• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ravali ppt
 

Ravali ppt

on

  • 106 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
106
Views on SlideShare
106
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ravali ppt Ravali ppt Presentation Transcript

    • Presented By RAVALI VAINALA (Reg. No: 11FP1S0316) DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS ST.PETER’S COLLEGE OF PHARMACY Under the Esteemed Guidance of K.RAJITHA M. Pharm, (Ph.D) DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS ST.PETER’S COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 1
    •  INTRODUCTION  AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  CONCLUSION  REFERENCES 2
    • INTRODUCTION 3
    • Amongst various routes of drug delivery, oral route is perhaps the preferred to the patient and the clinician alike. However this route presents some problems for a few drugs. The enzymes in the GI fluids, GIT pH conditions, and the enzymes bound to the GIT membranes are a few factors responsible for the bioavailability problems. The blood that drains the GIT carries the drug directly to the liver leading to first pass metabolism resulting in poor bioavailability. The inherent problems associated with the drug in some cases can be solved by modifying the formulation or by changing the route of administration. 4
    • In recent years, the interest in novel routes of drug administration occurs from their ability to enhance the bioavailability of drug. Drug delivery via the buccal route using bioadhesive dosage forms offers such a novel route of drug administration. Extensive first pass metabolism and drug degradation in the harsh GI environment can be circumvented by administering the drug via the buccal route. Buccal delivery involves administration of desired drug through the buccal mucosal membrane lining of oral cavity. It is richly vascularized and more acceptable for the administration and removal of the dosage form. 5
    • Drug absorption through buccal mucosa is mainly by passive diffusion into the lipoidal membrane. After absorption the drug is transported through facial vein which then drains into the general circulation via jugular vein by passing the liver and thereby sparing the drug from first-pass metabolism. DRUG DELIVERY VIA BUCCAL ROUTE: Buccal delivery refers to drug release which can occur when a dosage form is placed in the outer vestibule between the buccal mucosa and gingiva. Various advantages and other aspects of this route are elucidated of the following. 6
    • 7
    •  Drug administration via buccal mucosa offers several distinct advantages,  Ease of administration.  Permits localization of the drug in the oral cavity for a prolonged period of time.  Offers excellent route for systemic delivery of drugs with high first pass metabolism, thereby offering a greater bioavailability.  A significant reduction in dose can be achieved, thereby reducing dose dependent side effects.  Drugs which are unstable in acidic environment of the stomach or are destroyed by the enzymatic or alkaline environment of the intestine.  The presence of saliva ensures relatively large amount of water for drug dissolution unlike the case of rectal and transdermal routes. 8
    •  It can be made unidirectional to ensure only buccal absorption.  The buccal mucosa is highly perfused with blood vessels and offers greater permeability than the skin.  Therapeutic serum concentrations of the drug can be achieved more rapidly.  Better patient compliance than vaginal, rectal and nasal route of administration.  Buccal mucosa is less prone to damage or irritation than nasal mucosa and shows short recovery times after stress or damage.  Termination of therapy is easy.  Can be administered to unconscious patients.  Increased patient compliance. 9
    •  Drugs which irritate the oral mucosa have a bitter or unpleasant taste or odour cannot be administered by this route.  Drugs, which are unstable at buccal pH, cannot be administered by this route.  Only drugs with small dose requirements can be administered.  Drugs may get swallowed with saliva and loses the advantages of buccal route.  Surface area available for absorption is less.  The buccal mucosa is relatively less permeable than the small intestine, rectum, etc. 10
    •  Should adhere to the buccal mucosa quickly and have optimum mechanical strength.  Drug should release in a controlled manner.  Facilitates the rate and extent of drug absorption.  Should have patient compliance.  Should not obstruct normal functions such as talking, eating and drinking.  Should achieve the unidirectional release of drug towards the mucosa.  Should not aid in development of secondary infections such as dental caries.  Possess a wide margin of safety both locally and systemically. Should have good resistance to the flushing action of saliva. 11
    • 12
    •  To develop the best possible formulation in accordance with the respective standards & preparation procedures in the form of a tablet intended for buccal administration for the symptomatic treatment of allergic conditions.  To increase the bio-availability of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) by the aid of suitable approaches & techniques in the end product. 13
    • 1. Bilayered buccal tablets having CPM as an API, in association with the respective grade and type of polymers in a combination were prepared by direct compression method. 2. Carbopol-934 was selected as a primary polymer along with HPMC K4M, HPMC K15M, sodium alginate and guar gum as secondary polymers for the preparation of bilayered buccal tablets. 3. Ethyl cellulose was used as impermeable backing layer to provide the unidirectional drug flow. 4. Preformulation study was done by FTIR and DSC spectroscopic method for drug polymer interaction. 5. The prepared bilayered buccal tablets would be evaluated for various evaluation parameters like hardness, thickness, weight variation, friability, drug content uniformity, swelling index, in vitro drug release study etc. 14
    • LITERATURE REVIEW 15
    • Shinde et al designed mucoadhesive buccal tablets of Niacin using sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, Carbopol 940P and HPMC K4M as bioadhesive polymers to impart mucoadhesion. The prepared tablets were evaluated for different parameters such as weight uniformity, content uniformity, thickness, hardness, surface pH, swelling index, in vitro drug release and in vitro drug permeation. From the obtained results it was concluded that mucoadhesive buccal tablets of Niacin can be a good way to swelling and bioadhesion properties and good improve the bioavailability of Niacin. Bhanja et al formulated and evaluated mucoadhesive buccal tablets of Timolol maleate by direct compression method. The formulations were developed with varying concentrations of polymers like Carbopol 934, polyethylene oxide and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose. It was found that Timolol maleate mucoadhesive buccal tablets gave a reasonable mucoadhesion and the drug was gradually released from all formulations over a period of 7 h sustained drug release with desired therapeutic concentration.  16
    • Gupta, Gaud, Ganga developed the extended release buccoadhesive buccal tablets of Nisoldipine using progressive hydration technology. This technology involves Carbopol 972P, HPMC K15M and polycarbophil in different amounts. The formulations are designed on 32 factorial designs to check effect of Carbopol and HPMC K15M on mucoadhesion strength and drug release and desired drug release was obtained in the sixth hour and good mucoadhesion strength was also obtained. Hao Lou, Min Liu, Wen Qu and Zheyi hu have performed to mask the bitterness of CPM via encapsulating drug into Eudragit EPO microparticles, and then incorporate these microparticles into orally disintegrating films (ODF) and orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) for pediatric use. Spray drying of water-in-oil emulsion was utilized to encapsulate CPM into Eudragit EPO microparticles The optimized microparticles were incorporated into ODF and ODT with satisfactory weight and drug content uniformity, and acceptable physical strength. Both dosage forms disintegrated immediately (less than 40 sec) in simulated saliva solutions. The outcome of taste-masking test indicated that microparticles alleviated drug bitterness significantly; bitterness was not discernible with microparticles incorporated in ODT, whereas only slight bitterness was detected from microparticles incorporated into ODF. Both ODF and ODT are shown to be suitable vehicles for taste masked CPM microparticles for pediatric uses.  17
    • Masheer Ahmed khan et al., have formulated sustain release tablets of CPM by using HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M as polymers to sustain the release up to 12hrs. The optimum formulations were selected and the results obtained with the experimental values were compared with the predicted values. In conclusion, the results suggest that the developed sustained-release matrix tablets could provide quite regulated release of chlorpheniramine maleate up to nearly 12 hrs. Shishu, Ashima Bhatti, Tejbir Singh have formulated Rapidly disintegrating tablets in saliva containing bitter taste masked granules of CPM by Compression method. The taste masked granules were prepared using amino alkyl methacrylate copolymers (Eudragit E-100) by the extrusion method. In vitro release profile obtained at pH 6.8 indicate that perceivable amount of drug will not be released in saliva while high percent release (more than 80% in 30 min) would be obtained at acidic pH 1.2 of the stomach. These taste masked granules were directly compressed into tablets using sodium starch glycolate as a super-disintegrant. The prepared tablets containing the taste masked granules having sufficient strength of 3.5 kg/cm were evaluated for taste by both Spectrophotometric method and through panel testing. Panel testing data collected from 20 healthy volunteers indicate successful formulation of oral fast disintegrating tablets which had good taste and disintegrated in the oral cavity within 30s. 18
    •  Drug- Chlorpheneramine maleate  Polymers- Sodium alginate Guar gum Carbopol -934 PVP-K 30 HPMCK15M HPMCK4M and Ethyl cellulose  Sodium saccharine  PEG 6000  Magnesium Stearate  Talc 19
    •  Chemical Structure:  Chemical Name: [3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(pyridin-2-yl) propyl] dimethylamine  Molecular formula : C16H19ClN2  Molecular mass : 274.788  Melting point : 130-135ᵒC  Category : Anti-histamine  Solubility : Freely soluble in water and methanol,Very soluble in acetic acid Soluble in ethanol and dissolves in dilute hydrochloric acid. 20
    • Sl.No Materials Sources 1 Chlorpheneramine maleate Nehal Traders, HYD. 2 Carbopol 934 S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 3 Sodium alginate Crystal colloid. 4 Guar gum Crystal colloid. 5 HPMC K4M S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 6 HPMC K15M S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 7 PVP-K-30 S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 8 Polyethylene glycol-6000 S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 9 Ethyl cellulose S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 10 Sodium saccharine S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 11 Magnesium stearate S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 12 Talc S. D. Fine Chemicals Pvt Limited. 21
    • Sl.No Equipment Sources 1 Paddle type dissolution test apparatus (USP-Type-II) ELECTROLAB; TDT-08L India. 2 UV-Visible Spectrophotometer ELICO Company. 3 Tablet compression machine RIMEK Minipress-1 4 Hardness tester MONSANTO tester. 5 Friability test apparatus ROCHE Friabilator 6 Electronic weighing balance CONTECH Instruments Ltd; Mumbai. 7 Magnetic stirrer REMI Moto Tech; Mumbai. 8 Digital pH meter ULTRA WATECH Systems; Chennai. 9 FTIR SHIMADZU Corporation; Japan. 10 DSC SHIMADZU Corporation; Japan. 11 Thickness tester Vernier calipers. 12 Test Tubes BOROSIL Glassware; Mumbai. 22
    • Preformulation study : Preformulation testing is the first step in the rational development of dosage forms of a drug substance. It can be defined as an investigation of physical and chemical properties of a drug substance alone and when combined with excipients. The overall objective of preformulation testing is to generate information useful to the formulator in developing stable, efficacious and safe dosage form. Hence Preformulation studies were carried out on the obtained samples of drug for identification and compatibility studies. Compatibility Studies: FTIR and DSC studies were conducted. Estimation of Chlorpheneramine maleate( in water): 100mg of CPM was dissolved in sufficient distilled water to produce 100 ml solution in a volumetric flask. 5 ml of the stock solution was further diluted to 50 ml with distilled water into a 50 ml volumetric flask and diluted up to the mark with distilled water. Aliquots of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5ml of stock solution were pipette out into 10ml volumetric flasks and made upto the mark to give 10,20,30,40 and 50 mcg/ml CPM respectively. Absorbance of each solution was measured at 265 nm. 23
    • Evaluation study for pre-compressional parameters: The powder blend was evaluated for Bulk density, Tapped density, Hausner’s ratio, Carr’s index and Angle of repose. Method of Preparation of bilayered buccal tablets: Direct compression. Evaluation of postcompressional parameters: After compression the prepared tablets were evaluated for Uniformity of weight, Thickness, Hardness, Friability, Swelling Index, Uniformity of drug content, Surface pH study and In vitro drug release study. 24
    • Direct compression method was employed to prepare buccal tablets of CPM using, Carbopol 934, Sodium alginate, Guar gum, HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M as polymers. All the ingredients including drug, polymer and excipients were weighed accurately according to the batch formula. The drug and all the ingredients except lubricants were taken on a butter paper with the help of a stainless steel spatula and the ingredients were mixed in the order of ascending weights and blended for 10 min in an inflated polyethylene pouch. After uniform mixing of ingredients, lubricant was added and again mixed for 2 min. The prepared blend of each formulation was pre-compressed by using different punches (6mm) according to their weights on a single stroke tablet punching machine (Rimek Press Minipress II MT, Ahmadabad) to form a tablet. Then 50 mg of ethyl cellulose powder was added and final compression was done to get bilayered buccal tablet.  25
    • Ingredie nts(mg) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 Drug 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Sodium alginate 10 20 30 40 50 - - - - - Guar gum - - - - - 10 20 30 40 50 Carbopo l 934 40 30 20 10 - 40 30 20 10 - P-k-30 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Sod. Sacchari ne 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 PEG- 6000 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Mg. stearate 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Talc 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ethyl cellulose 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 26
    • Ingredie nts(mg) F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 Drug 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 HPMC K4M 10 20 30 40 50 - - - - - HPMC K15M - - - - - 10 20 30 40 50 Carbopo l 934 40 30 20 10 - 40 30 20 10 - P-k-30 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Sod. Sacchari ne 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 PEG- 6000 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Mg. stearate 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Talc 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ethyl cellulose 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 27
    • RESULTS & DISCUSSION 28
    • 1.1 Identification of drug: The IR spectrum of pure drug was found to be similar to the reference standard IR spectrum of CPM. 1.2 Melting point determination: The melting point of CPM was found to be 133ºC, which complied with USP standard, thus indicating purity of obtained drug sample. 1.3 Solubility studies of CPM: SOLVENT CPM Water Freely soluble Methanol Freely soluble Acetic acid Very Soluble Ethanol and Chloroform Soluble 0.1N HCl Soluble 6.8 pH buffer Soluble 29
    • Sl.No Ingredients Physical Description Initial 55°C (2 weeks) 40±2°C /70±5 % RH(4 weeks) 1 API (CPM) White colour No change No change 2 API+ Sodium Alginate + Carbopol Off white No change No change 3 API+ Guar gum + Carbopol Off white No change No change 4 API+ HPMCK4M + Carbopol Off white No change No change 5 API+ HPMCK15M + Carbopol Off white No change No change 30
    • The IR spectrum of CPM with Sodium alginate, Guar gum, HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M suggested that the characteristics peak of CPM was undisturbed and also the characteristic peak of each polymer was unaffected. Hence the IR study reveals that CPM was in the free form and no drug-polymer and polymer-polymer interactions took place during formulation development. 31
    • FTIR spectra of CPM: FTIR spectra of CPM with Sodium alginate: 32
    • FTIR Spectra of CPM with Guar gum: FTIR Spectra of CPM with HPMC K4M: 33
    • FTIR Spectra of CPM with HPMC K15M: DSC Spectra of CPM with Sodium alginate, Guar gum, HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M: The DSC studies reveal that the drug CPM exhibited a sharp melting endotherm at 133oc. No significant thermal shifts were observed for CPM, when it was assessed in combination with the other excipients intended for use in tablet production, it appears as though drug is compatible with all the excipients and there was no major interactions observed between the excipients or between drug and the excipients. 34
    • 35
    •  Medium: Distilled water  UV- visible Spectrophotometer Concentration (mg/ml) Absorbance (nm) 0 0.00 10 0.185 20 0.305 30 0.435 40 0.567 50 0.695 0 0.185 0.305 0.435 0.567 0.695 R² = 0.995 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 20 40 60 Absorbance(nm) Concentration (mcg/ml) abs Linear (abs) 36
    •  Medium: 6.8pH phosphate buffer  UV- visible Spectrophotometer Concentration (mg/ml) Absorbance (nm) 0 0.00 10 0.188 20 o.318 30 0.479 40 0.637 50 0.780 0 0.188 0.318 0.479 0.637 0.78 R² = 0.998 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 20 40 60 Absorbance(nm) Concentration (mcg/ml) abs Linear (abs) 37
    •  Bulk density and Tapped density: The bulk density and tapped density of powder blend of CPM with Carbopol, Sodium alginate, Guar gum, HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M was found to be between 0.39 ± 0.09 to 0.48 ± 0.34 g/cm3 and 0.47 ± 0.43 to 0.59 ± 0.27. This indicates good packing capacity of powder blend.  Carr’s Index: Carr’s index was found to be between 13.46 to 22.  Hausner’s ratio : Hausner’s ratio was found 1.15 to 1.30. This indicates good flowability.  The angle of repose: The angle of repose of all the formulations were observed within the range of 27.08 ± 0.54 to 33.2 ± 0.84 i.e. powders were of good flow properties. 38
    • Formulation code Bulk Density (g/cm3) Tapped Density (g/cm3) Carr’s Index Hausner’s Ratio Angle of Repose (θ) F4 0.41±0.28 0.49±0.04 16.32 1.19 30.54±0.24 F9 0.46±0.45 0.57±0.07 15.74 1.23 27.08±0.54 F14 0,44±2.42 0.56±1.37 21.42 1.27 30.84±0.84 F19 0.39±1.01 0.50±0.07 22 1.28 31.94±0.43 Pre-compressional parameters: 39
    •  All the prepared bilayered buccal tablets of CPM were evaluated for thickness, hardness, friability, weight variation, swelling index, drug content and surface pH. Hardness:  The hardness of prepared mucoadhesive buccal tablets were from 4.13 ± 0.41 kg/cm2 to 5.7 ± 0.06 kg/cm2. The lower values of standard deviation indicate that the hardness of all the formulations were almost uniform and possess good mechanical strength with sufficient hardness. As the concentration of Carbopol was decreased, the hardness of the tablet was increased. Thickness:  The mean thickness (n=3) of the tablets was from 2.56 ± 0.63 to 3.27 ± 0.75 mm. The standard deviation values indicated that all the formulations were within the range and show uniform thickness. 40
    • Weight variation test:  The values of all the formulated tablets ranged from 148.6±1.15 to 151.3±1.52mg. Thus all the formulations passed the test for weight variation according to USP specifications. Friability test:  The values ranged from 0.20±0.98to 0.87±0.32%. All the values are below 1% indicating that the tablets of all formulations are having good compactness and strength. Swelling studies:  The swelling studies of prepared buccal tablets were performed in phosphate buffer at the pH of 6.8. The swelling behaviour of a buccal tablet is an important property for uniform and prolonged release of drug. The swelling behaviour depends upon nature of polymer, concentration of polymer and pH of the medium. The swelling of all the tablets were increased as the time proceeds because the polymer gradually absorbs water due to hydrophilicity of the polymer. 41
    •  The swelling index of tablets was found between 30.15% to 84.03%.  The highest swelling of 39.44% to 84.03% for formulations which contains Sodium alginate and 38.06% to 82.71% for formulations which contains HPMC K4M because HPMC K4M and sodium alginate are more water soluble and rapidly get hydrated. The swelling index was affected by the concentration of Carbopol, as the concentration of the Carbopol decreases the viscosity and swelling index of tablets increases. Drug content uniformity:  Drug content was in the range of 95.71% ± 2.74 to 101.48% ± 2.20 indicating good content uniformity in the all formulations. The reading complies as per I P. that indicates drug was uniformly distributed throughout the tablet. Surface pH:  The surface pH was in the range of 6.53 ± 0.23 to 7.04 ± 0.06 which was nearer to salivary pH (6.5-7.5) suggesting that the prepared buccal tablets can be used without the risk of mucosal irritation and discomfort. 42
    • Formulati on code Weight Variation (mg)±SD Mean Thickness (mm)±SD Mean Hardness (kg/cm)2 ±SD Friability (%)±SD Mean Swelling index±SD Mean Drug content (%)±SD Mean Surface pH ±SD F4 149.6±1.15 3.03±0.57 5.7±0.06 0.20±0.98 66.83±0.89 101.48±2.2 0 6.62±0.17 F9 150.6±1.64 3.00±0.75 5.24±0.13 0.72±0.76 62.17±0.87 96.26±1.37 6.67±0.17 F14 150.7±0.21 2.86±0.26 5.45±0.03 0.55±0.12 66.88±0.49 99.70±0.34 6.89±0.17 F19 149.6±0.34 3.27±0.75 5.47±0.26 0.56±0.37 68.38±0.06 99.75±0.38 6.94±0.09 Postcompressional parameters: 43
    • Time(in hrs) AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 AF5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.6±0.13 19.02±0.4 7 22±0.56 25.57±0.3 8 32.05±1.0 3 16.74 28.23±0.5 1 28.27±0.4 8 29.33±01. 03 32.17±1.0 4 2 17.19±0.2 4 20.92±0.4 3 38.25±0.3 5 37.45±0.9 1 45.0±1.03 19.21 31.71±0.5 7 31.33±0.9 3 45.36±0.8 3 51.33±0.4 4 3 21.19±0.3 0 30.53±0.4 7 57.01±0.6 9 51.97±1.4 8 63.59±0.5 3 22.21 36.04±0.3 1 37.7±0.79 59.28±0.5 2 59.07±0.6 5 4 26.08±0.7 5 38.1±0.39 62.28±0.4 0 67.53±0.7 8 71.85±0.8 4 25.70 44.96±0.3 0 46.93±0.6 4 64.68±0.5 2 71.58±0.7 0 5 31.44±0.5 8 48.99±0.4 4 67.60±0.7 6 72.13±0.9 2 83.23±0.3 7 27.38±0.7 3 46.98±0.1 4 54.56±0.8 9 72.38±1.0 5 79.21±0.6 2 6 34.09±0.1 6 57.15±0.2 7 71.87±0.8 5 87.63±1.9 9 95.47±0.1 8 34.05±0.7 5 49.65±0.3 5 61.17±0.9 2 81.17±0.2 2 90.52±0.6 5 44
    • Time(in hrs) F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.73±0.30 13.81±0. 18 16.68±0. 51 26.01±0. 46 37.74±0. 72 13.7±0.34 15.5±0.22 19.31±0.3 2 26.55±0.5 0 33.4±0.33 2 16.20±0.37 17.77±0. 48 26.3±0.3 0 36.25±0. 82 46.68±1. 10 18.6±0.25 19.33±0.3 8 26.84±1.2 0 37.46±0.3 5 47.81±0.4 4 3 21.06±0.42 22.2±0.4 1 35.77±0. 92 46.12±0. 39 57.11±0. 38 24.6±0.31 26.63±0.7 2 37.43±0.4 4 43.43±0.3 0 58.35±0.3 0 4 25.8±0.22 28.07±0. 56 43.88±1. 43 54.46±0. 41 67.76±0. 27 31.63±0.3 5 34.16±0.2 6 48.16±0.5 2 55.7±0.31 69.72±0.2 9 5 31.67±0.44 36.79±0. 37 50.96±1. 29 62.39±0. 61 76.36±0. 95 35.36±0.3 5 40.96±0.2 1 53.46±0.2 6 66.15±0.4 1 79.88±0.1 6 6 38.16±0.21 42.06±0. 38 56.23±0. 84 74.32±0. 89 88.76±0. 27 41.1±0.82 45.16±0.2 7 64.09±0.8 4 78.85±0.6 5 91.27±1.0 4 45
    • 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8 Cumulativedrugrelease Time (in hrs) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 2 4 6 8 Cumulativedrugrelease Time (in hrs) F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 2 4 6 8 Cumulativedrugrelease Time (in hrs) F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 2 4 6 8 Cumulativedrugrelease Time (in hrs) F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 46
    • Time(in hrs) F4 F9 F14 F19 0 0 0 0 0 1 25.57±0.3 8 29.33±1.0 3 26.01±0.4 6 26.55±0.5 0 2 37.45±0.9 1 45.36±0.8 3 36.25±0.8 2 37.46±0.3 5 3 51.97±1.4 8 59.28±0.8 2 46.12±0.3 9 43.43±0.3 0 4 67.53±0.7 8 64.68±0.5 2 54.46±0.4 1 55.7±0.31 5 72.13±0.9 2 72.38±1.0 5 62.39±0.6 1 66.15±0.4 1 6 87.63±1.9 9 81.17±0.2 2 74.32±0.8 9 78.85±0.6 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 2 4 6 8 Cumulativedrugrelease Time (in hrs) F4 F9 F14 F19 47
    • Finally the in vitro study was subjected to Zero order, first order, Higuchi, Korsmeyer Peppas and Hixson Crowell. Release kinetics of CPM for all the formulations seems to follow First order, because the values of regression coefficient obtained for first order are higher as compared to Zero order and Higuchi plot. From Korsmeyer-Peppas equation the n- values were found to be 0.5 < n < 1 for all the buccal tablet formulations. Therefore it shows that the release mechanism was Non- Fickian diffusion. 48
    • Formulation code First order (R2) Korsmeyer Peppas (R2) & n Hixson- Crowell (R2) F4 0.999 0.996 & 0.691 0.968 F9 0.995 0.992 & 0.565 0.923 F14 0.989 0.992 & 0.634 0.985 F19 0.994 0.969 & 0.686 0.999 49
    • Parameters Initial at 40°C/75% After 1 month at 40°C/75% After 2 months at 40°C/75% After 3 months at 40°C/75% Drug content 98.75 98.26 97.14 99.45 Surface pH 6.95 6.97 6.74 6.72 % of Drug release 87.63 88.46 88.95 89.36 50
    • The Formulation and evaluation of bilayered buccal tablets of CPM reveals following conclusion:  The mucoadhesive buccal tablets of CPM could be prepared using Carbopol-934 as primary polymer and in combination of secondary polymers like sodium alginate, Guar gum, HPMC K4M and HPMC K15M by direct compression method.  The prepared bilayered buccal tablets subjected to FTIR and DSC study suggested that there was no drug-polymer and polymer-polymer interaction.  All the prepared tablets were in acceptable range of weight variation, thickness, hardness, friability, swelling index and Surface pH as per Indian pharmacopoeial specification. As the concentration of Carbopol decreases, the hardness of tablet was increased. 51
    •  The buccal tablets showed good swelling up to 6 hrs in phosphate buffer at the pH of 6.8 maintaining the integrity of formulation which is required for uniform and prolonged release of drug. As the concentration of Carbopol decreases, the swelling index of tablets increased.  The in vitro release of CPM with Carbopol and Sodium alginate in the ratio of (10:40) (F4) shows better drug release (87.63%) than other polymers and it is considered as optimized.  Hence, the bilayered buccal tablets of CPM can be prepared with enhanced bioavailability and provide the prolonged therapeutic effect for 6 hrs. The study conducted so far reveals a promising result suggesting scope for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic evaluation. 52
    • REFERENCES 53
    • 1. Jain NK. Controlled and novel drug delivery. 1st ed. New Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors; 1997: 52-81. 2. Patel VM, Prajapati BG, Patel MM. Formulation, evaluation and comparison of bilayered and multilayered mucoadhesive buccal devices of propranolol hydrochloride. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2007; 8(1): 1-8. 3. Miller NS, Chittchang M, Johnston TP. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005; 57: 1666- 1691. 4. Vyas SP, Khar RK. Controlled drug delivery-concepts and advances. 1st ed. New Delhi: Vallabh Prakashan; 2002. 5. Shojaei HA. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: A Review. J Pharm Sci. 1998; 1(1): 15-30. 6. David Haris, Robinson JR. Buccal drug delivery via the mucous membranes of the oralcavity. J Pharm Sci. 1992; 81(1): 1-9. 7. Tor-Tora Gorahowski. Principles of anatomy and physiology. 7th ed. Edited by Gerad J.Tor- Collins College Publishers; 1992: 770-774. 54
    • 8. Ross & Wilson. Anatomy & physiology in health and illness. 9th ed. Edited by Anne Waugh and Allison Goraw: Churchill Livingstone Edinburgh Publishers; 2001: 289- 293. 9. Chatterjee CC. Human physiology. 10th ed. Calcutta: Medical Allied Agency; 1985:427- 434. 10. Pramod KTM, Shivakumar HG and Desai KG. Oral transmucosal drug deliverysystems.Indian Drugs. 2004; 41(2): 63-67. 11. Chen YS, Squier CA. The ultra structure of the oral epithelium. In: J. Meyer, CA. Squier, SJ. Gerson (eds.), The structure and function of oral mucosa, Pergamon Press, Oxford. 1984: 7- 30. 12. Swarbrick James. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems. 1st ed. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1999: 541-562. 13. Hayward AF. Membrane-coating granules. Int Rev Cyt. 1979; 59: 97-127. 14. N.K. Jain “Controlled and Novel Drug Delivery”, Ist Edition, CBS Publishers and Distributors, India, 2004, 52-74. 55
    • 15. Swarbrick James, Boylan C. James, “Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology”, IInd Edition, Vol. 2, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1990, 189-210. 16. Yie W. Chein , “Novel Drug Delivery Systems”, IInd Edition , Marcel Dekker, Inc., New york, Vol. 50, 1992,8-9,197-228,456-457. 17. Swarbrick James, Boylan C. James, “Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology”, IInd Edition, Vol. 10, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1990, 133. 18. Michael J. Rathbone, “Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery” Drug and Pharmaceutical sciences. IInd Edition ,Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.1992. 19. Joseph R R and Vincent H L Lee, “Controlled Drug Delivery” IInd Edition, Vol. 29, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1987, 42-43. 20. Edith Mathiowitz, Donald E C and Claus – Michael L, “Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems –Fundamentals, Novel Approaches and Development”, IInd Edition, Vol. 98,Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1999, 541-562. 21. Swarbrick James, Boylan C. James, “Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology”, IInd Edition, Vol. 10, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1990, 133. 56
    • THANK YOU… 57