Bioadhesive or Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery System: A Potential Alternative to Conventional Therapy

  • Sandesh Asati Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044
  • Shailesh Jain Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044
  • Ankur Choubey Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Abstract

The term bioadhesive describes materials that bind to biological substrates, such as mucosal membranes and in bioadhesive drug delivery systems, the term bioadhesion is used to describe the bonding or adhesion between a synthetic or natural polymer and soft tissues such as epithelial cells. The bioadhesive drug delivery formulation highlights the fact that readily accessible sites are utilized with the eye, oral cavity and vegina being targeted. The GI tract and the nasal cavity have also been extensively examined as a site for bioadhesive drug delivery. The term mucoadhesion is the subgroup of bioadhesion and in the mucoadhesion formulation attaches with the mucus membrane. The mucoadhesion can be defined as the adhesion between the two materials in which one is biological material and other one is polymeric materials with the help of interfacial forces to increase the residence time. Over the past few decades, mucosal drug delivery has received a great deal of attention. The mucoadhesion drug delivery system is better than the traditional drug delivery systems. Mucoadhesion is a useful strategy for drug delivery systems, such as tablets, patches, gels, liposomes, micro/nanoparticles, nanosuspensions, microemulsions and colloidal dispersions. The mucoadhesion bypasses the first pass metabolism and used for localized delivery of biomolecules such as peptides, proteins and oligonucleotides. Mucoadhesion drug delivery system engages much attention due to their benefits such as prolong retention time, fast uptake and increased bioavailability of active substance. Application of dosage forms to mucosal surfaces may be of benefit to drug molecules not amenable to the oral route, such as those that undergo acid degradation or extensive first-pass metabolism. The mucoadhesive ability of a dosage form is dependent upon a variety of factors, including the nature of the mucosal tissue and the physicochemical properties of the polymeric formulation. This review article aims to provide an overview of the various aspects of mucoadhesion, theories of mucoadhesion, mucoadhesive materials, factors affecting mucoadhesion, evaluating methods, mucoadhesive polymers and herbal drugs.


Keywords: Bioadhesive, bioadhesive drug delivery, Mucoadhesion, Patches, Herbal drugs

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sandesh Asati, Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Shailesh Jain, Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Ankur Choubey, Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

Madhyanchal Professional University, Bhadbhada Road, Ratibad, Bhopal, MP, 462044

References

1. Chickering DE III, Mathiowitz E. Fundamentals of bioadhesion. In: Lehr CM, editor. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems-Fundamentals, Novel Approaches and Development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999;1-85.
2. Asane GS. Mucoadhesive Gastro intestinal drug delivery system: an overview, Pharmainfonet.com. 2007, 5(6).
3. Mansuri S, Kesharwani P, Jain K, et al., Mucoadhesion: A promisingapproach in drug delivery system. React Funct Polym. 2016; 100:151-72.
4. Grabovac V, Guggi D, Bernkop-Schnürch A. Comparison of the mucoadhesive properties of various polymers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005; 57(11):1713-23.
5. De Souza Ferreira SB, Moço TD, Borghi-Pangoni FB, et al., Rheological, mucoadhesive and textural properties of thermoresponsive polymer blends for biomedical applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015; 55:164-78.
6. Khutoryanskiy VV. Advances in mucoadhesion and mucoadhesive polymers. Macromol Biosci 2011; 11(6):748-64.
7. Lubrizol Pharmaceutical Bulletin 23, Edition: October 29, 2008;1-20.
8. Cook MT, Khutoryanskiy VV. Mucoadhesion and mucosa-mimetic materials-A mini-review. Int J Pharm 2015; 495(2):991-8.
9. Hägerström H. Polymer gels as pharmaceutical dosage forms. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 2003.
10. Bruschi ML, Francisco LMB, Toledo LAS, Borghi FB. An overview of recent patents on composition of mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul. 2015; 9:79-87.
11. Bassi da Silva J, Ferreira SBS, de Freitas O, et al., A critical review about methodologies for the analysis of mucoadhesive properties of drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017; 43(7):1053-1070.
12. Leung SH, Robinson JR. The Contribution of anionic polymer structural features related to mucoadhesion. J Control Release 1988; 5:223-31.
13. Veuillez F, Kalia YN, Jacques Y, et al., Factors and strategies for improving buccal absorption of peptides. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2001; 51:93-109.
14. Carvalho FC, Bruschi ML, Evangelista RC, et al., Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Brazilian J Pharm Sci 2010;46(1):1-18
15. Smart JD. The basics and underlying mechanisms of mucoadhesion. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005; 57(11):1556-68.
16. Khan AB, Mahamana R, Pal E. Review on mucoadhesive drug delivery system: novel approaches in modern era. Rajiv Gandhi Univ Heal Sci J Pharm Sci. 2015; 4(4):128-41.
17. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009; 71(3):505-18.
18. Carvalho FC, Chorilli M, Gremião MPD. Plataformas Bio Adesivas Poliméricas Baseadas em Nanotecnologia para Liberação Controlada de Fármacos - Propriedades , Metodologias e Aplicações. Polímeros. 2014; 24(2):203-13.
19. Varum FO, Basit AW, Sousa J, Veiga F. Mucoadhesion studies in the gastrointestinal tract to increase oral drug bioavailability. Braz J Pharm Sci 2008; 44(4):535-48.
20. Hägerström H, Edsman K, Strømme M. Low-frequency dielectric spectroscopy as a tool for studying the compatibility between pharmaceutical gels and mucus tissue. J Pharm Sci 2003; 92:1869-81.
21. Dodou D, Breedveld P, Wieringa P. Mucoadhesives in the gastrointestinal tract: Revisiting the literature for novel applications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2005; 60:1-16.
22. Kinloch AJ. The science of adhesion. J Mater Sci 1980; 15:2141-66.
23. Jiménez-Castellanos MR, Zia H, Rhodes CT. Mucoadhe-sive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1993; 19:143-94.
24. Vinod KR, Reddy R, Sandhya S, et al., Critical review on mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Hygeia J D Med 2012; 4: 7-28.
25. Sudhakar Y, Kuotsu K, Bandyopadhyay AK. Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery - a Promising option for orally less effi cient drugs. J Control Release 2006; 114: 15-40.
26. Gu JM, Robinson JR, Leung SH. Binding of acrylic polymers to mucin/epithelial surfaces: structure-property relationships. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1988;5: 21-67.
27. Kumar K, Dhawan N, Sharma H, Vaidya S, Vaidya B. Bioadhesive polymers: novel tool for drug delivery, artificial cells, nanomedicine, and biotechnology 2014; 42:4, 274-283.
28. Ludwig A. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in ocular drug delivery. Adv Drug Del Rev 2005; 57: 1595-1639.
29. Portero A, Osorio DT, Alonso MJ, Lopez CR. Development of chitosan sponges for buccal administration of insulin. Carbohyd Polym 2007; 68: 617- 625 .
30. Hui HW, Robinson JR. Ocular delivery of progesterone using a bioadhesive polymer. Int J Pharm 1985;26: 203-213.
31. Dubolazov AV, Nurkeeva ZS, Mun GA, et al., Design of mucoadhesive polymeric films based on blends of poly(acrylic acid) and (hydroxypropyl)cellulose. Biomacromolecules 2006; 7: 1637- 164.
32. Warren SJ, Kellaway IW. The synthesis and in vitro characterization of the mucoadhesion and swelling of Poly (acrylic acid) hydrogels. Pharm Dev Tech 1998; 3: 199-208.
33. Carreno-Gomez B, Woodley JF, Florence AT. Studies on the uptake of tomato lectin nanoparticles in everted gut sacs. Int J Pharm 1999; 183: 7-11.
34. Shojaei AH, Xiaoling L. Mechanism of buccal mucoadhesion of novel copolymers of acrylic acid and polyethylene glycol monomethylether monometh-acrylate. J Control Release 1997; 47: 151-161.
35. Lele BS, Hoff man AS. Mucoadhesive drug carriers based on complexes of poly(acrylic acid) and PEGylated drugs having hydrolysable PEG-anhydride-drug linkages . J Control Release 2000; 69: 237-248.
36. Bogataj M, Mrhar A, Korosec L. Influence of physicochemical and biological parameters on drug release from microspheres adhered on vesical and intestinal mucosa. Int J Pharm 1999; 177: 211-220.
37. Chen H, Langer, R. Oral particulate delivery: status and future trends. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 34: 339-350.
38. Bagheri KS, Taghizadeh SM, Mirzadeh H. An investigation on the short-term biodegradability of chitosan with various molecular weights and degrees of deacetylation . Carbohyd Polym 2009; 78: 773- 77.
39. Chenite A , Chaput C , Wang D , et al., Novel injectable neutral solutions of chitosan form biodegradable gels in situ, Biomaterials 2000; 21: 2155-2161.
40. Riva R, Ragelle H, des Rieux A, et al., Chitosan and chitosan derivatives in drug delivery and tissue engineering. In: Jayakumar R, Prabaharan M, Muzzarelli RAA, Eds. Chitosan for Biomaterials II. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer 2011.
41. Barry BW, Meyer MC. The rheological properties of carbopol gels I. Continuous shear and creep properties of carbopol gels. Int J Pharm 1978; 2: 1-25.
42. Davies NM, Farr SJ, Hadgraft J, et al., Evaluation of mucoadhesive polymers in ocular drug delivery. II. Polymer-coated vesicles. Pharm Res 1992; 9: 1137-1144.
43. Rajaonarivony M, Vauthier C, Couarraze G, et al., Development of a new drug carrier made from alginate. J Pharm Sci 1993; 82: 912-917.
44. Kesavan K, Nath G, Pandit JK. Sodium alginate based mucoadhesive system for gatifl oxacin and its in vitro antibacterial activity. Sci Pharm 2010; 78: 941-957.
45. Wee S, Gombotz WR. Protein release from alginate matrices. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 31: 267-285.
46. Elliot JH, Ganz AJ. Some rheological properties of sodium carboxymethylcellulose solutions and gels. Rheologica Acta 1974; 13: 670-674.
47. Silva DJ, Olver JM. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) lubricant facilitates insertion of porous spherical orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 21: 301-302.
48. Gurny R, Meyer JM, Peppas NA. Bioadhesive intraoral release systems: Design, testing and analysis. Biomaterials 1984; 5:336-40.
49. Gudeman L, Peppas NA. Preparation and characterisation of ph- sensitive, interpenetrating networks of poly (vinyl alcohol) and poly(acrylic acid). J Appl Polym Sci 1995; 55:919-28.
50. McCarron PA, Woolfson AD, Donnelly RF, et al., Influence of plasticiser type and storage conditions on the properties of poly(methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic anhydride) bioadhesive films. J Appl Polym Sci 2004; 91:1576-89.
51. Peppas NA, Little MD, Huang Y. Bioadhesive Controlled Release Systems. In: Wise DL, editor. Handbook of pharmaceutical controlled release technology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000; 255-69.
52. Jimenez-Castellanos MR, Zia, H, Rhodes CT. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1993; 19:143-94.
53. Park H, Robinson JR. Physicochemical properties of water soluble polymers important to mucin/epithelium adhesion. J Control Release 1985; 2:47-7.
54. Ahuja A, Khar RK, Ali J. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1997; 23:489-515.
55. Duchene D, Touchard F, Peppas NA. Pharmaceutical and medical aspects of bioadhesive systems for drug administration. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1988; 14:283-18.
56. Blanco Fuente H, AnguianoIgea S, OteroEspinar FJ, BlancoMendez J. Invitro bioadhesion of carbopol hydrogels. Int J Pharm 1996; 142:169-74.
57. Donnelly RF, McCarron PA, Tunney MM, Woolfson AD. Potential of photodynamic therapy in treatment of fungal infections of the mouth. design and characterisation of a mucoadhesive patch containing toluidine Blue O. J Photochem Photobiol B 2007;86:59-69.
58. Smart JD. An in vitro assessment of some mucoadhesive dosage forms. Int J Pharm 1991; 73:69-74.
59. Peppas NA, Buri PA. Surface, interfacial and molecular aspects of polymer bioadhesion on soft tissues. J Control Release 1985;2:257-75.
60. Kamath KR, Park K. Mucosal Adhesive Preparations. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC, editors. Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992;133.
61. Lehr CM, Poelma FG. An Estimate of turnover time of intestinal mucus gel layer in the Rat in situ Loop. Int J Pharm 1991; 70:235.
62. Shukla AK, Kumar M, Bishnoi RS, Jain CP. Review article application of fenugreek seed gum: in novel drug delivery. Asian J Biomat Res 2017; 3(6):1-10
63. Shukla AK, Bishnoi RS, Kumar M, et al., Applications of tamarind seeds polysaccharide-based copolymers in controlled drug delivery: An overview. Asian J Pharm Pharmacol 2018; 4(1):23-30.
64. Bhattacharjee S, Nagalakshmi S, Shanmuganathan S. Formulation characterization and in-vitro diffusion studies of herbal extract loaded mucoadhesive buccal patches Int J Pharm Sci Res 2014; 5(11): 4965-4970.
65. Kanjani B, Rai G, Gilhotra R, et al., Formulation design, optimization and characterization of herbal bioactive loaded transdermal patch: the state of the art. SGVU J Pharm Res Edu 2018; 3(1): 279-288
66. Saleem MN, Idris M. Formulation design and development of a unani transdermal patch for antiemetic therapy and its pharmaceutical evaluation. Scientifica 2016; 7602347.
67. Das R, Kolhe S, Patil A, et al., Development and evaluation of transdermal patches with cissus quadrangularis plant extract. Int J Life Sci Pharm Res 2018; 8(2):29-34.
68. Patel DK, Gidwani B, Gupta A, et al., Formulation and evaluation of transdermal patch using antioxidant phytoconstituent. J Biol Sci 2016; 4(2):1-9.
69. Jasuja ND, Sharma PR, Sharma S, Joshi SC. Development of non-invasive transdermal patch of Emblica officinalis for anti atherosclerotic activity. Int J Drug Deliv 2013; 5: 402-411.
70. Moghadamnia AA, Motallebnejad M, Kantian M. The efficacy of the bioadhesive patches containing licorice extract in the management of recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Phytother Res 2009; 23: 246-250.
71. Hashemi M, Ramezani V, Seyedabadi M, et al., Formulation and optimization of oral mucoadhesive patches of myrtus communis by box behnken design. Adv Pharm Bull 2017; 7(3): 441-450
72. Savula J, Krishna KSM, Anwesh H, Prashanth K. Formulation and evaluation of herbal transdermal patches. World J Pharm Res 2017;6(13); 365-374.
73. Bhutkar KG. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive herbal buccal patch of Psidium Guava L. J Curr Pharm Res 2014; 5 (1): 1372-1377.
74. Suksaeree J, Charoenchai L, Madaka F, Monton C, et al., Zingiber cassumunar blended patches for skin application: Formulation, physicochemical properties and in vitro studies. Asian J Pharm Sci 2015; 10:341-349.
Statistics
182 Views | 91 Downloads
How to Cite
1.
Asati S, Jain S, Choubey A. Bioadhesive or Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery System: A Potential Alternative to Conventional Therapy. JDDT [Internet]. 11Nov.2019 [cited 31Oct.2020];9(4-A):858-67. Available from: http://www.jddtonline.info/index.php/jddt/article/view/3708