International Journal of Pharma Recent Research Copyright 2009 waves publishers IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

Vol 1, No. 1 ISSN 0975-783X

Design And Development Of Controlled Release Mucoadhesive Oral Tablet Of Clarithromycin

ABSTRACT The present investigation concerns the development of mucoadhesive tablets of Clarithromycin which were designed to prolong the gastric residence time after oral administration. Matrix tablets of Clarithromycin were formulated using four mucoadhesive polymers namely Carbopol 974P, HPMC K15M and HPMC K4M carried out studies for weight variation, thickness, hardness, content uniformity, swelling index, mucoadhesive force and in vitro drug release. Formulation of F9 and F12 which were formulated by using polymers, HPMC K14M, HPMC K15M and Carbopol 974P provided controlled release of Clarithromycin over the period of 12 hrs. The cumulative % of drug release of formulation F9 and F12 were 93.16 and 96.82 respectively. Invitro releases of F1 to F12 were found to be diffusion controlled and followed zero order kinetics. Formulation of F9 and F12 which were formulated by using polymers HPMC K4M, HPMC K15M and Carbopol 974P were established to be the optimum formulation with optimum bioadhesive force, swelling index & desired invitro drug release. Further investigations are needed to confirm the in vivo efficiency, long term stability studies are needed to stabilize the controlled released (F9 and F12) formulations. Key words- mucoadhesive tablets, swelling index, Clarithromycin, bioadhesive force. INTRODUCTION Mucoadhesion as a new strategy to improve the efficacy of various drug delivery system. Potential of mucoadhesive polymers was shown in ocular, nasal, vaginal and buccal drug delivery systems leading to a significantly prolonged residence time of sustained release delivery systems on these mucosal membranes. In addition, the development of oral mucoadhesive delivery systems was always of great interest as delivery systems capable of adhering to certain gastrointestinal (GI) segments would offer various advantages. However, mucoadhesive drug delivery systems have so far not reached their full potential in oral drug delivery, because the adhesion of drug delivery systems in the GI tract is insufficient to Of peptides. Clarithromycin has similar antimicrobial spectrum as erythromycin but is more effective against certain gram-negative bacteria.Clarithromycin is used to treat certain infections caused by bacteria, such as pneumonia (a lung infection), bronchitis (infection of the tubes leading to the lungs), and infections of the ears, sinuses, skin, and throat. It also is used to treat and prevent disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infection [a type of lung infection that often affects people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)]. It is used in combination with other medications to eliminate H. pylori, a bacteria that causes ulcers. Clarithromycin is in a class of medications called provide a prolonged residence time of delivery systems in the stomach or small intestine. The conventional dosage forms stays in the stomach for 0.5-3 hours and passes to small intestines from where it gets absorbed within 3-6 hours. It is therefore difficult to adjust release retardation and stomach retention for longer period of time. Some antibiotics produce effect depending on concentration at the site of bacterial infection. The bioavailability of active ingredients which are not completely absorbed decreases because part of the dose is lost, so frequent administration of dosage form is required. Clarithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, It prevents bacteria from growing by interfering with their protein synthesis. Clarithromycin binds to the subunit 50S of the bacterial ribosome and thus inhibits the translation macrolide antibiotics. It works by stopping the growth of bacteria. Antibiotics will not work for colds, flu, or other viral infections.Clarithromycin (CL) has a short half life 2.5-3 hours. The usual oral dosage regimen is 250-500 mg every 4-6 hours and Gastric residence time of the conventional Clarithromycin dosage form is 0.5-2 hours. CL is having suitable properties stability in stomach pH and soluble in acidic pH. By considering above facts, the present study was undertaken with the following objective. To design the controlled release mucoadhesive oral tablet to increase the residence time of the drug in the stomach and release for extended period of time in order to; Increase bioavailability of the drug, Reduce the dosing frequency, Improve patient compliance.

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

II.MATERIALS AND METHODS Clarithromycin was procured by Biochem Pharmaceutical (Daman, India), HPMC K4M, HPMC K15M was gifted by Colorcon Asia pvt., Goa, India; Carbopol-974P gifted by Noveon, Mumbai, India, Lactose, Mg-stearate was gifted by Loba Chemie Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India. II.1.FORMULATION OF MUCOADHESIVE TABLETS

CL, HPMC K4M, HPMC K15M, carbopol 974P and lactose were blended homogeneously in mortar as the quantity given in Table 3. Blended mixture was passed through the 60
Sieve and magnesium stearate 1% was added and blended. The homogeneously blended mixture was compressed in rotary tablet press with the 13.7 mm flat punch.

Table. 1Formulations composition of CL tablet of F 1 to F 12

Formulation No. HPMC K4M (mg) * F1 110 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F 10 F 11 F 12 125 140 100 105 80 -

Carbopol -974P (mg) 10 15 20 10 20 30

Mg-Stearate (mg) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lactose (mg) 81 66 51 81 66 51 81 71 91 91 91 91

* *

All formulation contains 250 mg of CL Total weight of tablet 450 mg.

II.2.EVAUATION OF MUCOADHESIVE TABLETS Physical Properties of Tablets Tablet dimensions:The dimensions determined for formulated tablets were tabulated in Table No 2 Tablets mean thickness (n=3) were uniform in F1 to F12 formulations and were found to be in the range of 0.32 cm to 0.345 cm. Hardness test:The hardness of tablets of each batch ranged between 6.2 to 7.3 kg/cm2 (Table No 2). This ensures good handling characteristics for all batches. Friability Test:- The values of friability test were tabulated in Table No 2. The Percentage friability was less than 1% in all the Table :2 Physical properties of tablets

formulations(Except formulation F 6) ensuring that the tablets were mechanically stable. Weight Variation Test:The percentage weight variations for all formulations were tabulated in Table No 2. All the formulated (F1 to F12) tablets passed weight variation test as the % weight variation was within the standard pharmacopoeial limits of
7.5% of the weight. The weights of all the tablets were found to be uniform with low standard deviation values. Drug Content Uniformity:The percentage of drug content for F1 to F12 was found to be between 99.05% and 100.94 % of Clarithromycin, it complies with official specifications. The results were shown in Table No 2.

60

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

Formulation No. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F 11 F 12

Hardness* (kg/cm2) 6.60.152 6.80.289 6.30.462 7.30.354 6.90.145 6.80.587 6.70.345 6.80.306 7.30.328 6.30.133 6.20.218 6.50.314

Thickness* (cm) 0.325
.00110 0.3410.0012 0.3430.0010 0.3280.0006 0.3210.0010 0.3230.0010 0.3310.0006 0.3310.0115 0.3450.0006 0.3370.0029 0.3320,0012 0.3320.0009

% Friability 0.52 0.64 0.68 0.85 0.76 1.09 0.60 0.81 0.89 0.82 0.83 0.86

Weight Variation*(mg) 453
2.08 4491.52 4544.93 4525.29 4483.21 4494.00 4542.64 4494.04 4481.52 4511.52 4511.32 4532.14

% Drug content 100.41 100.94 99.52 100.94 99.11 99.52 101.82 99.05 101.41 99.75 99.65 99.48

* (n=3,
S.D.)

II.3.Mucoadhesive Force Measurement of Tablet Adhesion was reported to be effected by hydration. Hydration of the mucoadhesive polymer is essential to initiate the mucoadhesive bonding process. In case of tablets applied in the dehydrated state, which is most convenient, it is essential that sufficient water is available so that rapid hydration takes place, and a flexible rubbery state occurs. The capillary force arises when water from the space between the mucosa and the polymer was taken up by a dry system. Once the bond is formed, reduction in the rate of swelling due to water uptake from the tissue surface may only prolong the association of the tablet with the mucosa. Removal of water from the underlying mucosa layer by the hydrating polymer may increase the cohesive forces of mucus; this plays a vital role in the establishment of an effective mucoadhesive

bond.Modified balance method was used for the measurement of mucoadhesive force. During measurement of mucoadhesive force 15 min contact time was kept constant. Mucoadhesive force depends on the viscosity and concentration of the polymer. Formulation F1 was having lowest mucoadhesive force because the HPMC K4M having lower viscosity. While formulation (F 12) containing HPMC K15M and carbopol 971 shows higher mucoadhesion force due to higher viscosity .In order to increase the mucoadhesive strength of low viscosity polymer containing HPMC K4M was combined with carbopol 974P having good mucoadhesive property. This combination results in good mucoadhesive properties as shown in Table no. 7. From the above results it was found that polymers having high molecular weight and high viscosity exhibited higher adhesion. HPMC K15M and Carbopol 974P were found to be having good mucoadhesive strength. HPMC and carbopol possesses hydroxy and carboxy groups respectively required for bioadhesion.

Table. 3 Mucoadhesive strength and force of formulation F 1 to F 12 Formulation No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F 10 F 11 F 12 Mucoadhesive Strength (gm) 10.451.32 11.891.17 18.932.37 22.894.92 26.784.46 34.271.06 31.691.73 37.431.08 38.462.55 36.932.64 42.372.89 46.481.87 Mucoadhesion Force (dyne) 1.1243 1.1664 1.8570 2.2455 2.6271 3.3618 3.1087 3.6718 3.3772 3.6228 4.1564 4.5596

61

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

Fig. 1Mucoadhesion of tablets in gm

Fig. 2Formulation percent adhesion of tablet in dyne II.2.Swelling Study of Tablets Results showed that polymers with higher concentration had lower swelling this was due to the fact that polymers concentration restricts the movement of the polymers. (Table. 4) Table. 4Percentage swelling of formulation F 1 to F 12

62

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

Form. no. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12

1 133.8 98.95 100.2 63.36 73.31 79.66 85.28 98.28 98.27 52.36 68.58 73.59

2 136.56 134.32 130.67 96.83 115.46 113.57 129.45 129.15 126.93 83.45 109.67 111.34

3 4 137.4 139.25 135.6 136.85 132.2 134.69 100.9 105.36 118.4 120.81 115.6 116.25 131.9 132.12 30.57 132.69 128.7 129.98 87.36 95.36 111.6 113.65 112.3 112.98

Time (hrs) 5 6 140.12 142.23 137.64 139.74 136.67 137.83 111.86 119.34 121.36 125.36 117.49 119.39 132.68 133.25 133.24 134.53 130.24 132.48 102.23 106.35 115.34 118.39 115.34 116.37

7 143.36 140.61 138.97 125.87 129.35 125.75 133.24 135.45 132.25 115.23 11934 117.68

8 143.89 143.58 139.21 130.94 131.23 128.37 133.92 136.57 134.36 118.63 123.35 118.45

10 144.87 144.34 140.73 134.99 132.21 129.99 134.17 137.51 135.03 122.48 125.68 119.36

Fig.3Percentage swelling Vs time of formulation F 1 to F 12

Formulations containing HPMC K 4 M i.e. F1, F2 and F3 had higher % Swelling than formulations containing HPMC K 15 M i.e. F4, F5 and F6. Polymers HPMC K4M and Carbopol 974P have higher cross linking indicate that polymers having cross linking constrain and therefore the polymer did not open up easily. Fabergas and Gareia have reported a correlation between % Swelling and mucoadhesive strength. Initial swelling due to hydration aided bioadhesion but further swelling induced overextension of hydrogen bonds and other forces. This resulted in lower bioadhesion. % Swelling decreased with polymer concentration because high concentration of the polymer restricts its movement.

II.3.Comparison of In vitro release profile of optimised formulation F 9 and F 12 with market CR tablet (Biaxin). In vitro release profile of optimized formulation F9 and F 12 were compared with marketed SR tablet (Biaxin-500). The Initial percentage drug release after 1 hour for F9, F12 and Biaxin were found to 15.25, 14.64 and 8.59 respectively. The percentage drug release after 12 hour for F9, F12 and Biaxin were found to 95.78, 96.38 and 85.32 respectively, so the release from the optimized formulation were higher compared to marketed product.

Table. : 5 Cumulative drug release of formulation F 9 and F 12

63

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

Time (Hour) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12

F9 15.251.16 31.703.48 40.952.99 51.801.17 59.886.95 70.078.37 78.976.99 85.563.28 91.814.65 95.780.95

% Cumulative Drug Release* F 12 14.641.96 32.973.56 42.561.34 53.302.36 61.264.96 72.574.78 79.645.26 86.974.29 90.713.67 96.381.21

Biaxin Tablet 8.590.36 15.580.63 27.941.89 33.182.92 46.511.61 53.260.85 61.521.44 65.740.31 78.832.68 85.321.30

* (n=3,
S.D.)

Fig.4 Percentage cumulative drug release Vs time III.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Hence in present investigation, an attempt was made to deliver Clarithromycin via oral mucoadhesive drug delivery system to the vicinity of absorption site by prolonging the gastric residence time of the dosage form. For the formulation of oral mucoadhesive tablet various polymer used like Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose K15M, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose K4M, Carbopol 974P, used as hydrophilic matrix forming and mucoadhesive polymer in varying concentration along with Magnesium stearate, talc and Lactose as filler. Tablets were subjected to various evaluation parameters such as drug content, hardness, weight variation, friability, mucoadhesive polymers.Tablets of Batch F9 and F12 were selected as an optimum batch and evaluated for further parameters like accelerated stability study and characterization using IR spectroscopy. The stability study revealed that there was no significant change in dissolution profile and mucoadhesive strength for a period of one month. REFERENCES:
1. S. B. Patil, R. S. R. Murthy, H. S. Mahajan, R. D. Wagh, S. G. Gattani, Mucoadhesive Polymers: Means of Improving Drug Delivery, Pharm Times, 38(4), (2006), 25-28.

IV.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors are thankful to Prof.(Dr.) B.Jayakar, principal Vinayaka missions college of pharmacy, Salem, Tamilnadu, India providing all the facilities for this research Project. the study of individual polymers shows that the, HPMC K15M, HPMC K4M and Carbopl 974P, alone behaviors and in vitro drug release. A result of was also able to controll the release in 12 hour. Mucoadhesion along with good swelling Release Tablets of batch F9 and F12 had good of all batches had acceptable physical parameters. Clarithromycin,from combination of HPMC K15M with Carbopl 974P, combination HPMC K4M with Carbopl 974P gave the good results compared to employing strength, swelling index, and in vitro drug release study. It was revealed that the tablets of individual

2. ames Swarbrick, James C. Boylon, Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology Marcel Dekker, Volume-10, 458-460 3. Ajay Semalty and Mona Semalty, Mucoadhesion is the relatively new and emerging concept in drug delivery. Mucoadhesion keeps the delivery system

64

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

adhering to the mucus membrane, Pharmainfonet, 2006. 4. 5. K.P.R.Chowdary and L.Srinivas, A Review, Mucoadhesive drug delivery system, Indian drug, 37 (9) (2000), 400-405. N. Vivien, R. Gaurl, Parshoen, M. Madan, Bioadhesive gastroretentive drug delivery system European Journal of for diltiazem, Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2002,Vol 50, 109-115. Drs.Bhaskara Jasti, Xioling Li, Gary Cleary, Recent advances in mucoadhesive drug delivery system, Bussiness briefing, Pharmatech, (2003), 53-58. R. Khanna, S. P. Agrawal and Alka Ahuja. Mucoadhesive Buccal drug delivery a potential alternative to conventional thereapy. Indian Journal of pharmaceutical scienes, 1998, Vol 60(1), 1-11. Toress D., Cunna, M., Alonso M.J. Preparation and In Vivo Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Microparticles Containing Amoxycillin-Resin Complexes For Drug Delivery To The Gastric Mucosa. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2001,Vol 51, 199-205. Anil K. Shingla, Manish Chawla and Amarjit Singh.; Potential application of carbomer in oral Mucoadhesive controlled drug delivery system: A review; Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2000, Vol. 26(9), 913-914. R.B. Satoskar, S.D.Bhandarkar, Phamacology and (18th Edn), Popular Phamacotherapeutics, Prakashan, (2003) 410. Deepak Tivari, Robert Sause and Parshotam L. Madan,; Evaluation of polyoxyethylene homoolymers for Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery device formulation; AAPS Pharmscitech, 1999, Vol.1(3) article 13. Kazuhiro Morimoto, Jian Wang , Yasuhiko Tabata , Dianzhou Bi, Evaluation of gastric mucoadhesive properties of aminated gelatin microspheres, Journal of Controlled Release 73, (2001), 223231. Mahesh D. Chavanpatil ., Paras Jain, Sachin Chaudhari, Rajesh Shear, Pradeep R. Vavia, Novel sustained release, swellable and bioadhesive gastroretentive drug delivery system for ofloxacin, International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 316, (2006), 8692. Noha Adel naffee, Fatma Ahmed ismail and Nabila Ahmed Boraje.; Mucoadhesive delivery systems. II formulation and invitro / invivo evaluationof Buccal Mucoadhesive tablets containing water soluble drugs; Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2004, Vol. 30 (9), P 995-1004.

6. 7.

8.

9.

17. K.P.R. Chowdary and G.Balatripura Sundari, Design ad Evaluation of mucoadhesive controlled release oral tablets of Glipizid, Indian J. pharm. Sci, 65 (6), (2003), pp-591-594. 18. Chowdary K.P.R, and Kamlkara reddy G, Sustained release of Nifedipine from mucoadhesive tables of its solid dispersion in HPMC and HPC, Indian Drugs, 39 (4), (2002), 225-229. 19. Lalla J.K and Gurnancy R.A., Polymers for mucosal delivery-Swelling and mucoadhesive evaluation, Indian Drug, 39 (5) (2002), 270-276. 20. Surapaneni MS, Das SK, Das NG, Effect of excipient and processing variables on adhesive properties and release profile of pentoxifylline from mucoadhesive tablets, Drug Dev Ind. Pharm, 2(3), 2006, 377387. 21. R. Bala Ramesha Chary, G. Vani, Y. Madhusudan Rao.; Invitro and invivo adhesion testing of Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems, Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 1999, Vol. 25 (5), 685 690. 22. Vijera Grabovac, Karanji J.S ; Study different mucoadhesive polymer for its mucoadhesive International Journal of property, Pharmaceutics, 255 (2003) 35-41. 23. S. Miyazaki; In vitro release from Mucoadhesive tablet of diltiazem Indian Journal Pharmaceutical Science,2005,67(3):265-272. 24. Agarwal, V. and Mishra B, Design, development and biopharmaceutical properties of buccoadhesive compacts of pentazocin. Drug Dev and Ind Pharm. 25 (6) (1999), 701-709. 25. Frances Stops; Collette H; Prolonged Gastric Retention Using Floating Dosage Forms Pharm. Technol., 2000 ,Vol 24 (3), 8290. 26. Sanjay Garg, Jaspreet Kaur Vasir and Kaustubh Tambwekar, Bioadhesive microspheres as a controlled drug delivery system, International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 255 (2003) 1332. 27. H. mallonne et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of a new oral sustained release dosage form of tramadol, British 2004 Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, ;57(3):270-8. 28. www.en.wikipedia.org/tramadol 29. www.rxlist.com 30. www.drugs.com 31. Sean C Sweatman, Martindale, The complete (32rd edn) American drug Reference, Pharmaceutical press, 2002, 90-91. 32. S. louis, Drug facts and comparisons (50th edn) A Walter kluwar company, 1996, 1301-1303. 33. Donald N Franz, Gennaro, A.R., Eds, "Reimington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy" (20th Edn).Vol. II, Mack Publishing Company, Easton, PA, (2000). 1280. 34. Raymond C.Rowe, Paul J.Sheskey and Weller P. J., Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, (4th Edn) American Pharmaceutical Association, Washington D. C. and Royal Pharmaceutical Press, (2003) 297-300. 35. Raymond C.Rowe, Paul J.Sheskey and Weller P. J., Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, (4ed Edn) American Pharmaceutical Association,

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15. Bhupinder Singh and Naveen Ahuja; Development of controlled release buccoadhesive hydrophilic matrices of diltiazem hydrochloride, optimization of bioadhesion, dissolution and diffusion parameter; Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2002, Vol. 28(4), 431-442. 16. R.Bala Rane sha Chary and Y. Madhusudan Rao, Formulation and evaluation of Methocel K15 M Bioadhesive matrix tablet, Drug Dev and Ind Pharm, 26 (8), (2000), 901-906.

65

R.Margret Chandira Etal, IJPRR 2009, 1(1), 59-66

36.

37. 38.

39. 40.

Washington D. C. and Royal Pharmaceutical Press, (2003), 102-106. Rowe RC, sheskey PJ and weller PJ, Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, (4th Edn) American Pharmaceutical Association, Pharmaceutical Press, (2003) 34-35 Martin, A, Bustamante, P. and Chun, A.H.C, Physical Pharmacy, (4th edn), B.I.Publication Ltd, New Delhi, (1993) 444. Gilbert S. Banker and Neil R.Anderson Lachman, L, Liberman, H.A. and Knaig, J.L Eds., The Theory and practice of Industrial Pharmacy, (3rd edn), Varghese Publishing House, Bombay, (1990) 293-345. United States Pharmacopia, XXIV NF 19, United State Pharmacopia Convention, Rockville, (2000) 1791-1792. Subrahmanyam CVS. Text Book of Physical Pharmaceutics. 2nd ed. New Delhi : Vallabh Prakashan; 2001.p.253-261

55. Korsemeyer R, Gurny R, Peppas N. Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. 1983; 15; 25-35. 56. ICH Q1A (R2), Stability Testing Guidelines, Stability testing of a new drug product and new drug substance. 57. Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985; 60; 110 111. 58. Harland RS. Gazzaniga A. Sangalli ME, Colombo P, Peppas NA. Drug/polymer matrix swelling and dissolution. Pharm Res. 1988; 5; 488 494. 59. Elizabeth B Vadas, Gennaro, A.R., Eds.,"Reimington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy" (20thEd.). Vol. I, Mack Publishing Company, Easton, PA, (2000), 986-987. 60. ICH Q1A (R2), Stability Testing Guidelines, Stability testing of a new drug product and new drug substance *Author for Correspondence: Vinayaka missions college of Pharmacy Vinayaka mission University Salem, Tamilnadu [email protected]

41. Aulton ME. Pharmaceutics: The Science of Dosage Form Design. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; London : 2002.p.322-334 42. United States Pharmacopia, XXIV NF 19, United State Pharmacopia Convention, Rockville, (2000) 2388-2389. 43. United States Pharmacopia, XXIV NF 19, United State Pharmacopia Convention, Rockville, (2000) 264. 44. Kashappa Goud H. Desai1 and T.M. Pramod Kumar, Preparation and Evaluation of a Novel Buccal Adhesive System, AAPS PharmSciTech 2004; 5 (3) Article 35. 45. T.S. Owens., R.J. Dansereau and Adel Sakr, Development and evaluation of extended release bioadhesive sodium fluoride tablets, International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 288 (2005), 109122. 46. Bhupinder Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur Chakkal and Naveen Ahuja, Formulation and Optimization of Controlled Release Mucoadhesive Tablets of Atenolol Using Response Surface Methodology, AAPS PharmSciTech 2006; 7 (1) Article 3. 47. Juan Manuel Llabot, Ruben Hilario Manzo and Daniel Alberto Allemandi, Double-Layered Mucoadhesive Tablets Containing Nystatin, AAPS PharmSciTech 2002; 3 (3) article 22 48. Baumgartner, S., Kristel, J., Vreer, F., Vodopivec, P., Zorko, B., Optimization of floating matrix tablets and evaluation of their gastric residence time, Int. J. Pharm., 2000, 195(1-2), 125-135. 49. United States Pharmacopia, XXIV NF 19, United State Pharmacopia Convention, Rockville, (2000) 264. 50. Indian Pharmacopia, Vol. II, Controller of Publication, Delhi, (1996). A-82-83. 51. Sanford Bolton, Pharmaceutical Statistics, (3rd edn), Marcel Dekker, (1997), 216-263. 52. Higuchi T. Rate of release of medicaments from ointment bases containing drugs in suspension. J Pharma Sci. 1961; 50; 874 875. 53. Kulkarni G T, Gowathamarajan K, Suresh B, Stability testing of Pharmaceutical product: an overview, Ind. J. Pharm. Sci., 38(4), 2004, 194-202. 54. Hixson AW. Crowell JH. Dependence of reaction velocity upon surface and agitation. Ind Eng Chem. 1931 ; 23; 923 931

66