Fabrication and In-vitro Evaluation of Buccal Mucoadhesive Tablet of Meloxicam

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Student Research Committee, Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, School of Pharmacy Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

5 Department of Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

6 Nanotechnology Research Center, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

In this study, buccal mucoadhesive tablets of meloxicam were formulated for drug delivery as an alternative route. Direct compression method was applied for the preparation of tablets. Also, different polymers, including hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) 1000, 4000, and 10000, as well as carbopol 934p and carbopol 971p were used as the mucoadhesive polymer and retardant polymer. Thirteen formulations were investigated with various concentrations of polymers. The physicochemical characteristics, in-vitro drug release, swelling index, and taste modification of tablets were evaluated. Also, Carr’s index and Hausner ratio were studied. In addition, zero-order, first-order, and Higuchi kinetics were investigated and the results showed that the highest correlation coefficient (R2) is related to zero-order kinetic for formulations B2 and B3. Furthermore, the highest R2 is related to Higuchi kinetic for formulation C3. Formulation B2 showed the maximum release of 99% in 12 h. The results demonstrated that Formulation B2 can be considered as a proper buccal mucoadhesive tablet of meloxicam with desired property.

Graphical Abstract

Fabrication and In-vitro Evaluation of Buccal Mucoadhesive Tablet of Meloxicam

Keywords


(1) Mittal S and Pawar Sh. design and evaluationof buccal mucoadhesive tablets of pantoprazolesodium. Eur. J. Pharm. Med. Res. (2018) 5: 514-22.
(2) Fatima S, Panda N, Reddy AV, Fatima S. Buccalmucoadhesive tablets of sumatriptan succinatefor treatment of sustainable migraine: design,formulation and in-vitro evaluation. Int. J. Pharm.Res. Allied Sci. (2015) 3: 1-13.
(3) Mujariya R, Dhamande K, Raj Wankhede U andAngure S. A Review on study of Buccal drugdelivery system. Innov. Syst. Des. Eng. (2011) 2:1-13.
(4) Balaji A, Krishnaveni B and Goud V. Formulationand evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films ofatorvastatin using natural protein. Int. J. Pharm.Pharm. Sci. (2014) 6: 332-7.
(5) Fanos V and Cataldi L. AmphotericinB-induced nephrotoxicity: A review. J.
Chemother. (2000) 12: 463-70.
(6) Kumar PS, Srikanth B, Satyanarayana T, Shaji G,Krishnan SN, Saranya P and Pradesh A. Formulationand evaluation of nebivolol mucoadhesive buccaltablet. Pharmacologyonline (2011) 3:869-5.
(7) Mohammadi-Samani S, Bahri-Najafi R, Yousefi G.Formulation and in-vitro evaluation of prednisolonebuccoadhesive tablets. Il Farmaco (2005) 60: 339-44.
(8) Çelik B. Risperidone mucoadhesive buccal tablets:formulation design, optimization and evaluation.Drug Des. Dev. Ther. (2017) 11: 3355-65.
(9) Abdulhady SS and Ibrahim KMH. Preparationand evaluation of mebeverine hydrochloride asmucoadhesive buccal tablet for local anesthesia.Trop. J. Pharm. Res. (2017) 16: 1805-12.
(10) Marques AC, Rocha AI, Leal P, Estanqueiro Mand Lobo JMS. Development and characterizationof mucoadhesive buccal gels containing lipidnanoparticles of ibuprofen. Int. J. Pharm. (2017)533: 455-62.
(11) del Consuelo ID, Falson F, Guy RH and Jacques Y.Ex-vivo evaluation of bioadhesive films for buccaldelivery of fentanyl. J. Control. Release (2007) 122:135-40.
(12) Nafee NA, Ismail FA, Boraie NA and Mortada LM.Mucoadhesive buccal patches of miconazole nitrate:in-vitro/in-vivo performance and effect of ageing.Int. J. Pharm. (2003) 264: 1-14.
(13) Han RY, Fang JY, Sung K and Hu OY.Mucoadhesive buccal disks for novel nalbuphineprodrug controlled delivery: effect of formulationvariables on drug release and mucoadhesiveperformance. Int. J. Pharm. (1999) 177: 201-9.
(14) de Sá LLF, Nogueira NC, Filho ECDS, FigueirasA, Veiga F, Nunes LCC and Lamartine SoaresSobrinho J. Design of buccal mucoadhesive tablets:Understanding and development. J. Appl. Pharm.Sci. (2018) 8: 150-63.
(15) Mura P, Cirri M, Mennini N, Casella G andMaestrelli F. Polymeric mucoadhesive tablets fortopical or systemic buccal delivery of clonazepam:Effect of cyclodextrin complexation. Carbohydr.Polym. (2016) 152: 755-63.
(16) Ianiski FR, da Silva FDA, Wilhelm EA, FernandesRS, Alves MP, Frescura Duarte MMM andLuchese C. Enhanced anti-inflammatory benefitsof meloxicam-loaded lipid-core nanocapsules in amouse pleurisy model: A comparative study with afree form drug. J. Appl. Biomed. (2016) 14: 105-12.
(17) Arantes-Rodrigues R, Pinto-Leite R, Ferreira R,Neuparth MJ, Pires MJ, Gaivão I, Palmeira C,Santos L, Colaço A and Oliveira P. Meloxicam in thetreatment of in-vitro and in-vivo models of urinarybladder cancer. Biomed. Pharmacother. (2013) 67:277-84.
(18) Heinrich A, Duffield TF, Lissemore KD, MillmanST. The effect of meloxicam on behavior andpain sensitivity of dairy calves following cauterydehorning with a local anesthetic. J. Dairy Sci.(2010) 93: 2450-7.
(19) Kumar Barman R, Iwao Y, Noguchi Sh, MI IbneWahed and Itai Sh. Improving flow property ofnifedipine loaded solid-lipid nanoparticles by meansof silica for oral solid dosage form. Pharmacol.Pharm. (2014) 5: 1119-29.
(20) Prasanna RI, Anitha P and Chetty CM. Formulationand evaluation of bucco-adhesive tablets ofsumatriptan succinate. Int. J. Pharm. Investig.(2011) 1: 182-91.
(21) Ansari M, Sadarani B and Majumdar A. Optimizationand evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films loadedwith resveratrol. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. (2018)44: 278-88.
(22) Dehghan M and Jafar M. Improving dissolution ofmeloxicam using solid dispersions. Iran. J. Pharm.Res. (2006) 2006: 231-8.
(23) Thalberg K, Lindholm D and Axelsson A.Comparison of different flowability tests for powdersfor inhalation. Powder Technol. (2004) 146: 206-13.
(24) Shah RB, Tawakkul MA and Khan MA. Comparativeevaluation of flow for pharmaceutical powders andgranules. AAPS Pharmscitech. (2008) 9: 250-8.
(25) Okeke OC. Formulation of novel buccal mucosaldrug delivery systems for nicotine replacementtherapy (NRT): University of Greenwich (2017)1-225. Available from: URL: https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/23500/.
(26) Jadhav S, Kaudewar D, Kaminwar G, JadhavA, Kshirsagar R and Sakarkar D. Formulationand evaluation of dispersible tablets of diltiazemhydrochloride. Int. J. Pharmtech Res. (2011) 3:1314-21.
(27) Elbary AA, Ali AA and Aboud HM. Enhanceddissolution of meloxicam from orodispersible tabletsprepared by different methods. Bull. Fac. Pharm.Cairo Univ. (2012) 50: 89-97.
(28) Nassab PR, Rajkó R and Szabó-Révész P.Physicochemical characterization of meloxicam–mannitol binary systems. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.(2006) 41: 1191-7.
(29) Gardouh A, Ghorab M, Badawy S and Gales R.Preparation and characterization of mucoadhesivebuccal film for delivery of meloxicam. Br. J. Pharm.Res. (2013) 3: 743-66.
(30) Dash S, Narasimha Murthy P, Nath L and ChowdhuryP. Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlleddrug delivery system. Acta Poloniae Pharmaceutica- Drug Research (2010) 67:217-23.