P a g e | 2499

eISSN: 2231-0541

CAS CODEN: PHARN8

An EMBASE, EMCare Covered Journal

PHARMANEST

An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6|November-December 2014|Pages 2499-2510

Original Research Paper

FORMULATION AND IN VITRO EVALUATION OF MUCOADHESIVE BUCCAL TABLETS OF
FLUVASTATIN
BANJERLA RAJU*, V. UMA MAHESHWAR RAO, H. SUJITHA, KALAKUNTLA SAIKRISHNA,
CH. VENKATESHWARLU, LEELA KEERTHI
CMR College of Pharmacy, Kandlakoya, Medchal, Hyderabad

Author for Correspondence: raj.razz06@gmail.com

Received: 05-09-2014
Accepted: 09-10-2014

Revised: 20-09-2014
Available online: 10-11-2014

ABSTRACT
Buccal drug delivery has been considered as an alternative to oral dosing for compounds subjected to degradation in the gastrointestinal tract or to
hepatic first pass metabolism. An attempt has been made to develop buccoadhesive tablets comprising of drug containing bioadhesive layer and
drug free backing layer to release the drug for extended period of time with reduction in dosing frequency. Various formulations of
Fluvastatin buccal tablets were prepared by direct compression method using bioadhesive polymers like Carbopol 940, (HPMC)Methocel K15 and
Karaya gum, The physical characteristics, swelling index, surface pH, in-vitro bioadhesion strength and in-vitro release of formulated tablets were
shown to be dependent on characteristics and composition of bioadhesive materials used. The maximum bioadhesive strength was observed in
tablets formulated with karaya gum alone and strength decreases with its content. The tablets were evaluated for in vitro release in pH 6.8
phosphate buffer upto 12 hours using standardized apparatus. In order to determine the model of release, the data was subjected to Krosmeyer
and Peppas diffusion model. All the formulations followed non- Fickian release mechanism. Carbopol 940P and Methocel K4m can be used to design
effective and stable buccoadhesive tablets of Fluvastatin.

Key Words:

Buccal, Fluvastatin, HPMC K15, Carbopol, Karaya gum, HMG CoA Reductase Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION
Among the various routes of drug delivery,
oral route is the most suitable and most
widely accepted one by the patients for the
delivery of the therapeutically active drugs.
But, after oral drug administration many drugs
are subjected to presystemic clearance in
liver, which often leads to a lack of correlation
between membrane permeability, absorption
and bioavailability. Within the oral route, the oral
cavity is an attractive site for drug delivery due to
ease of administration and avoids possible drug
degradation in the gastroretentive tract as well as
first pass hepatic metabolism.
Hyperlipidemia is a major cause of atherosclerosis
and its associated disorders like coronary heart
diseases, ischemic cerebrovascular diseases etc.
Recognition of hypercholestermia as a risk factor
has led to the development of drugs that reduces
cholesterol levels. Statins are the most effective
antihyperlipidemic
agents.
Statins
act
as
competitive inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase which
catalyzes the step of cholesterol synthesis. Statins
also reduces the triglycerides levels caused by
elevated VLDL levels. All the statins are subjected
to extensive first past metabolism by liver and gut
wall enzymes, resulting in low systemic availability
of the parent compound. Fluvastatin is also
administered in its active form as a sodium salt and
is almost completely absorbed, but 50-80% of the
absorbed drug undergoes first pass metabolism
whereby it is converted to its inactive metabolites
which have a very short elimination half life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Drug : Fluvastatin.

Polymers like carbopol , HPMC, karaya gum.
Exipients like Talc ,Magnesium Stearate, MCC etc.
brought from the commercial labs.
Method:
direct compression method
Step1: Weigh all the ingredients in required
quantity
Step2: Transfer all ingredients into a mortar,
triturate for 10minutes until to get fine powder and
sieve the material. (#60)
Step3: then transfer the material into blender for
proper distribution of drug in blend for 10minutes.
Step 4: then addition of lubricant, mix well.
Step5 : Perform the micromeritic properties
(Precompression studies).
Step6: Compression
Pre-compression parameters:
a) Bulk density (BD):
It is the total mass per bulk volume of powder. It is
measured by pouring the weighed amount of
powder (passed through standard sieve # 20)
into a measuring cylinder and then t h e initial
volume is noted. This initial volume is called the
bulk volume. From this, the bulk density is
calculated according to the formula mentioned
below. It is expressed in g/cc and is given by
BD = m/Vo
Where,
m=mass of the powder

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2500

Vo= bulk volume of the powder

= Angle of repose
h = Height of the heap
r = Radius of the heap
Post-compression parameters:
Tablet Thickness: In this three tablets are
randomly taken and then their thickness and
diameter are measured by using vernier calipers or
by calibrated screw gauze.
Weight Variation Test: Twenty tablets are
selected and weighed individually. Then the
average weight and standard deviation is
calculated. Test passes when not more than two
tablets deviate from the average weight.
Hardness: It is expressed in kg/cm2 and is
measured using Monsanto hardness tester by
randomly picking three tablets. Hardness helps in
knowing the ability of tablet to withstand
mechanical shock during handling.
Friability: Ten tablets are selected, weighed and
then placed in friabilator, which is rotated for 4
minutes at 25 rpm. After 4 minutes, the tablets are
weighed again.
%F= [1-(Wt/W)]*100
If % Friability of tablets is less than 1% is
considered acceptable.
In Vitro Dissolution Studies: Dissolution study is
performed using USP paddle apparatus. Study is
carried out at 37oC temperature and 50 rpm. At
various time intervals, 5 ml sample is withdrawn
and is replaced with same amount of buffer
solution.
Drug Content Uniformity: Ten tablets are taken
and powdered, equivalent weight of drug dose is
measured and transferred to volumetric flask and
then buffer is added. Absorbance is determined
using U.V spectrophotometer.
Swelling Study: Initially tablet is weighed (W0)
and placed in a glass beaker, containing 200 mL of
0.1 N HCl. This is placed in a water bath
maintained at 37 0.5oC. At different time
intervals, the tablet is taken out and the excess of
liquid is carefully blotted by using a filter paper.
The swollen tablet is reweighed (Wt). The swelling
index (SI) is calculated using the formula.
SI=(Wt -W0/W0)*100
Wt (Weight of swollen tablet)
W0 (Initial weight of tablet)

b) Tapped density (TD):

It is the total mass per tapped volume of
powder. The volume is measured by tapping the
powder for 500 times. Again the tapping is done
for 750 times and the tapped volume is noted
(the difference between these two volumes
should be less than 2%). If it is more than 2%,
tapping is continued for 1250 times and tapped
volume is noted. It is expressed in g/cc and is
given by:
TD = m/Vi
Where,
m= mass of the powder.
Vi = tapped Volume of the powder
c) Hausners Ratio (H.R):
It is the measurement of frictional resistance of the
drug. The ideal range should be 1.2 1.5, and is
determined by dividing tapped density to bulk
density.
H.R = T.D / B.D
d) Compressibility Index (C.I):
The flowability of t h e powder m a t e r i a l can be
evaluated by comparing the Bulk density (BD) to
the Tapped density (TD) of powder and the rate at
which it gets packed down. Compressibility index is
calculated using the following formula;
C.I = 100 X (1 1/H.R.)
e) Flow properties (angle of repose):
This is the maximum angle possible between the
surface of a pile of powder or granules and the
horizontal plane. The angle of repose of granules
is determined by u s i n g funnel method. The
funnel is fixed at a particular height (2.5 cm) on
a burette stand. The powder sample is then
passed through the funnel until it forms a heap.
Further addition of granules is stopped as soon as
the heap touches the tip of the funnel. A circle is
drawn across it without disturbing the pile. The
radius and height of the heap is then noted. The
same procedure is repeated for three times and the
average value is taken. The angle of repose is
calculated by using following equation.
Tan =h/r
1
= tan
(h/r)
Where
Table.1.Formulation chart of Buccal tablets (Total weight of tablet is 200mg)
Ingredients
Fluvastatin
HPMC K15
Carbopol
Karaya gum
Talc
Mg.stearate
MCC

F1
40
30

F2
40
40

2
4
124

2
4
114

Total

200

200

F3
40
50

F4
40

F5
40

F6
40

F7
40

F8
40

F9
40

30

40

50

2
4
104

2
4
124

2
4
114

2
4
104

30
2
4
124

40
2
4
114

50
2
4
104

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2501

RESULTS
Determination of max

Fig.1.UV Spectrum of Fluvastatin 240nm

Table.2.Standard plot of Fluvastatin

S.No

Vol
of
SSII In ml

Vol Made
Upto

Conc In
g/ml

Absorbance
At 240nm

50 ml

0.00

50ml

0.198

50ml

0.407

50ml

0.600

50ml

0.801

50ml

10

0.986

50ml

12

1.156

Fig.2.Standard graph of Fluvastatin in Phosphate buffer pH6.8

Evaluation of precompression parameters of Fluvastatin
The precompression properties for all the batches were determined and the results were shown in the tables 2 and
3. All the batches were found to be within the acceptable limits.

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2502

Table.3.Angle of repose as a measure of flow properties of Fluvastatin

Formulation
FM1
FM2
FM3
FM4
FM5
FM6
FM7
FM8
FM9

Angle of Repose()
( SD)
23.20.11
23.70.08
24.70.16
24.70.12
24.20.09
25.10.11
24.20.12
23.70.09
24.20.13

Comment
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent

Table.4.Pre Compression Parameters Indicating Flow Properties of Fluvastatin

Formulation

Bulk Density
(g/cc) (
SD)

FM1
FM2
FM3
FM4
FM5
FM6
FM7
FM8
FM9

0.3010.07
0.3060.09
0.3040.09
0.3140.12
0.3080.14
0.3040.08
0.3180.09
0.3040.12
0.3120.15

Drug Excipient compatibility studies:

The compatibility between the drug and
polymer was compared by FT-IR spectra. The
position of peak in FT-IR spectra of pure
Fluvastatin is compared with those in FT-IR
spectra of Fluvastatin plus excipients.

Tapped
Density
(g/cc) (
SD)
0.350.05
0.340.09
0.360.11
0.350.08
0.350.09
0.350.08
0.360.13
0.340.09
0.360.11

Carrs Index
(%)
( SD)

Hausner
ratio
( SD)

14.10.06
11.70.05
15.50.09
10.20.06
12.30.13
13.30.08
11.90.11
11.30.05
13.80.05

1.160.05
1.110.07
1.180.05
1.110.09
1.130.06
1.150.09
1.130.07
1.120.05
1.160.07

Hence, it can be concluded that drug can be

used with the selected polymer without causing
instability in the formulation. The data obtained
is shown in fig 2 & 3. The spectra are reported in
Figures below.

Fig.3. FT-IR Spectra of pure drug Fluvastatin

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2503

Fig.4.FTIR spctra of Optimised formula

Table.5.Post Compression Parameters
% Drug
Content
Formulation Code
F1

97.120.005

Wt
variation
1991.24

Thickness
(mm)

Hardness
2
(kg/cm )

%
Friability

2.710.017

7.60.34

0.470.002

F2

97.000.05

1981.20

2.720.020

7.260.23

0.510.005

F3

97.600.01

1991.25

2.720.020

6.130.11

0.520.005

F4

97.200.005

1981.123

2.710.017

7.86011

0.520.005

F5

97.400.05

1991.12

2.720.020

7.460.11

0.530.015

F6

97.000.04

1981.23

2.710.017

7.130.11

0.540.016

F7

97.520.15

1991.12

2.720.020

7.660.11

0.510.005

F8

97.560.17

1971.12

2.710.017

5.660.23

0.520.005

F9

97.280.10

1981.23

2.730.005

4.930.11

0.560.018

Determination of Swelling Index:

The swelling index was determined for the
prepared tablets. Swelling index increased as
the weight gain by the tablets increased
proportionally with the rate of hydration as
shown in table below. The swelling indices of

tablets with Carbopol and HPMC increased with

increasing amounts of Carbopol. Maximum
swelling was seen with the formulation (F9,
F10, F8 AND F1) containing NaCMC and/or
Carbopol, the values increased with increasing
amounts of NaCMC and/or Carbopol.

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2504

Table.6.Result of percentage swelling index tablet formulations F1-F9

Percentage (%) Swelling Index
Formulation

0.5 hour

1 hour

2 hour

4 hour

6 hour

Code
F1

50.010.098

90.711.10

90.711.10

2600.78

275.001.89

F2

42.120.084

77.041.51

170.961.99

2002.12

220.052.22

F3

36.981.01

65.141.33

135.961.33

175.591.12

180.071.11

F4

46.140.088

82.960.052

185.581.01

225.541.23

250.201.99

F5

338.360.99

72.161.05

162.041.21

193.661.34

213.162.01

F6

34.310.65

59.530.78

130.421.57

171.330.95

177.000.00

F7

42.610.95

77.961.01

179.00.58

217.181.04

240.011.11

F8

55.661.16

100.561.47

219.841.99

267.532.01

280.001.66

F9

60.120.69

110.030.95

225.170.49

283.191.41

295.001.59

Dissolution studies:
The prepared tablets were subjected to
dissolution studies in order to know

the amount drug release. As the

concentration of polymer increased, the
drug release decreased.

Table.7.Results of % Drug release of tablet F1-F9

*Standard deviation, n = 3

PHARMANEST - An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volume 5|Issue 6| November-December 2014
Available online: http://www.pharmanest.net

P a g e | 2505

Fig.5.Percentage drug release of Formulations F1-F9

Zero order of kinetics:

Fig.6.Zero order kinetics of F9 Formulation

Fig.7.First order plot of F9 Formulation

Fig.8.Higuchi order plot of F9 Formulation

P a g e | 2506

Fig.9.Peppas Order Plot of F9 Formulation

Table.8.Order of kinetic values of Formulation F9
Order of Kinetics

Zero

First

Higuchi

Peppas

Regression Values

0.962

0.92

0.953

0.739

In vitro mucoadhesion studies:

Increasing the polymer concentration caused an
increase in the bioadhesive strength. Adhesion
was reported to be affected by hydration.
Hydration of the muccoadhesive polymer is
essential
to
initiate
the
muccoadhesive
bonding process. The cohesive force arises
when water from the space between the mucosa

and the polymer is taken up; this plays a vital

role in the establishment of an effective
muccoadhesive
bond.
The
bioadhesive
characteristics were found to be affected by
the nature and proportions of the bioadhesive
polymers used. The highest adhesion force i.e.
highest strength of muccoadhesive bond was
observed with formulation F9 containing only.

Table.9.Results of Mucoadhesive strength

Detachment weight in gms
Formulation

Balancing

Trial l

Trial II

Trial

Average Bioadhesive

Code

weight

F1

6.55gm

22.85

22.50

23.00

23.11

16.56gm

F2

6.55gm

29.99

30.50

30.00

30.16

23.61gm

F3

6.55gm

27.95

28.10

28.00

28.01

21.46gm

F4

6.55gm

36.11

36.00

36.25

36.12

29.57gm

F5

6.55gm

28.97

28.50

29.00

28.82

22.27gm

F6

6.55gm

28.97

28.00

28.40

28.46

21.90gm

F7

6.55gm

32.03

32.30

32.00

32.17

25.62gm

F8

6.55gm

21.84

21.50

22.00

21.78

15.23gm

F9

6.55gm

41.21

41.21

41.00

41.14

III

Strength

34.59gm

P a g e | 2507

Table.10. Results of Force of Adhesion

Formulation Code

Force Of Adhesion (N)

F1

0.15

F2

0.23

F3

0.21

F4

0.29

F5

0.21

F6

0.21

F7

0.25

F8

0.14

F9

0.33

DISCUSSION
In the present investigation an attempt was made
to design Mucoadhesive buccal tablets containing
Fluvastatin. It has short biological half life of 3
hours, and is used orally in dose of,20,40,80 g
twice or thrice a day.The conventional dosage
forms
available
are
associated
with
low
bioavailability problems due to extensive first pass
metabolism & characterized by short biological half
life, due to which frequency of dosing is increased,
which results in patient incompliance. The present
investigation was aimed at avoidance of first pass
metabolism
of
Fluvastatin
by
preparing
mucoadhesive tablets for delivery of the drug via
buccal route.
Fluvastatin
is
an
antilipemic
agent
that
competitively inhibits hydroxyl methyl glutarylcoenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase. HMG-CoA
reductase catalyzes the conversion of HMG-CoA to
mevalonic acid, the rate-limiting step in cholesterol
biosynthesis. Fluvastatin belongs to a class of
medications called statins and is used to reduce
plasma
cholesterol
levels
and
prevent
cardiovascular disease. It is also the first entirely
synthetic HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and is
structurally distinct.
PREFORMULATION STUDIES:
SPECTROSCOPIC STUDIES: Determination of
max
A solution of 10g/ml of Fluvastatin was
scanned in the range of 200 to 400nm. The
drug exhibited max at 240nm in Phosphate
buffer pH 6.8 and had good reproducibility.
Correlation between the concentration and
absorbance was found to be nearer to 1, with a
slope of 0.999.
COMPATIBILITY STUDIES:
Drug polymer compatibility studies were carried
out
using
Fourier
Transform
Infra
Red
spectroscopy to establish any possible interaction
of Fluvastatin with the polymers used in the
formulation. The FT-IR spectra of the formulations
were compared with the FT-IR spectra of the pure
drug.The results indicated that the characteristic
absorption peaks due to pure Fluvastatin have
appeared in the formulations, without any

Among
the
non-invasive
routes
buccal
administration has a promising potential and is a
viable alternative for systemic medication of drugs.
The buccal cavity offers a large surface area,
highly vascularised mucosal layer for efficient
absorption; also blood is drained directly from
buccal cavity into the systemic circulation, thereby
avoiding the first pass effect, combined with other
features
like
ease
and
convenience
of
administration.
Mucoadhesive tablets have the ability to increase
the drug residence in the buccal cavity, control the
rate of drug clearance as well as protect the drug
form enzymatic degradation (in stomach). The
mucoadhesive buccal tablets release the drug in a
sustained manner, leading to reduced fluctuations
in the plasma level which results in reduced
toxicity and adverse reactions.
In the present study, mucoadhesive tablets were
prepared by direct compression method, using
different polymers like Carbopol, HPMC K15M &
Karaya gum, in different ratios in O r d e r t o
release the drug in unidirectionally.

Calibration curve of Fluvastatin in phosphate

buffer pH 6.8: Figure 2 shows the calibration curve
data of Fluvastatin in Phosphate buffer pH 6.8 at
240nm. Figure 2 shows the standard calibration
curve with a regression value of 0.999, slope of
0.098 in Phosphate buffer pH 6.8. The curve was
found to be linear in the concentration range of 212 g/ml.
significant change in their position, indicating no
chemical interaction between fluvastatin and
polymers.
Evaluation of blend materials of Buccal
tablets: The preformulation studies of Fluvastatin
were evaluated for various physical properties
individually and the values are present in the table
no. (Table no: 3 and 4. Fluovastatin shows good
flow properties.)

P a g e | 2508

Angle of repose was found to be between

o
o
22.2 25.1 , which is well within the
specified limit of 20 - 30 and the type of
flow is good.
Bulk density was found to be between
0.301 0.318g/ml.
Tapped density was found to be between
0.343 0.361g/ml.
Carrs index was found to be in the range

of 10.2 15.5. All the granules are well

within the specification limit.
Hausners ratio was found to be between
1.11 1.16. With this the granules were
found to be free flowing material and
showed suitability to be compressed as
tablets of expected weight.

PREPARATION OF MUCOADHESIVE BUCCAL TABLETS CONTAINING FLUVASTATIN:

The required amount of ingredients were weighed
variation in all the formulations were within the
accurately (table no.1) and mixed thoroughly using
limit.
mortar and pestle. The tablets were produced by
DETERMINATION OF THICKNESS:
DIRECT PUNCHING METHOD.The tablets so
The prepared formulations were evaluated for
produced were subjected to post compression
thickness and the thickness of all the tablets were
parameters.
reported in the table 5. It was found that all
DETERMINATION OF DRUG CONTENT:
the tablets possessed uniform thickness with
The prepared formulations were analysed for drug
minor differences.
content and the data is reported in Table 5. The
DETERMINATION OF HARDNESS:
drug content was found to be within the limits not
The prepared tablets were evaluated for the
less than 98.91and not more than101.10%. Which
hardness and were reported in the table 5. It was
show that the drug was uniformly distributed in all
observed that all the tablets had hardness within
the formulations
the limit.
DETERMINATION OF WEIGHT VARIATION:
DETERMINATION OF FRIABILITY:
The prepared formulations were analysed for
The prepared tablets were subjected to friability
average weight and the data was reported in
and the results are reported in the table 5. The
the table 5. The weight variation was calculated
friability was found to be within the limit.
using average weight. It was found that weight
DISSOLUTION STUDIES:
The
prepared
tablets
were
subjected
to
dissolution studies in order to know the
amount of drug released and the results of
percentage drug release are shown in table 7. As
the concentration of polymer increased, the drug
release decreased. In vitro drug release studies
revealed that release of Fluvastatin from different
formulations varies with characteristics and
composition of matrix forming polymers. The
release
rate
decreased
with
increasing
concentration of and HPMC K15M in F1-F3
respectively. Carbapol940 in F4-F6& karaya gum
in F7-F9 fomulations. Hydrophilic polymers would
leach out and hence, create more pores and
channels for the drug to diffuse out of the
device. Formulation F9 containing karaya gum
gets best results .
DRUG RELEASE KINETICS:
In order to understand the mechanism of drug
release and release rate kinetics of the drug from
dosage form, the in-vitro drug diffusion data
obtained was fitted to various mathematical
models such as zero order, First order, Higuchi
matrix, and Krosmeyer- Peppas model model
using software (PCP- Disso-V2). Thevalues are
CONCLUSION
The main objective of the present study was to
formulate and evaluate the sustained release
buccal tablets of Fluvastatin Carbopol, HPMC
K15M
and
Karayagum
were
selected
as
buccoadhesive polymers on the basis of their
matrix forming properties and mucoadhesiveness.
The prepared tablets were evaluated for various
parameters such as compatibility studies, drug
content, weight variation, hardness, thickness,
friability, swelling studies, microenvironment pH,
in vitro drug release studies, in vitro

compiled. The obtained values of n lie between

0.5 and 1.0 in all formulations except for F9,
indicating non Fickian release kinetics, which is
indicative of drug release mechanisms involving a
combination
of
both
diffusion and
chain
relaxation.
IN VITRO MUCOADHESION STUDIES:
Results of the Mucoadhesion and Force of
Adhesion are tabulated in table no 9 and 10.
Increasing the polymer concentration caused an
increase in the bioadhesive strength. Adhesion was
reported to be affected by hydration. Hydration of
the muccoadhesive polymer is essential to
initiate the mucoadhesive bonding process. The
cohesive force arises when water from the space
between the mucosa and the polymer is taken
up; this plays a vital role in the establishment
of an effective mucoadhesive bond.
The bioadhesive characteristics were found to
be affected by the nature and proportions of
the bioadhesive polymers used. The highest
adhesion
force
i.e.
highest
strength
of
mucoadhesive bond was observed with formulation
F9 containing only .

mucoadhesion strength and Release rate

kinetics.
The following conclusions were drawn from
the results:
From the FT-IR spectra it was observed
that similar characteristic peaks appear with
minor differences (within limit) for the drug and
its formulations. Hence it may be concluded that
there was no chemical interaction between the
drug and excipients used.
All the formulations passes test for weight

P a g e | 2509

variation
content
uniformity and showed
acceptable results with respect to drug
content and percentage friability (0.47-0.56%).
S w e l l i n g index was calculated with respect
to time. Swelling index increased as
the
weight
gain
by
the
tablets
increased
proportionally with rate of hydration. The
swelling indices of tablets with Carbopol and
HPMC increased with increasing amounts of
Carbopol. Maximum swelling was seen with
formulations (F9, F10, F8 and F1) containing
NaCMC and or Carbopol, the values increased
with increasing amounts of NaCMC and or
Carbopol.
Analysis of drug release mechanism showed
that the drug release followed non-Fickian
diffusion and the best fit model was found to be
st
1 order.
The bioadhesion characteristics were found to
be affected by the nature and proportions of
bioadhesive
polymers
used.
The
highest

adhesion
force
i.e. highest
strength of
muccoadhesive
bond
was
observed
with
formulation F1 containing only Carbopol this
followed by F4 and F7 formulations containing
Carbopol: HPMC K4M and Carbopol:
HPMC
K15M, respectively. Adhesion force decreased
as another polymer is mixed with Carbopol.
Tablets containing NaCMC showed least adhesion
force than tablet of all other formulations, which
is due to low viscosity of NaCMC. These
observations indicate that the bioadhesive
strength of Carbopol is much more than NaCMC.
After all the evaluation tests formulation
coded F9 was selected for stability studies and
the results revealed no significant change in %
drug content and physical characters. Stability
studies indicated that the selected formulation
was stable.
Based on the results of evaluation tests and
stability tests formulation F9 was concluded as
best formulation for buccal drug delivery system.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare no Conflict of Interest.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

Calum R. Park, Dale L. Munday., Development and

evaluation of a biphasic buccal adhesive tablet for nicotine
replacement
therapy.
International
Journal
of
Pharmaceutics 2002; 215 226.
C.R.
Shah,
B.N.
Suhagia,
N.J.Shah,
R.R. Shah.,
Development
and Validation of a HPTLC Method for the
Estimation of Sumatriptan in Tablet Dosage Forms. Indian
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2008; 70(6); 831834
D.K. Arulmozhi,
A. Veeranjaneyulu,
S.L. Bodhankar.,
Migraine: Current concepts and emerging therapies.
Vascular Pharmacology., 2005; 43; 176 187.
D.M.
Bhramhankar,
Sunil
B.
Jaiswal.,
Biopharmaceutics
and Pharmacokinetics, Oral Controlled
Release Systems (Matrix Diffusion Controlled Systems),
1995, 350-352.
Emami J.,Varshosaz J.,Saljoughian N., Development
and
evaluation
of controlled-release
buccoadhesive
verapamil hydrochloride tablets. DARU 2008; 16(2); 6069.
Femena-Font .A, V. Merino, V. Rodilla, A. LopezCastellano.,
High- performance liquid chromatographic
determination of sumatriptan after in vitro transdermal
diffusion studies. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical
Analysis.2005; 37; 621626.
G.
kinci,
S.Senel
,
C.G.Wilson,
M.Sumnu.,
Development
of
a
buccal bioadhesive nicotine tablet
formulation for smoking cessation. International Journal of
Pharmaceutics 2004; 277; 173178.
Goran
Alderborn,
Christer
Nystrom,
Pharmaceutical
powder compaction technology. New York: Basel; Honkong;
1996; pp 727.
Hemant H. Alur, S. Indiran Pather 1, Ashim K.
Mitra,
Thomas
P.Johnston., Transmucosal sustaineddelivery of chlorpheniramine maleate in rabbits using a
novel, natural mucoadhesives gum as an excipient in buccal
tablets. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 1999; 188;
110.
Harwood.
R.
J,
Johnson.
J.
L.,
Hydroxypropyl
Methylcellulose, in Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients,
A. Wade and P.J. Weller, Editors. 1994, A Joint Publication
of
American
Pharmaceutical
Association
and
The
Pharmaceutical Press: Washington. Pp. 229-332.
Hans.E, Junginger., Bioadhesive polymer Systems for
peptide delivery. Acta Pharm. Technol.1990; 36(3), 110126.
Jafar Akbari , Ali Nokhodchi , Djavad Farid ,
Massoud Adrangui , Mohammad Reza Siahi-Shadbad ,
Majid
Saeedi.,
Development
and evaluation of
buccoadhesive
propranolol
hydrochloride
tablet
formulations: effect of fillers. IL FARMACO 2004; 155161.
J.D. Smart, I.W. Kellaway, H.E.C Worthington., An In-vitro
investigation of muccoadhesive
films
of
Miconazole
nitrate. Ind. Pharm. 1996; 22(5); 445-450.

[14] Anna D. Oldman, Lesley A. Smith, Henry J. McQuay, R.

Andrew Moore., Pharmacological treatments for acute
migraine:
quantitative
systematic review. Pain.,
www.elsevier.com/locate/pain., 2002; 97; 247257.
[15] Ahmad Mahmood Mumtaz, Hung-Seng Ching., Design
of a dissolution apparatus suitable for in situ release
study of triamcinolone acetonide from bioadhesive buccal
tablets. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 1995;
121;
129-139.
[16] Ashwini
Madgulkar,
Shivaji
Rao
Kadam,
Varsha
Pokharkar., Development of trilayered muccoadhesive
tablet of Itraconazole with zero-order release. Asian
Journal of Pharmacy 2008; 57-60.
[17] P.D. Nakhat, A.A. Kondawar, I.B. Babla, L.G. Rathi, P.G.
Yeole., Studies on Buccoadhesive Tablets of Terbutaline
Sulphate. Indian J. Pharm. Sci 2007; 69(4): 505-10
[18] P.
Minghetti,
A.
Colombo,
L.
Montanari,
G.M.
Gaeta,
F.
Gombos., Buccoadhesive
slow-release
tablets of acitretin: design and in vivo evaluation.
International Journal of Pharmaceutics 1998; 195202.
[19] Paolo Giunchedia, Claudia Julianoa, Elisabetta Gavinia,
Massimo Cossua, Milena Sorrenti., Formulation and in vivo
evaluation of chlorhexidine buccal tablets prepared using
drug loaded Chitosan microspheres. European Journal of
Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 2002; 53; 233239.
[20] P.D.Nakhat, A.A.Kondawar,
L.G.Rathi,
P.G.Yeole.,
Development and In- vitro Evaluation of Buccoadhesive
Tablets of Metoprolol Tartrate. Indian Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciences., 2008; 70 (1); 121-124.
[21] Rajesh.B, Gandhi, Robinson.R.J., Bioadhesion in Drug
Delivery. Indian J. Pharm.Sci., 1998, 50 (1); 145-152.
[22] R.
Khanna,
S.P.
Agarwal,
Alka
Ahuja.,
Muccoadhesive
Buccal
Drug Delivery: A Potential
Alternative to Conventional Therapy. Indian J. Pharm. Sci.,
1998; 60(1); 1-11.
[23] Sonal R. Patel, Hui Zhong, Ashutosh Sharma, Yogeshvar
N. Kalia. , In vitro and in
vivo evaluation of the
transdermal
iontophoretic
delivery
of Sumatriptan
succinate. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and
Biopharmaceutics.2007; 66; 296301.
[24] S. Miyazaki, N. Kawasaki, T. Nakamura, M. Iwatsu, T.
Hayashi, W.M. Hou, D. Attwood., Oral mucosal bioadhesive
tablets of pectin and HPMC: In vitro and In vivo evaluation.
International Journal of Pharmaceutics 2000; 127132.
[25] Tracy L. Skaer., Clinical Presentation and Treatment of
Migraine. Clinical Therapeutics., 1996; 18(2); 229-244.
nd
[26] The United States of Pharmacopoeia, 22
revision, The
United States of Pharmacopoeia Convention, Inc., Rockville,
Maryland, 1990, pp.221.
[27] Tylan , B. Capan .Y , Guven . O, Kes. S., Design and
Evaluation of Sustain release
and
buccal
adhesive
Propranolol hydrochloride tablets. J. Contr.Rel.,1996; 38;
11-20.

P a g e | 2510

[28] Vamshi Vishnu Yamsani, Ramesh Gannu, Chandrasekhar

Kolli, M. E. Bhanoji Rao, Madhusudan Rao Yamsani.,
Development and in vitro evaluation of buccoadhesive
carvedilol tablets. Acta Pharm 2007; 57; 185197.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Banjerla Raju*, V. Uma Maheshwar Rao, H.Sujitha,
Kalakuntla Saikrishna, CH. Venkateshwarlu, Leela Keerthi.
(2014 November 10). Formulation and in vitro Evaluation of
Mucoadhesive Buccal Tablets of Fluvastatin.
PHARMANEST,5(6),2499-2510.
http://www.pharmanest.net