Formulation, characterization and evaluation to establish the bioavailability of gastroretentive mucoadhesive dosage of atenolol in human subjects with possible in-vitro-in-vivo correlation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Pharmaceutics, Vaagdevi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Bollikunta, Warangal, Telangana, India

2 Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis and Quality Assurance, College of Pharmaceutical sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

10.22034/ijps.2020.105389.1540

Abstract

Objective: This study was planned to formulate, characterize and evaluate to establish the bioavailability of gastroretentive mucoadhesive dosage of atenolol in human subjects with possible in-vitro-in-vivo correlation.
Method: In this investigation gastroretentive mucoadhesive dosage of Atenolol was formulated using HPMCK4M, chitosan and Isabgul husk by wet granulation technique. The prepared tablets were subjected to physical evaluation, in-vitro drug release and in-vivo X-ray studies, followed by the pharmacokinetic study in human volunteers.
Results: All the prepared tablets showed physicochemical properties within the limits and good in-vitro mucoadhesion. Formulation F2 was selected based on the in-vitro characteristics and in-vivo radiographic studies by replacing part of the drug by adding barium sulphate. From the radiographic studies it was found that the F2 could be successfully retained in stomach for more than 6 hours. Pharmacokinetic studies showed a significant improvement in AUC0-14; 6414.93 ± 58.221 ng.h/mL (p < 0.05) when compared to reference AUC0-14; 4752.18 ± 76.759 ng.h/mL in healthy human volunteers with good invitro-invivo correlation.
Conclusion: Based on in-vitro characteristics and in-vivo radiographic studies, F2 was selected as optimized gastroretentive mucoadhesive dosage form with improved bioavailability for better patient compliance and disease management.

Keywords

References

[1] Lee VH and Robinson JR. Sustained and controlled release drug delivery system. Mercel Decker, New York (1978) 254-373.
[2] Chein YW. Oral drug delivery system in novel drug delivery system, Marcel Dekker, New York, Basel (1992) 139-196.
[3] Garg R and Gupta GD. Progress in controlled gastroretentive delivery systems. Tropical. J. Pharm. Res. (2008) 7(3): 1055-1066.
[4] Sunthongjeen S, Paeratakul O, Limmatvapirat S and Puttipipatkhachorn S. Preparation and in vitro evaluation of a multiple-unit floating drug delivery system based on gas formation technique. Int. J. Pharm. (2006) 324:136-143.
[5] Moes AJ. Gastroretentive dosage forms. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug. Carrier. Syst. (1993) 10: 143-195.
[6] Rouge N, Allemann E and Gex-Fabry M. Comparative pharmacokinetic study of a floating multiple unit capsule, a high density multiple unit capsule and an immediate release tablet containing 25 mg atenolol. Pharm. Acta. Helv. (1998) 73: 81-87.
[7] Melander P, Stenberg H, Liedholm. B, Schersten. E and Wahlin B. Food-induced reduction in bioavailability of Atenolol. Euro. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (1979) 16: 327–330.
[8] Amidon GL, Lennerna H, Shah VP and Crison JR. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm. Res. (1995) 12: 413–420.
[9] Dey S, Mazumder B, Sankha C, Das MK, Sinhad S, Ganguly S, Kakali D and Mishra M. Polymers derived from Xanthomonas campesteris and Cyamopsistetragonolobus used as retardant materials for the formulation of sustained release floating matrix tablet of Atenolol. Int. J. Bio. Macromolecules (2014) 65: 346–356.
[10] Achar L and Pepass N. Preparation, characterization and mucoadhesive interaction of poly (methacrylic acid) copolymer with rat mucosa. J. Contr. Release (1994) 31: 271-276.
[11] Singh B, Kaur S, Chakkal and Ahuja N, Formulation and optimization of control release mucoadhesive tablets of Atenolol using Response surface methodology. AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech. (2006) 7(1) 3-8.
[12] Rao KVR and Buri PA. Novel in situ method to test polymers and coated microparticals for bioadhesion. Int. J. Pharm. (1989)52: 256-270.
[13] Singh SK, Bothara SB, Singh S, Patel R and Dodia R. Formulation and Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Tablet: Influence of some Hydrophilic Polymers on the Release Rate and In vitro Evaluation. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. and Nanotech. (2010) 3: 1111-1121.
[14] Katakam VK, Reddy S. Somagoni JM, Panakanti PK, Rallabandi RC and Rao YM. Preparation and evaluation of a gas formation-based multiple-unit gastro-retentive floating delivery System of dipyridamole. Int. J. of Pharm. Sci. and Nanotech. (2012) 5: 1607-1616.
[15] Lingam M, Bhasker K, Krishna M C, Venkateswarlu V and Rao YM. Preparation of a matrix type multiple unit gastro retentive floating drug delivery system for captopril based on gas formation technique: in vitro evaluation. AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech. (2008) 9(2): 612-619.
[16] Doodipala N, Palem CR., Reddy S and Rao. YM. Pharmaceutical development and clinical pharmacokinetic evaluation of gastroretentive floating matrix tablets of Levofloxacin. Int .J. of Pharm. Sci. and Nanotech. (2011) 4(3):1461-1467.
[17] Ritger PL and Peppas NA. A simple equation for description of solute release Fickian and non-Fickian release from nonswellable devices in the form of slabs, spheres, cylinders or discs. J. Contr. Release (1987) 5: 23–36.
[18] Mathews BR. Regulatory aspects of stability testing in Europe. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. (1999) 25: 831–856.
[19] Moore JW and Flanner H H. Mathematical comparison of curves with an emphasis on in-vitro dissolution profiles. Pharm. Technol. (1996) 20: 64–74.
[20] FDA. Guidance for industry: dissolution testing of immediate release solid oral dosage forms. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research (CEDER) 1997.
[21] ICH (Q2R1). Guideline on validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Harmonization, Geneva 2007.
[22] Randip C, Basavaraj BV, Bharath S and Deveswaran R. Extended release gastro retentive mucoadhesive bilayer tablet of an anti-ulcer drug. MSRUAS-SASTech. J. (2016) 15(1): 41-44.
[23] Yadav VD and Gaikwad VD. Development and in-vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive gastroretentive matrix tablets of cephalexin. Int. J. Pharm. Bio. Sci. (2013): 7(4): 25-31.
[24] Kumar K, Gurunath S, Srikanth P, Ajitha M and Rao YM. Development and clinical evaluation of mucoadhesive gastroretentive tablets of Dipyridamole. Int. J. of Pharm. Sci. and Nanotech. (2017) 10 (3): 3736-3744. 
[25] Ahuja A, Khar RK and Ali J. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. (1997) 23:489–515.
[26] Shweta A and. Murthy RSR. Effect of different polymer concentration on drug release rate and physicochemical properties of mucoadhesive gastroretentive tablets. Indian J. Pharm. Sci. (2015) 77(6):705-714.
[27] Govind SA, Rao YM, Bhatt HJ and Shaik SK. Optimization, Charactersation and pharmacokinetic studies of mucoadhesive oral multiple systems of Ornidazole. Scientia Pharmaceutica (2011) 79: 181-196.
[28] Andrews GP, Laverty TP and Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. (2009) 71: 505–18.
[29] Sathish D, Himabindu S, Kumar PP and Rao YM. Preparation and evaluation of novel expandable drug delivery system. British J. Pharm. Res. (2013) 4: 1079-1093.
[30] Gwak HS and Chun IK. Bioequivalence evaluation of two Atenolol tablet preparations in korean healthy male volunteers. J. Applied Pharmacol. (2007) 15: 187-191.
 
Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Volume 16, Issue 4
October 2020
Pages 53-70

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics