| Literature DB >> 21369433 |
A Bakshi1, A Bajaj, G Malhotra, M Madan, N Amrutiya.
Abstract
The objective of the present work was to develop a metered dose spray formulation for transdermal delivery of oxybutynin and to carry out the in vitro characterization of the optimized formulation. Oxybutynin release from a series of ethanol/acetone/methylal based formulations was assessed in vitro and the developed formulation was used for delivery from a metered dose spray. Various qualitative and quantitative parameters like spray pattern, particle size distribution, pH, evaporation time, pump seal efficiency test, average weight per metered dose, content per spray and content uniformity were evaluated. The different film forming agents were assessed and carbopol (0.5%) and lutrol (0.1%) were found to give good clarity of solution, evaporation rate, spray pattern and tackiness of the film. Diffusion studies of the optimized formulations through the semipermeable membrane showed the release of drug to the extent of almost 50% over a period of 24 h. Stability studies were conducted as per ICH guidelines and indicated that formulations were stable. Skin irritation studies were performed using rabbit as an animal model. The results obtained show that the metered dose transdermal spray formulation can be a promising and innovative therapeutic system for the transdermal administration of oxybutynin.Entities:
Keywords: Transdermal spray; in vitro release; kinetics; oxybutynin
Year: 2008 PMID: 21369433 PMCID: PMC3040866 DOI: 10.4103/0250-474X.49094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Pharm Sci ISSN: 0250-474X Impact factor: 0.975
COMPOSITIONS OF THE PREPARED BATCHES OF OXYBUTYNIN MDTS FORMULATIONS.
| Ingredients (%w/w) | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | F11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxybutynin | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Glyceryl mono oleate | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | - |
| Myristyl lactate | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | - |
| Water | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Cyclomethicone | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | - |
| Carbopol-940 | - | - | 0.50 | - | 1.0 | 0.25 | - | - | 0.50 | - | 0.50 |
| Lutrol F-127 | - | 0.10 | - | 0.20 | - | - | 0.05 | 0.10 | - | 0.10 | - |
| Ethanol:acetone:methylal(2:1:2) | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. | q.s. |
*Formulation F1 did not contain any film forming agent and was used as a reference. Formulation F2 and F3 were found to be optimized formulations. The effect of increased and decreased concentrations of film forming agents was revealed by formulations F4, F5, F6 and F7. The presence of cyclomethicone as a cosolvent did not affect the film formation from optimized MDTS formulations. Absence of penetration enhancers led to very less drug release as shown by formulations F10 and F11.
CHARACTERIZATION OF REFERENCE FORMULATION AND OPTIMIZED OXYBUTYNIN MDTS FORMULATIONS
| Parameter | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Less uniform films. | Better uniformity of films and more spherical spots. | Better uniformity of films and more spherical spots. | |
| 30 (±1.4) | 38 (±0.75) | 45 (±2.6) | |
| 80-85 s | 65-70 s | 65-70 s | |
| No leakage | No leakage | No leakage | |
| 5.3-5.5 | 6.0-6.5 | 5.0-5.5 | |
| 90 (±1.645) | 90 (±0.68) | 90 (±0.97) | |
| 104.06 (±1.721) | 105.01 (±0.13) | 102.78 (±1.153) | |
| 101.65 (±1.569) | 103.78 (±0.462) | 104.02 (±1.432) | |
Qualitative tests carried out for optimized MDTS formulations (n=3)
Quantitative tests carried out for MDTS formulations (n=6)
Reference formulation
Formulation containing Lutrol F-127 as the film former
Formulation containing Carbopol as the film former.
Fig. 1Effect of film formers on in vitro release profile of oxybutynin Permeation of drug from reference solution (F1, –◆–) and from MDTS formulations containing Carbopol (F3, –■–) and Lutrol F-127 (F2, –▲–) as the film formers, respectively. Each value is mean±SEM of (n=3). The formulations F2 and F3 showed significantly higher release (P≤0.05) of drug as compared to formulation F1
Fig. 2Permeation of oxybutynin from reference solution and from MDTS formulations
Rabbit ear skin was used as the diffusion membrane. Release profile from reference solution (–◆–) and from MDTS Formulations containing Carbopol (F3, –■–) and Lutrol F-127 (F2, –▲–). Each value is mean±SEM of (n=3).
PERMEATION PARAMETERS OF OXYBUTYNIN ACROSS RABBIT EAR SKIN
| Formulation | Flux (mg/cm2.h) | Intercept | R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.0095 | 0.0178 | 0.9655 | 0.2312 |
| F2 | 0.0264 | 0.1205 | 0.9608 | 0.6405 |
| F3 | 0.0244 | 0.0223 | 0.9494 | 0.5469 |
Amount of drug released per unit surface area after 24 h. Formulations F1 and F3 showed zero order kinetic model while formulation F2 showed root time kinetics with R2 value of 0.9608. [Formulations F2 and F3 (containing film formers and penetration enhancers) showed more flux and Q24 value for the drug as compared to Formulation F1].
STABILITY STUDIES DATA OF THE OPTIMIZED MDTS FORMULATIONS AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS, AFTER THREE MONTHS (N=3)
| Parameters evaluated | Stability temperature | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 8±2° | 25±2° | 37±2° | |
| Formulation F2 | |||
| Appearance | Clear yellowish | Clear yellowish | Clear yellowish |
| pH (±SD) | 6.2±0.05 | 6.3±0.001 | 6.2±0.02 |
| Spray pattern | Uniform and spherical | Uniform and spherical | Uniform and spherical |
| Leakage rate | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| Average weight per actuation (mg±SD) | 90.0±0.56 | 90.76±1.24 | 91.42±1.54 |
| Percent drug remaining (±SD) | 100.07±0.45 | 99.75±1.31 | 99.52±1.07 |
| Cumulative drug release (%±SEM) | 53.63±0.72 | 52.20±0.82 | 54.62±0.34 |
| Formulation F3 | |||
| Appearance | Clear yellowish | Clear yellowish | Clear yellowish |
| pH (±SD) | 5.0±0.008 | 5.3±0.02 | 5.0±0.05 |
| Spray pattern | Uniform and spherical | Uniform and spherical | Uniform and spherical |
| Leakage rate | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| Average weight per actuation (mg±SD) | 90.0±1.12 | 91.11±0.93 | 91.74±1.29 |
| Percent drug remaining (±SD) | 101.14±1.03 | 100.59±0.99 | 99.82±1.51 |
| Cumulative drug release (%±SEM) | 45.56±0.53 | 43.94±1.39 | 47.48±0.87 |