Development, optimization, and characterization of polymeric electrospun nanofiber: a new attempt in sublingual delivery of nicorandil for the management of angina pectoris

Figures & data

Figure 1. SEM images of plain composite nanofiber (A) and drug-loaded nanofiber (B).

Figure 2. IR spectra of nicorandil (A) and drug-loaded composite nanofiber (B).

Figure 3. DSC thermogram of drug (A) and drug-loaded composite nanofiber (B).

Figure 4. X-ray diffraction of drug (A) and composite drug-loaded nanofiber (B).

Figure 5. Cumulative drug release from drug-loaded nanofiber.

Figure 6. Curve of cumulative drug permeability through sublingual mucosa.

Table I. Mucoadhesive strength of different formulations.

S. No	Sample	Mucoadhesive strength (gm/cm^2)
1.	Blank nanofiber	30 ± 0.42
2.	Drug-loaded nanofiber	29 ± 0.25
3.	HA and PVA film	12 ± 0.85

Figure 7. Swelling index of blank and drug-loaded nano fibers.

Table II. Comparative pharmacokinetic parameters of the tested formulation.

Parameters	Drug-loaded composite nanofiber	Marketed formulation
C max	2.65 ± 0.023	3.25 ± 0.32
T max	0.75 ± 0.15	2.0 ± 0.020
AUC tot (ug/ml × h)	15.3026 ± 1.20	8.166998 ± 1.30
MRT 9 (h)	5.800721 ± 0.87	2.8670 ± 0.031
T 1/2 (h)	3.7586 ± 0.37	0.9942 ± 0.021
AUMC (tot) (ug/ml × (h)^2)	88.7664 ± 2.22	23.4152 ± 1.31

Figure 8. Histopathology of different formulations. (A) Combination of drug and polymers (B) Marketed formulation (C) Drug-loaded composite nanofiber (D) Control group.