ENTERIC-COATED CAPSULES FOR EXTENDED RELEASE OF ESOMEPRAZOLE MUCOADHESIVE MULTIPLE-UNIT MINI PATCHES

Main Article Content

*1Dr.K. Kranthi Kumar, 2M. Mahesh, 3Sampath.A. G, 4Dr. Vema Kiran.

Keywords

Enteric coated capsules, extended release, Esomeprazole, mucoadhesive multiple-unit mini patches, MMMP

Abstract

The present study aims to formulate and evaluate oral mucoadhesive multiple-unit mini patches (MMMP) of Esomeprazole (ESO) for extended-release MMMP of ESO in enteric-coated capsules were prepared and evaluated using chitosan in combination with xanthan gum, guar gum, tragacanth or acacia in the ratios of 19:1, 9:1, 4:1, 1.5:1 and 0.66:1 employing 2% acetic acid as a solvent for chitosan, purified water as a solvent for natural gum polymers and glycerin 0.12mL as a plasticizer. The prepared films were punched into MMMP with 0.5 mm diameter and filled into hard gelatin capsules and further the filled capsules were treated with HPMCAS/Eudragit L dispersion (10% w/v) with a blend ratio of 1:3 for enteric coating. The prepared MMMP were characterized for surface texture, thickness, folding endurance, moisture content, moisture uptake, mucoadhesive strength, drug content uniformity, In vitro drug release and accelerated physical stability studies. The SEM photographs showed the rough to smooth pattern of surfaces of patches. The thickness of MMMP was found between 43.62±0.27 and 49.53±0.11 m. Mean weight of mini-patch was measured and found between 13.81+0.14 and 14.94+0.15 mg. The percentage of swelling was between 215±5.39 and 473±6.72. The moisture content was between 1.04±0.06 and 2.67±0.24. The mucoadhesion in terms of time required to detach all the MMMP from mucosal surface was found between 5.5+0.2 and 12.3+0.6 h. Percentage of drug content uniformity was between 95.08±3.42% and 99.16±4.73% for all formulations. The FTIR and DSC spectra indicated no drug-polymer interactions. The in vitro dissolution studies showed extended release of ESO from MMMP in pH 6.8 phosphate buffer where as no significant of drug release found in acidic environment showing that MMMP in enteric coated capsules could be employed to delivery ESO to intestine directly. Formulations EXF5, EGF5, ETF5 and EAF5 were optimized based on physical characteristics and in vitro drug release patterns. In all the cases the drug dissolution was reciprocal to the polymer concentration in the formulations. Among all natural polymers employed in this specification the decreasing order of drug release from the polymers was Xanthan gum > Tragacanth > Guar gum > Acacia. Accelerated stability studies showed no significant change (p.05) in drug content and dissolution profile of all optimized formulations before and after the test. The prepared mucoadhesive multiple-unit mini patches (MMMP) in enteric coated capsules for controlled release of Esomeprazole using natural polymers and could be successfully employed for intestinal delivery while minimizing the drug degradation and providing extended release of the drug.

Downloads

References


1. Teutonico D, Ponchel Ponchel G Drug Discov Today 2011, 16: 991-997; Banerjee and Mitragotri. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017; 36: 58-65. 2. Banerjee A, Mitragotri S.Intestinal patch systems for oral drug delivery.Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:58-65. 3. Wisam G. Sanad. 2020. Intestinal Patch A Versatile Oral Delivery System Preparation and Evaluation. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine,2020;7(2):23 – 30. 4. Kirsch K, Hanke U, Weitschies W. An overview of intestinal wafers for oral drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2017, 114:135-144. 5. Lee, J., Kim, D., Bang, S. and Park, S. Drug-Loaded Mucoadhesive Patch with Active Delivery and Controlled Releasing Ability. Adv. Intell. Syst.,2022; 4: 2100203. 6. Gupta S, Jain A, Chakraborty M, Sahni JK, Ali J, Dang S. Oral delivery of therapeutic proteins and peptides: a review on recent developments. Drug Deliv 2013, 20:237-246. 7. Banerjee A, Mitragotri S.Intestinal patch systems for oral drug delivery.Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:58-65. 8. Alex Abramson Ester Caffarel-Salvador, Minsoo Khang , David Dellal,David Silverstein, Yuan Gao, Morten Revsgaard Frederiksen, Andreas Vegge, Frantisek Hubálek, Jorrit J. Water, Anders V. Friderichsen, Johannes Fels, Rikke Kaae Kirk, Cody Cleveland, Joy Collins, Siddartha Tamang, Alison Hayward, Tomas Landh, Stephen T. Buckley, Niclas Roxhed, Ulrik Rahbek,3 Robert Langer, and Giovanni Traverso Science. 2019 Feb 8; 363(6427): 611–615. 9. Mitragotri S, Shen Z. Method for oral drug delivery. World Patent, WO2003007913A2. 10. Rossi S, Ferrari F, Bonferoni MC, Caramella C. Characterization of chitosan hydrochloride–mucin interaction by means of viscosimetric and turbidimetric measurements. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000, 10:251-257. 11. Banerjee A, Lee J, Mitragotri S. Intestinal mucoadhesive devices for oral delivery of insulin. Bioeng Transl Med. 2016 Aug 19;1(3):338-346. 12. Ogaji, Pharmaceutical Analytical acta, 2011; 3: 1-16 13. Beneke et al., Polymeric PESOt-derived Excipients in Drug Delivery. Molecules, 2009; 14: 2602-2620 14. Iwahi T, Satoh H, Nakao M, Iwasaki T, Yamazaki T, Kubo K, Tamura T, Imada A. Esomeprazole , a novel benzimidazole proton pump inhibitor, and its related compounds have selective activity against Helicobacter pylori. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Mar;35(3):490-6) 15. Fang Y, Wang G, Zhang R, Liu Z, Liu Z, Wu X, Cao D. Eudragit L/HPMCAS Blend Enteric-Coated Esomeprazole Pellets: Enhanced Drug Stability and Oral Bioavailability. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2014; 15(3): 513–521. 16. Muthusamy K, Govindarazan G, Ravi TK. Preparation And Evaluation Of Esomeprazole Floating Micropellets. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2005 Jan 30;67(1):75-79. 17. Yan X L. , Khor E , Lim L Y. Chitosan-Alginate Films Prepared With Chitosan Of Different Molecular Weights, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Applied Biomaterials, 2001; (4): 358- 365. 18. Sai Kishore V , Gopala Krishna Murthy T. E, Effect of casting solvent on permeability of antihypertensive drugs through Eudragit RS 100 films, Asian Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2007;1(1) :108-114. 19. Lewis S, Subramaniam G, Pandey S, Udupa N. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of a developed nicotine transdermal systems. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 69; 2007: 309-310. 20. Dharani SS. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal patches of ondansetron hydrochloride. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Nanotechnology. 2010; 3: 860-866. 21. Dey BK., Nath .K.L., Mohanti. B., Bhowmilk .B.B. Development and evaluation of propranolol HCl transdermal patches by using hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymers. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research.2007; 41: 388-393. 22. Streubel A, Siepmann.J. and Bodmeier, R. Gastroretentive drug delivery system. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2006; 3: 217-233. 23. Shidhaye SS, Saindane NS, Sutar S, Kadam V. Mucoadhesive bilayered patches for administration of sumatriptan succinate. AAPS Pharm SciTech, 2008; 9: 909-916. 24. Dhaliwal S, Jain S, Singh HP, Tiwary AK. Mucoadhesive microspheres for gastroretentive delivery of acyclovir: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. AAPS J. 2008;10(2):322-330. 25. Patil JS, Biradar V B, Biradar PR, Shiralashetti SS. Design and Evaluation of Gastro retentive Drug Delivery System of Anti-Ulcer Drug. J.Food Pharm.Sci 2015; 2: 1-5. 26. Salomon C.J., Bravo S.A. and Lamas, M.A., In-Vitro Studies of Diclofenac SodiumControlled-release from Biopolymeric Hydrophilic Matrices. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci. 2002, 5(3): 213-218. 27. ICH Guideline Q1A (R2). Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products. (2003). http: //www. ich. org/LOB/media/MEDIA419.pdf (Accessed on Febraury 06, 2023) 28. Sarangapani S, Rajappan M. Esomeprazole Release from a Floating Dosage Form based on the Natural Polymer of Delonix regia. International Journal of PharmTech Research 2012; 4(3): 1084–1095. 29. Assaleh FH, Katakam P, Botcha R, Chandu BR, AdikiSK. Synthesis and characterisation of starch tartrate and its application as novel disintegrant in telmisartan tablets. Starch‐Stärke 2013; 65: 1–9. 30. Costa P, Manuel J, Labao J. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci, 2002, 13: 123–133. 31. Gray V, Kelly G, Xia M, Butler C, Thomas S, Mayock S, The science of USP 1 and 2 dissolution: present challenges and future relevance. Pharm Res 2009; 26: 1289–1302. 32. Dhaliwal S, Jain S, Singh HP, Tiwary AK. Mucoadhesive microspheres for gastroretentive delivery of acyclovir: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. AAPS J. 2008;10(2):322-330. 33. Diaz DA, Colgan ST, ESOger CS, Bandi NT, Likar MD, Van Alstine L. Dissolution Similarity Requirements: How Similar or Dissimilar Are the Global Regulatory Expectations? [published correction appears in AAPS J. 2016 May;18(3):792]. AAPS J. 2016;18(1):15–22. doi:10.1208/s12248-015-9830-9 34. SUPAC-MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Dissolution Testing and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation. Guidance for Industry. October 1997, Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers ESOe, Rm 1061 Rockville, MD 20852. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/supac-mr-modified release-solid-oral-dosage-forms-scale-and-postapproval-changes-chemistry (Accessed on Febraury 06, 2023)