4.4 Article

Comparative Study Between Different Ready-Made Orally Disintegrating Platforms for the Formulation of Sumatriptan Succinate Sublingual Tablets

期刊

AAPS PHARMSCITECH
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 410-423

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-016-0517-z

关键词

co-processed platforms; mucoadhesive polymer; simulated wetting time test; sublingual tablet; sumatriptan succinate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sumatriptan succinate (SS) is a selective serotonin receptor agonist used for the treatment of migraine attacks, suffering from extensive first-pass metabolism and low oral bioavailability (similar to 14%). The aim of this work is to compare the performance of different ready-made co-processed platforms (Pharmaburst (R), Prosolv ODT (R), Starlac (R), Pearlitol Flash (R), or Ludiflash (R)) in the formulation of SS sublingual orodispersible tablets (ODTs) using direct compression technique. The prepared SS ODT formulae were evaluated regarding hardness, friability, simulated wetting time, and in vitro disintegration and dissolution tests. Different mucoadhesive polymers-HPMC K4M, Carbopol (R), chitosan, or Polyox (R)-were tested aiming to increase the residence time in the sublingual area. A pharmacokinetic study on healthy human volunteers was performed, using LC/MS/MS assay, to compare the optimum sublingual formula (Ph25/HPMC) with the conventional oral tablet Imitrex (R). Results showed that tablets prepared using Pharmaburst (R) had significantly (p < 0.05) the lowest simulated wetting and in vitro disintegration times of 17.17 and 23.50 s, respectively, with Q(5) (min) of 83.62%. HPMC showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the residence time from 48.44 to 183.76 s. The relative bioavailability was found to be equal to 132.34% relative to the oral tablet Imitrex (R). In conclusion, Pharmaburst (R) was chosen as the optimum ready-made co-processed platform that can be successfully used in the preparation of SS sublingual tablets for the rapid relief of migraine attacks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据