Using an Experimental Design to Identify and Quantify the Effects of Environment Related Test Parameters on the In Vitro Mucoadhesivity Testing of a Propanolol Buccal Tablet

REFERENCES

• Accili D., Menghi G., Bonacacucina G., Martino P. D., Palmieri G. F. Mucoadhesion dependence of pharmaceutical polymers on mucosa characteristics. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2004; 22: 225–234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja A., Khar R. K., Ali J. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1997; 23: 489–515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbari J., Nokhodchi A., Farid D., Adrangui M., Siahi-Shadbad M. R., Saeedi M. Development and evaluation of buccoadhesive propranolol hydrochloride tablet formulations: Effect of fillers. IL Farmaco. 2004; 59: 155–161
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caramella C., Bonferoni M. C., Rossi S., Ferrari F. Rheological and tensile tests for the assessment of polymer-mucin interactions. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1994; 40: 213–217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chary R. B., Vani G., Rao Y. M. In vitro and in vivo adhesion testing of mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1999; 25: 685–690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W. G., Hwang G. C. C. Adhesive and in vitro release characteristics of propranolol bioadhesive disc system. Int. J. Pharm. 1992; 82: 61–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbo M., Lia J. C., Chien Y. W. Bioavailability of propranolol following oral and transdermal administration in rabbits. J. Pharm. Sci. 1990; 79: 584–587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayal P., Pillay V., Babu R. J., Singh M. Box-Behnken Design in the development of a nasal delivery system of model drug hydroxyurea: characterization of viscosity. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2005; 6: E573–E585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchene D., Ponchel G. Bioadhesion of solid oral dosage forms, why and how?. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1997; 44: 15–23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomeni R., Bianchetti G., Sega R., Morselli P. L. Pharmacokinetics of propranolol in normal healthy volunteers. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 1997; 5: 183–191
   Google Scholar
• Gupta V. K., Assmus M. W., Bekert T. E., Price J. C. A novel pH and time based multi-unit potential colonic drug delivery system. II. Optimisation of multiple response variables. Int. J. Pharm. 2001; 213: 93–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyot M., Fawaz F. Design and in vitro evaluation of adhesive matrix for transdermal delivery of propranolol. Int. J. Pharm. 2000; 204: 171–182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerstrom H., Edsman K. Interpretation of mucoadhesive properties of polymer gel preparations using a tensile strength method. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2001; 53: 1589–1599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerstrom H., Paulsson M., Edsman K. Evaluation of mucoadhesion for two polyelectrolyte gels in simulated physiological conditions using a rheological method. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2000; 9: 301–309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan E. E., Gallo J. M. Simple rheological method for the in vitro assessment of mucin polymer bioadhesive bond strength. Pharm. Res. 1990; 7: 491–495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helliwell M., Martin G. P., Marriot C. The effect of temperature and time on the in vitro adhesion of putative mucoadhesives to mucus. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1990; 42: 130
   Google Scholar
• Henriksen I., Green K. L., Smart J. D., Smistad G., Karsel J. Bioadhesion of hydrated chitosans: An in vitro and in vivo study. Int. J. Pharm. 1997; 145: 231–240
   Google Scholar
• Jacques Y., Buri P. Optimisation of an ex vivo method for bioadhesion quantification. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1992; 38: 195–198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D. S., Woolfson A. D., Brown A. F. Textural, viscoelastic and mucoadhesive properties of pharmaceutical gels composed of cellulose polymers. Int. J. Pharm. 1997; 151: 223–233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lejoyeux F., Ponchel G., Duchene D. Influence of some technological parameters on the bioadhesive characteristics of polyacrylic and matrices. S.T.P. Pharma. 1989a; 5: 893–898
   Google Scholar
• Lejoyeux F., Ponchel G., Wouessidjewe D., Peppas N. A., Duchene D. Bioadhesive tablets: Influence of the testing medium composition on bioadhesion. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1989b; 15: 2037–2048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung S. H. S., Robinson J. R. Polyanionic polymers in bio and mucoadhesive drug delivery. ACS Symposium series 1992; 480: 269–384
   Google Scholar
• Martin L., Wilson C. G., Khoosah F., Uchegbu I. F. Sustained buccal delivery of the hydrophobic drug denbufylline using physical cross-linked palmitoyl glycol chitosan hydrogels. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2003; 55: 35–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park K., Park H. Test methods for bioadhesion. Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems, C. V. Lenarts, R. Gurney. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1990; 43: 78–102
   Google Scholar
• Peppas N. A., Buri P. A. Surface, interfacial and molecular aspects of polymer adhesion on soft tissue. J. Control Release. 1985; 2: 257–275
   Google Scholar
• Ponchel G., Touchard F., Duchene D., Peppas N. A. Bioadhesive analysis of controlled release systems, I. Fracture and interpenetration analysis in poly (acrylic acid) containing systems. J. Control. Release. 1987; 5: 129–141
   Google Scholar
• Remunan-Lopez C., Portero A., Vila-Jato J. L., Alonso M. J. Design and evaluation of chitosan/ethylcellulose mucoadhesive bilayered devices for buccal drug delivery. J. Control. Release. 1998; 55: 143–152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert C., Buri P., Peppas N. A. Experimental method for the bioadhesive testing of various polymers. Acta Pharm. Technol. 1988; 34: 95–98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi S., Sandri G., Caramella C. M. Buccal drug delivery: A challenge already won. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 2005; 2: 59–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salamat-Miller N., Chittchang M., Johnston T. P. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2005; 57: 1666–1691
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart J. D. The basics and underlying mechanisms of mucoadhesion. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2005; 57: 1556–1568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart J. D., Kellaway I. W., Worthington H. E. C. An in vitro investigation of mucosa-adhesive materials for use in controlled drug delivery. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1984; 36: 295–299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takeuchi H., Thongborisute J., Matsui Y., Sugihara H., Yamamoto H., Kawashima Y. Novel mucoadhesion tests for polymers and polymer-coated particles to design optimal mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2005; 57: 1583–1594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamburic S., Craig D. Q. M. A comparison of different in vitro methods for measuring mucoadhesive performance. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1997; 44: 159–167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobyn M. J., Johnson J. R., Dettmar P. W. Factors affecting in vitro gastric mucosa adhesion.I. Test conditions and instrumental parameters. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1995; 41: 235–241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong C. F., Yuen K. H., Peh K. K. An in vitro method for buccal adhesion studies: importance of instrumental variables. Int. J. Pharm. 1999; 180: 47–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolfson A. D., McCafferty D. F., Goorman S. P., McCarron P. A., Price J. H. Design of an apparatus incorporating a linear variable differential transformer for the measurement of type III bioadhesion to cervical tissue. Int. J. Pharm. 1992; 84: 69–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar