Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AAPS PharmSciTech logoLink to AAPS PharmSciTech
. 2006 Jan 13;7(1):E19–E28. doi: 10.1208/pt070103

Formulation and optimization of controlled release mucoadhesive tablets of atenolol using response surface methodology

Bhupinder Singh 1,✉, Sukhwinder Kaur Chakkal 2, Naveen Ahuja 1
PMCID: PMC2750710  PMID: 16584149

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to design oral controlled release mucoadhesive compressed hydrophilic matrices of atenolol and to optimize the drug release profile and bioadhesion using response surface methodology. Tablets were prepared by direct compression and evaluated for bioadhesive strength and in vitro dissolution parameters. A central composite design for 2 factors at 3 levels each was employed to systematically optimize drug release profile and bioadhesive strength. Carbopol 934P and sodium carboxymethylcellulose were taken as the independent variables. Response surface plots and contour plots were drawn, and optimum formulations were selected by feasibility and grid searches. Compressed matrices exhibited non-Fickian drug release kinetics approaching zero-order, as the value of release rate exponent (n) varied between 0.6672 and 0.8646, resulting in regulated and complete release until 24 hours. Both the polymers had significant effect on the bioadhesive strength of the tablets, measured as force of detachment against porcine gastric mucosa (P<.001). Polynomial mathematical models, generated for various response variables using multiple linear regression analysis, were found to be statistically significant (P<.01). Validation of optimization study, performed using 8 confirmatory runs, indicated very high degree of prognostic ability of response surface methodology, with mean percentage error (±SD) as −0.0072±1.087. Besides unraveling the effect of the 2 factors on the various response variables, the study helped in finding the optimum formulation with excellent bioadhesive strength and controlled release.

Keywords: drug delivery, bioadhesion, mucoadhesive systems, central composite design, Carbopol, carboxymethylcellulose, controlled release

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (353.3 KB).

References

  • 1.Ponchel G, Irache J. Specific and non-specific bioadhesive particulate systems for oral delivery to the gastrointestinal tract. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1998;34:191–219. doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(98)00040-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peppas NA, Sahlin JJ. Hydrogels as mucoadhesive and bioadhesive materials: a review. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1553–1561. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(95)00307-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hou SY, Cowles VE, Berner B. Gastric retentive dosage forms: a review. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2003;20:459–497. doi: 10.1615/CritRevTherDrugCarrierSyst.v20.i6.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lavelle EC. Targeted delivery of drugs to the gastrointestinal tract. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2001;18:341–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Woodley J. Bioadhesion: new possibilities for drug administration? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40:77–84. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200140020-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hoffman BB. Catecholamines, sympathomimetics drugs, and adrenergic receptor antagonists. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vaithiyalingam SR, Sastry SV, Dehon RH, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Long-term stability characterization of a controlled release gastro-intestinal therapeutic system coated with a cellulose acetate pseudolatex. Pharmazie. 2001;56:66–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sastry SV, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Atenolol gastrointestinal therapeutic system: optimization of formulation variables using response surface methodology. J Control Release. 1997;45:121–130. doi: 10.1016/S0168-3659(96)01553-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Perez-Marcos B, Iglesias R, Gomez-Amoza JL. Mechanical and drug release properties of atenolol-carbopol hydrophilic matrix tablets. J Control Release. 1991;17:267–276. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(91)90145-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rouge N, Allemann E, Gex-Fabry M, et al. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0031-6865(97)00050-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vázques M-J, Casalderrey M, Duro R, et al. Atenolol release from hydrophilic matrix tablets with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) mixtures as gelling agent: effects of the viscosity of the HPMC mixture. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1996;4:39–48. doi: 10.1016/0928-0987(95)00030-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sastry VS, Khan MA. Aqueous based polymeric dispersion: Plackett-Burman design for screening of formulation variables of atenolol gastrointestinal therapeutic system. Pharm Acta Helv. 1998;73:105–112. doi: 10.1016/S0031-6865(97)00052-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sastry SV, Khan MA. Aqueous-based polymeric dispersion: face-centered cubic design for the development of atenolol gastrointestinal therapeutic system. Pharm Dev Technol. 1998;3:423–432. doi: 10.3109/10837459809028623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim J, Shin SC. Controlled release of atenolol from the ethylenevinyl acetate matrix. Int J Pharm. 2004;273:23–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2003.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dave BS, Amin AF, Patel MM. Gastroretentive drug delivery system of ranitidine hydrochloride: formulation and in vitro evaluation. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2004;5:E34–E34. doi: 10.1208/pt050234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Singh B, Kumar R, Ahuja N. Optimizing drug delivery systems using systematic “design of experiments”. Part I: Fundamental aspects. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2005;22:27–105. doi: 10.1615/CritRevTherDrugCarrierSyst.v22.i1.20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lewis GA, Mathieu D, Phan-Tan-Luu R. Pharmaceutical Experimental Design. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Singh B, Dahiya M, Saharan V, Ahuja N. Optimizing drug delivery systems using systematic “design of experiments”. Part II: Retrospect and prospects. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2005;22:215–293. doi: 10.1615/CritRevTherDrugCarrierSyst.v22.i3.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Singh B, Mehta G, Kumar R, Bhatia A, Ahuja N, Katare OP. Design, development and optimization of nimesulide-loaded liposomal systems for topical application. Curr Drug Deliv. 2005;2:143–153. doi: 10.2174/1567201053585985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Aberturas MR, Molpeceres J, Guzmán M, Garcia F. Development of a new cyclosporine formulation based on poly(caprolactone) microspheres. J Microencapsul. 2002;19:61–72. doi: 10.1080/02652040110055270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Singh B, Ahuja N. Response surface optimization of drug delivery system. In: Jain NK, editor. Progress in Controlled and Novel Drug Delivery Systems. New Delhi, India: CBS Publishers and Distributors; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Singh B, Singh S. A comprehensive computer program for the study of drug release kinetics from compressed matrices. Indian J Pharm Sci. 1998;60:358–362. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Peppas NA, Sahlin JJ. A simple equation for the description of solute release. III. Coupling of diffusion and relaxation. Int J Pharm. 1989;57:169–172. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(89)90306-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60:110–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Singh B, Ahuja N. Development of controlled-release buccoadhesive hydrophilic matrices of diltiazem hydrochloride: optimization of bioadhesion, dissolution, and diffusion parameters. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2002;28:431–442. doi: 10.1081/DDC-120003004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Daniel WW, editor. Analysis of variance. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. 1983;15:25–35. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(83)90064-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanisms of potassium chloride release from compressed, hydrophilic polymeric matrices: effect of entrapped air. J Pharm Sci. 1983;72:1189–1191. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600721021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ford JL, Rubinstein MH, Hogan JE. Formulation of sustained release promethazine hydrochloride tablets using hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose matrices. Int J Pharm. 1985;24:327–338. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(85)90031-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vazques MJ, Perez-Marcos B, Gomez-Amoza JL, Martinez-Pacheco R, Souto C, Concheiro A. Influence of technological variables on release of drugs from hydrophilic matrices. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1992;18:1355–1375. doi: 10.3109/03639049209046332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Technical Literature on ‘Bioadhesion’ . Bulletin 16. Cleveland, OH: Noveon Pharmaceuticals Ltd; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Duchene D, Touchard F, Peppas NA. Pharmaceutical and medicinal aspects of bioadhesive systems for drug administration. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1988;14:283–318. doi: 10.3109/03639048809151972. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ponchel G, Touchard F, Duchene D, Peppas NA. Bioadhesive analysis of controlled release systems. I. Fracture and interpenetration analysis in poly(acrylic acid) containing systems. J Control Release. 1987;5:129–141. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(87)90004-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from AAPS PharmSciTech are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists

RESOURCES