Propranolol Hydrochloride Buccoadhesive Tablet: Development and In-vitro Evaluation

Document Type : Research article


Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.


Purposes: Propranolol HCl is a beta blocker commonly used worldwide; however, it shows a low bioavailability due to its extensive first-pass metabolism. To solve this problem, a novel drug delivery system such as buccoadhesive system might be helpful. The aim of the present investigation is to prepare the buccoadhesive tablet of propranolol HCl using different mucoadhesive polymers. Method: Buccoadhesive tablets containing drug, lactose, and polymers such as HPMC K4M, carbomer 934P, PEO 8000000 and PEG 6000, in various concentrations, were prepared. The tablets were evaluated in terms of weight variation, thickness, hardness, friability, and mucoadhesive strength. Among thirteen prepared formulations, seven of them which had better physicochemical properties and mucoadhesive strength were undergone the release and swelling tests. Finally, two formulations were selected and uniformity, drug content, duration of mucoadhesion and kinetic studies were performed for them. Result: All polymers except PEG 6000 were appropriate for being used in buccal mucoadhesive systems. Formulation F1 was considered as the most desirable formulation as it exhibited appropriate mucoadhesive strength (43.93 ± 12.4 g), extended duration of mucoadhesion (19.15 ± 0.29 h) and suitable swelling ability while having a prolonged drug release over 12 hours. Conclusion: Although the efficiency and mucosal irritation of propranolol HCl buccoadhesive tablets should be monitored under the in vivo conditions, However, based on the results, it seems that such tablets can be considered as an alternative route to bypass the first pass metabolism of propranolol HCl.

Graphical Abstract

Propranolol Hydrochloride Buccoadhesive Tablet: Development and In-vitro Evaluation


Main Subjects

  1. Raju KN, Velmurugan S, Deepika B, Vinushitha S. Formulation and in-vitro evaluation of buccal tablets of Metoprolol tartrate. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. (2011);3(2):239-46.
  2. Raghavendra NG, Kulkarni GS. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal bilayered tablets of salbutamol. Int j drug dev res. (2012);4(4):375-84.
  3. Bind A, K., Gnanarajan G, Kothiyal P. A review: sublingual route for systemic drug delivery. Int J Drug Res Tech. (2013);3(2):31-6.
  4. Krupashree KG, Parthiban S, Vikneshwari K, Senthil kumar GP, Tamizmani T. Formulation and in-vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal tablets of gliclazide AJRBPS. (2015);3(1):1-13.
  5. Fatima S, Panda N, Reddy AV, Fatima S. Buccal mucoadhesive tablets of sumatriptan succinate for treatment of sustainable migraine: Design, formulation and in vitro evaluation Int j pharm res allied sci. (2015);4(3).
  6. Tasdighi E, Jafari Azar Z, Mortazavi S. Development and in-vitro evaluation of a contraceptive vagino-adhesive Propranolol hydrochloride gel. Iranian J Pharm Res. (2012);11(1):13-26.
  7. Aditya A, Gudas GK, Bingi M, Debnath S, Rajesham VV. Design and evaluation of controlled release mucoadhesive buccal tablets of  lisinopril. Int J Curr Pharm Res. (2010);2(4):24-7.
  8. Singh R, Sharma D, Garg R. Review on mucoadhesive drug delivery system with special emphasis on buccal route: An important tool in designing of novel controlled drug delivery system for the effective delivery of pharmaceuticals. J Dev Drugs. (2017);6(1):169.
  9. Gandhi RB, Robinson JR. Oral cavity as a site for bioadhesive drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. (1994);13(1):43-74.
  10. Madgulkar A, Kadam S, Pokharkar V. Development of buccal adhesive tablet with prolonged antifungal activity: Optimization and ex vivo deposition studies. Indian J Pharm Sci. (2009);71(3):290-4.
  11. Patel VM, Prajapati BG, Patel HV, Patel KM. Mucoadhesive bilayer tablets of Propranolol Hydrochloride. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech (2007);8(3):1-6.
  12. Abruzzo A, Cerchiara T, Bigucci F, Gallucci MC, Luppi B. Mucoadhesive buccal tablets based on chitosan/gelatin microparticles for delivery of Propranolol hydrochloride. J Pharm Sci. (2015);104(12):4365-72.
  13. Mehravaran N, Moghimi H, Mortazavi S. The influence of various mucoadhesive polymers on in vitro performance of the resulting artificial saliva pump spray formulations. Iranian J Pharm Res. (2010); 8( 1):3-13.
  14. Mortazavi S. A comparative study between the strength and duration of mucosaadhesion of transbuccal carbomer based aqueous gels Iranian J Pharm Res. (2002);1(1):7-13.
  15. U.S.P. Pharmacopoeia-National Formulary (USP 39-NF 34). United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Uniformity of dosage unit Rockville, MD; 2016. p. 736-40.
  16. Mortazavi S, Smart J. An in-vitro method for assessing the duration of mucoadhesion. J Control Release. (1994);31(2):207-12.
  17. Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. (2001);13(2):123-33.
  18. Higuchi T. Mechanism of sustained-action medication. Theoretical analysis of rate of release of solid drugs dispersed in solid matrices. J Pharm Sci. (1963);52:1145-9.
  19. Dash S, Murthy PN, Nath L, Chowdhury P. Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlled drug delivery systems. Acta Pol Pharm. (2010);67(3):217-23.
  20. Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. (1983);15(1):25-35.
  21. Roy S, Pal K, Anis A, Pramanik K, B. P. Polymers in mucoadhesive drug-delivery systems: A brief note. Des Monomers Polym. (2009);12:483-95.
  22. Chen JLC, G.N. Compositions producing adhesion through hydration. In: Manly RS, editor. Adhesive Biological Systems. New York: Academic Press; (1970).
  23. Patel MM, Smart JD, Nevell TG, Ewen RJ, Eaton PJ, Tsibouklis J. Mucin/poly(acrylic acid) interactions: a spectroscopic investigation of mucoadhesion. Biomacromolecules. (2003);4(5):1184-90.
  24. Korner A, Larsson A, Andersson A, Piculell L. Swelling and polymer erosion for poly(ethylene oxide) tablets of different molecular weights polydispersities. J Pharm Sci. (2010);99(3):1225-38.
  25. Mortazavi S, Moghimi H. Effect of surfactant type and concentration on the duration of mucoadhesion of carbopol 934 and hpmc solid compacts. Iranian J Pharm Res. (2010);Volume 2( 4):191-9.
  26. Singla AK, Chawla M, Singh A. Potential applications of carbomer in oral mucoadhesive controlled drug delivery system: a review. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. (2000);26(9):913-24.
  27. Nafee NA, Ismail FA, Boraie NA, Mortada LM. Mucoadhesive delivery systems. I. Evaluation of mucoadhesive polymers for buccal tablet formulation. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. (2004);30(9):985-93.
  28. Badawi AA, Fouli AM, El-Sayed AA. Drug release from matrices made of polymers with reacting sites. Int J Pharm. (1980);6(1):55-62.
  29. Rojewska M, Olejniczak-Rabinek M, Bartkowiak A, Snela A, Prochaska K, Lulek J. The wettability and swelling of selected mucoadhesive polymers in simulated saliva and vaginal fluids. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. (2017);156:366-74.
  30. Smart JD. The basics and underlying mechanisms of mucoadhesion. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. (2005);57(11):1556-68.