Influence of Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose E6–Carbopol 934P Composition on Drug Release and Buccal Mucoadhesion Time of Ondansetron Hydrochloride Tablets

Authors

  • Abdullah H. Al-Gamli University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Abdullah H. Maad University of Al-Ameed image/svg+xml
  • Mohammed Al-Herwi University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Rauwfa Al-Shaya University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Mayar Almasory University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Essra Almulaiki University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Funoon A. Ayash University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Rowida S. Ayash University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml
  • Nada A. Mogalli University of Science and Technology, Sana’a image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59222/ustjms.4.13

Keywords:

Ondansetron, Buccal tablets, Mucoadhesion, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose E6, Carbopol

Abstract

Background: Ondansetron hydrochloride is a selective antagonist of serotonin receptor used to manage nausea and vomit-ing, but oral administration is limited by first-pass metabolism and may be unreliable during active vomiting. Buccal delivery may overcome these limitations. This study aimed to develop and evaluate ondansetron hydrochloride mucoadhesive buccal tablets with various concentrations of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose E6 (HPMC E6) and Carbopol 934P.

Methods: Seven ondansetron hydrochloride mucoadhesive buccal tablet formulations (F1–F7) were prepared by direct com-pression using various concentrations of HPMC E6 and Carbopol 934P. Powder flow and compressibility were evaluated using the fixed-funnel, bulk-density, and tapped-density methods. Tablet weight, hardness, friability, and thickness were assessed using standard procedures, and drug content was quantified by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography. Drug release, swelling, and in vivo mucoadhesion duration on the human buccal mucosa were also determined.

Results: All powder blends exhibited micromeritic properties compatible with direct compression. The tablets had mean weights of 148.0–152.3 mg, hardness values of 13.32–15.80 kgf, and friability values below 1%. Drug content ranged from 88.63 ± 0.36% to 94.77 ± 0.18%; six formulations met the prespecified 90%–110% assay range, whereas F4 was below the lower limit. Drug release at 2 h ranged from 36.2 ± 3.7% to 96.4 ± 2.8%, while mucoadhesion duration ranged from 80 ± 3.0 to 264 ± 4.0 min. Swell-ing varied among the formulations, with negative values in several formulations indicating that matrix erosion or material loss exceeded water uptake. F2 demonstrated a balanced profile, with 92.7 ± 0.6% drug release at 2 h, a mucoadhesion duration of 198 ± 2.0 min, and positive mean swelling indices at both measurement times.

Conclusion: HPMC E6 and Carbopol 934P show the potential to enhance the mucoadhesion and drug-release properties of ondansetron hydrochloride buccal tablets. It offers a promising candidate for further evaluation, but additional studies are needed on the release kinetics, permeability, stability, safety, and bioavailability studies are required.

Author Biographies

  • Abdullah H. Al-Gamli, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Sana’a, Yemen

  • Abdullah H. Maad, University of Al-Ameed

    Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Al-Ameed, Karbala, Iraq

  • Mohammed Al-Herwi, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Rauwfa Al-Shaya, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Mayar Almasory, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Essra Almulaiki, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Funoon A. Ayash, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Rowida S. Ayash, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

  • Nada A. Mogalli, University of Science and Technology, Sana’a

    Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Science and Technology (USTY), Ibb, Yemen

References

1. Heckroth M, Luckett RT, Moser C, Parajuli D, Abell TL. Nausea and vomiting in 2021: a comprehensive update. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;55(4):279-99. https://doi.org/10.1097/mcg.0000000000001485

2. Navari RM. Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. In: De Mello RA, Mountzios G, Tavares AA, editors. International Manual of Oncology Practice: iMOP: Principles of Oncology. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 1007-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16245-0

3. Jin Z, Gan TJ, Bergese SD. Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): a review of current recommendations and emerging therapies. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2020;16:1305-17. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s256234

4. Christofaki M, Papaioannou A. Ondansetron: a review of pharmacokinetics and clinical experience in postoperative nausea and vomiting. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2014;10(3):437-44. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2014.882317

5. Simpson KH, Hicks FM. Clinical pharmacokinetics of ondansetron. A review. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1996;48(8):774-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1996.tb03973.x

6. Smart JD. Buccal drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2005;2(3):507-17. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2.3.507

7. Solanki VR, Parmar VK. Recent advances in development of buccal formulations: from small to macromolecules. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2025;26(5):156. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-025-03154-z

8. Dhaifallah HSM. Review on buccal drug delivery systems. Int J Multidiscip Res. 2024;6(6):1-11. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.34042

9. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;71(3):505-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.09.028

10. Parmar HK, Pandya KK, Pardasani LJ, Panchal VS, Tandel T. A systematic review on mucoadhesive drug delivery system. World J Pharm Res. 2017;6(9):337-66. https://doi.org/10.20959/wjpr20179-9281

11. Sabra R, Kirby D, Chouk V, Malgorzata K, Mohammed AR. Buccal absorption of biopharmaceutics classification system III drugs: formulation approaches and mechanistic insights. Pharmaceutics. 2024;16(12):1563. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16121563

12. Sharma M, Rathore A, Sharma S, Sadhu V, Reddy KR, Kulkarni RV. Recent progress in mucoadhesive polymers for buccal drug delivery applications. In: Kanchi S, Sharma D, editors. Nanomaterials in Diagnostic Tools and Devices. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020. p. 213-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817923-9.00008-0

13. Aulton ME, Taylor KMG, editors. Aulton's pharmaceutics: the design and manufacture of medicines. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2013.

14. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. United States pharmacopeia 43–National formulary 38 (USP 43–NF 38). Rockville (MD): United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2020.

15. Hassan N, Khar RK, Ali M, Ali J. Development and evaluation of buccal bioadhesive tablet of an anti-emetic agent ondansetron. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2009;10(4):1085-92. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-009-9304-4

16. Al-Ani E, Hill D, Doudin K. Chlorhexidine mucoadhesive buccal tablets: the impact of formulation design on drug delivery and release kinetics using conventional and novel dissolution methods. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14(6):493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14060493

17. Fr S, Mullani AK, Patel TVA, Koushik Ms A, Chethan S, Alshehri S, et al. Development and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films for sustained release of glipizide using natural proteins. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2025;51(8):930-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03639045.2025.2518500

18. Rowe RC, Sheskey PJ, Quinn ME, editors. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. 6th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2009.

19. Shah RB, Tawakkul MA, Khan MA. Comparative evaluation of flow for pharmaceutical powders and granules. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(1):250-8. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-008-9046-8

20. De Robertis S, Bonferoni MC, Elviri L, Sandri G, Caramella C, Bettini R. Advances in oral controlled drug delivery: the role of drug-polymer and interpolymer non-covalent interactions. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12(3):441-53. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2015.966685

21. Hirun N, Kraisit P. Drug-polymers composite matrix tablets: effect of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) K-series on porosity, compatibility, and release behavior of the tablet containing a BCS class I drug. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(16):3406. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14163406

22. Colombo P, Bettini R, Santi P, De Ascentiis A, Peppas NA. Analysis of the swelling and release mechanisms from drug delivery systems with emphasis on drug solubility and water transport. J Control Release. 1996;39(2-3):231-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-3659(95)00158-1

23. Çelik B. Risperidone mucoadhesive buccal tablets: formulation design, optimization and evaluation. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017;11:3355-65. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.s150774

24. Ambarish S, Shirsand S, Anandkumar Y, Shirsand S. To study the effect of HPMC and Carbopol in mucoadhesive buccal tablets of meclizine hydrochloride using central composite design: in-vitro characterization. German J Pharm Biomaterials. 2024;3(1):3-18. https://doi.org/10.5530/gjpb.2024.1.2

25. Dash S, Murthy PN, Nath L, Chowdhury P. Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlled drug delivery systems. Acta Pol Pharm. 2010;67(3):217-23.

26. Sousa AS, Serra J, Estevens C, Costa R, Ribeiro AJ. Unveiling swelling and erosion dynamics: early development screening of mirabegron extended release tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2024;25(8):277. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-024-02994-5

27. Pan P, Svirskis D, Waterhouse GI, Wu Z. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose bioadhesive hydrogels for topical application and sustained drug release: the effect of polyvinylpyrrolidone on the physicomechanical properties of hydrogel. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(9):2360. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15092360

28. Alawdi S, Solanki AB. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems: a review of recent developments. J Sci Res Med Biol Sci. 2021;2(1):50-64. https://doi.org/10.47631/jsrmbs.v2i1.213

29. George A, Limbachiya V, Shrivastav PS. Current status and role of carbopols in oral, nasal, transdermal, topical and ophthalmic drug delivery systems. Next Mater. 2025;9:100848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxmate.2025.100848

30. Agarwal S, Murthy RSR. Effect of different polymer concentration on drug release rate and physicochemical properties of mucoadhesive gastroretentive tablets. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2015;77(6):705-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/0250-474x.174993

31. Stasiak P, Placzek M, Lepek P, Sznitowska M. Influence of polymer type, active substance, and experimental model on mucoadhesive properties of selected drug formulations. J Dispers Sci Technol. 2011;32(12):1780-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2011.616175

32. Eouani C, Piccerelle P, Prinderre P, Bourret E, Joachim J. In-vitro comparative study of buccal mucoadhesive performance of different polymeric films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;52(1):45-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0939-6411(01)00146-1

Downloads

Published

2026-10-02

Issue

Vol. 4 (2026)

Section

Articles