discriminating dissolution rates of Nano- and microparticle-loaded pharmaceutical strip-films. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2012;13(4):1473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Low AQJ, Parmentier J, Khong Y, Chai CCE, Tun T, Berania J, et al. Effect of type and ratio of solubilising polymer on characteristics of hot-melt extruded orodispersible films. Int J Pharm. 2013;455(1–2):138–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Mahrouk GM, El-Gazayerly ON, Aboelwafa AA, Taha MS. Chitosan lactate wafer as a platform for the buccal delivery of tizanidine HCl: in vitro and in vivo performance. Int J Pharm. 2014;467(1):100–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adrover A. In vitro dissolution testing of oral thin films: a comparison between USP 1, USP 2 apparatuses and a new millifluidic flow-through device. Chem Eng Res Des. 2015;95:173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen B-d, Shen C-y, Yuan X-d, Bai J-x, Lv Q-y, Xu H, et al. Development and characterization of an orodispersible film containing drug nanoparticles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2013;85(3, Part B):1348–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shimoda H, Taniguchi K, Nishimura M, Matsuura K, Tsukioka T, Yamashita H, et al. Preparation of a fast dissolving oral thin film containing dexamethasone: a possible application to antiemesis during cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;73(3):361–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garsuch V, Breitkreutz J. Novel analytical methods for the characterization of oral wafers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;73(1):195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cilurzo F, Cupone I, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;70(3):895–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sievens-Figueroa L, Bhakay A, Jerez-Rozo JI, Pandya N, Romañach RJ, Michniak-Kohn B, et al. Preparation and characterization of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose films containing stable BCS class II drug nanoparticles for pharmaceutical applications. Int J Pharm. 2012;423(2):496–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Furtado S, Bharath S, Basavaraj BV, Abraham S, Deveswaran R, Madhavan V. Development of chitosan based bioadhesive bilayered patches of metoprolol tartarate. Development. 2010;4(3):032.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Okamoto H, Taguchi H, Iida K, Danjo K. Development of polymer film dosage forms of lidocaine for buccal administration: I. penetration rate and release rate. J Control Release. 2001;77(3):253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mashru RC. Development and evaluation of fast-dissolving film of salbutamol sulphate. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2005;31(1):25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juliano C, Cossu M, Pigozzi P, Rassu G, Giunchedi P. Preparation, in vitro characterization and preliminary in vivo evaluation of buccal polymeric films containing chlorhexidine. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(4):1153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li C, Bhatt PP, Johnston TP. In vitro release and permeation of oxytocin from a mucoadhesive buccal patch. Pharm Dev Technol. 1996;1(4):357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park D-M, Song Y-K, Jee J-P, Kim HT, Kim C-K. Development of chitosan-based ondansetron buccal delivery system for the treatment of emesis. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2012;38(9):1077–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    del Consuelo ID, Falson F, Guy RH, Jacques Y. Ex vivo evaluation of bioadhesive films for buccal delivery of fentanyl. J Control Release. 2007;122(2):135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xia Y. A new method for evaluating the dissolution of orodispersible films. Pharm Dev Technol. 2015;20(3):375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krampe R, Sieber D, Pein-Hackelbusch M, Breitkreutz J. A new biorelevant dissolution method for orodispersible films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2016;98(Supplement C):20–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beilke D, Preis M. Zerfallsprüfung von Schmelzfilmen. TechnoPharm. 2014;4(Nr. 6):334–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shannon TL. Parotid fluid flow rate as related to whole saliva volume. Arch Oral Biol. 1962;7(3):391–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Watanabe S, Ohnishi M, Imai K, Kawano E, Igarashi S. Estimation of the total saliva volume produced per day in five-year-old children. Arch Oral Biol. 1995;40(8):781–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Humphrey SP, Williamson RT. A review of saliva: normal composition, flow, and function. J Prosthet Dent. 85(2):162–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shah V, Lesko L, Fan J, Fleischer N, Handerson J, Malinowski H, et al. FDA guidance for industry: dissolution testing of immediate release solid oral dosage forms. Dissolution Technol. 1997;4:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Repka MA, Gutta K, Prodduturi S, Munjal M, Stodghill SP. Characterization of cellulosic hot-melt extruded films containing lidocaine. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2005;59(1):189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perioli L, Ambrogi V, Angelici F, Ricci M, Giovagnoli S, Capuccella M, et al. Development of mucoadhesive patches for buccal administration of ibuprofen. J Control Release. 2004;99(1):73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wong C, Yuen K, Peh K. Formulation and evaluation of controlled release Eudragit buccal patches. Int J Pharm. 1999;178(1):11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parodi B, Russo E, Caviglioli G, Cafaggi S, Bignardi G. Development and characterization of a buccoadhesive dosage form of oxycodone hydrochloride. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1996;22(5):445–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abruzzo A, Bigucci F, Cerchiara T, Cruciani F, Vitali B, Luppi B. Mucoadhesive chitosan/gelatin films for buccal delivery of propranolol hydrochloride. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;87(1):581–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pharmaceuticals M. Onsolis (fentanyl buccal soluble film): US prescribing information 2011 2011. 2018. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/022266s000lbl.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2018.
  39. 39.
    Garnock-Jones KP. Fentanyl buccal soluble film: a review in breakthrough cancer pain. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36(5):413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kockisch S, Rees GD, Young SA, Tsibouklis J, Smart JD. A direct-staining method to evaluate the mucoadhesion of polymers from aqueous dispersion. J Control Release. 2001;77(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lindert S. Entwicklung und Charakterisierung filmförmiger Zubereitungen zur oromukosalen Anwendung von Peptiden. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine Universität; 2016.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wagner KG, McGinity JW. Influence of chloride ion exchange on the permeability and drug release of Eudragit RS 30 D films. J Control Release. 2002;82(2):385–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bodmeier R, Guo X, Sarabia RE, Skultety PF. The influence of buffer species and strength on diltiazem HC1 release from beads coated with the aqueous cationic polymer dispersions, Eudragit RS, RL 30D. Pharm Res. 1996;13(1):52–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knop K. Influence of buffer solution composition on drug release from pellets coated with neutral and quaternary acrylic polymers and on swelling of free polymer films. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1996;4(5):293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lagerlof F, Dawes C. The volume of saliva in the mouth before and after swallowing. J Dent Res. 1984;63(5):618–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu KP, Ke J-Y, Chung C-Y, Chen C-L, Hwang T-L, Chou M-Y, et al. Relationship between unstimulated salivary flow rate and saliva composition of healthy children in Taiwan. Chang Gung Med J. 2008;31(3):281–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ono K, Morimoto Y, Inoue H, Masuda W, Tanaka T, Inenaga K. Relationship of the unstimulated whole saliva flow rate and salivary gland size estimated by magnetic resonance image in healthy young humans. Arch Oral Biol. 2006;51(4):345–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gutman D, Ben-Aryeh H. The influence of age on salivary content and rate of flow. Int J Oral Surg. 1974;3(5):314–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kong F, Singh R. Disintegration of solid foods in human stomach. J Food Sci. 2008;73(5).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vertzoni M, Dressman J, Butler J, Hempenstall J, Reppas C. Simulation of fasting gastric conditions and its importance for the in vivo dissolution of lipophilic compounds. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2005;60(3):413–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Davis S, Hardy J, Fara J. Transit of pharmaceutical dosage forms through the small intestine. Gut. 1986;27(8):886–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mudie DM, Amidon GL, Amidon GE. Physiological parameters for Oral delivery and in vitro testing. Mol Pharm. 2010;7(5):1388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kerlin P, Zinsmeister A, Phillips S. Relationship of motility to flow of contents in the human small intestine. Gastroenterology. 1982;82(4):701–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brady S, Wesling M, Donzelli J, Kaszuba S. Swallowing frequency: impact of accumulated oropharyngeal secretion levels and gustatory stimulation. Ear Nose Throat J. 2016;95(2):E7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Pharmaceutics and BiopharmaceuticsHeinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Pharmaceutical Sciences Laboratory, Faculty of Science and EngineeringÅbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations