Submit Article Author Guidelines
Vol 13 Issue 3 (Fulltext)

Past Work Done on the Matrix Tablets: A Quick Reference for the Research Beginner in Sustained-release Dosage Forms

Updated:20 Mins Read
Hindustan Abdul Ahad1*, Haranath Chinthaginjala2, Bake Meharajunnisa2, Nayakam Vandana1, Renuka Gudisipalli1 and Peddapothula Nikhila1
Author informationArticle notesCopyright and License informationPDFCitations

1Department of Industrial Pharmacy, Raghavendra Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (RIPER)-Autonomous, INDIA

2Department of Pharmaceutics, Raghavendra Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (RIPER)-Autonomous, INDIA

Corresponding author.

Correspondence: Prof. Hindustan Abdul Ahad Department of Industrial Pharmacy, Raghavendra Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (RIPER)- Autonomous, K.R. Palli Cross- 515721, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. Email: [email protected]
Received January 28, 2023; Revised February 17, 2023; Accepted April 02, 2023.
Copyright ©2023 Author (s)
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Citation

1.Ahad HA, Chinthaginjala H, Meharajunnisa B, Vandana N, Gudisipalli R, Nikhila P. Past Work Done on the Matrix Tablets: A Quick Reference for the Research Beginner in Sustained-release Dosage Forms. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation [Internet]. 2023 Jul 8;13(3):367–72. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5530/ijpi.13.3.047
Copy to clipboard
Published in: International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation, 21 July 2023; 13(3): 367-372.Published online: 21 July 2023DOI: 10.5530/ijpi.13.3.047

ABSTRACT

Matrix tablets are also referred to as sustained-release, controlled-release, or prolonged-release extended-release tablets, which will prolong the duration of the release of drug content into the systemic circulation. This work was to collect matter about polymers so far tried in making matrix tablets. Due to the prolonged duration of release, this may increase the bioavailability of the drug. They are made with various polymers, starting with cellulose, its derivatives, and plant gums or mucins. This data was obtained by viewing to peer-reviewed journals and magazines. These tablets can be prepared by direct compression of a blended mixture containing polymers, blending agents, glidants, and other additives. The blend was made as granules and compressed as tablets. The matrix tablets are sustained drug release forms and show better action. The study revealed that the matrix tablet is a simple method for extending drug release for a prolonged period.

Keywords: Drug, Gums, Literature, Matrix, Mucilage, Release

INTRODUCTION

Dosage Forms (DF) are the drugs that deliver drug molecules to specific sites of action within the body. Oral DFs include pills, tablets, capsules, syrups, powders, buccal films; and so on.1 The classification of oral DFs is mainly based on the route and physical form of the drug molecule. Among the various DFs, oral DFs are the most convenient.2 It is the most straightforward method. It is the best option among the various DFs, and these are the most highly preferred DFs among all the DFs. Oral DFs have many advantages. These DFs have different mechanisms of action in their release.3 The oral systems are available as tablets, capsules, suspensions, emulsions, lozenges, pills, solutions, etc.

Merits of oral DFs

The virtues are as follows:4,5

  • Available in various DFs.
  • Drugs are readily available by prescription.
  • Economical.
  • The most natural and easiest drug-giving route.
  • Oral routes are less objectionable than parenteral routes.
  • require only minimal training for administration.
  • Safe.
  • Simple and convenient to use.
  • Suitable for patients of all ages.
  • Toxicity is lagged owing to their delayed onset in their effect.
  • Various DFs are available.

Shortcomings of oral DFs

The main pitfalls include:6

  • Dosages are mostly arbitrary, and titration to the clinical endpoint is impossible.
  • In some cases, these medications cause gastric irritations and infections, and sometimes they may lead to a gastric ulcer.
  • Late onset of action because it takes time for complete absorption.
  • Not a better choice for children and infants.
  • Not suitable for emergencies or for patients who are unconscious.
  • Not suitable for patients who are suffering from malabsorption.
  • Not suitable for patients who suffer from chronic disorders.
  • Patient non-compliance.
  • The duration of action may extend into the post-treatment period.
  • The level of sedation cannot be altered.

These drugs are not suitable for patients who are suffering from gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhoea, gastric ulcers, constipation, hyperacidity, constipation, etc.

In these oral DFs in drug is unvaryingly blended in the inert solvent. Matrix polymers are mainly available as swellable hydrophilic polymers and non-swellable hydrophobic polymers. In hydrophilic polymer matrices, the drug molecule will be dispersed in the hydrophilic solvents, and then it hydrates into the gel layer over the tablet surface. This gel layer serves as a barrier against drug diffusion and stops excessive water from entering the tablet; more hydration may result in a thicker layer; balance is achieved by swapping out the inner core of the tablet with the dissolved outside thick gel layer. Non-ionic soluble ethers [HPMC K4M, K15M, HEC]. Water-soluble natural gums [xanthan gum, locust bean gum, and Karya gum]. The drug molecule will be dissolved in hydrophobic solvents in hydrophobic polymer matrices. Examples of hydrophobic polymers are waxes, fatty acids/esters/alcohols, glycerides, etc. The extended discharge of drug is owing to the network passages between the drug and polymer.

USES OF MATRIX TABLETS

Amebiasis

Entamoeba histolytica causes amoebic diseases, which are parasite illnesses that mostly affect the intestine and liver. Matrix Tablets (MT) are used to treat these conditions.Matrix tablets are used in the handling of amoebic disorders, which are parasitic infections that majorly affect the intestine and liver and are caused by Entamoeba histolytica.

Bacterial vaginosis

MT are used to prevent the growth of bacteria in the vagina, which is primarily impacted by Lactobacillus species. Matrix tablets are used to inhibit bacterial growth in the vagina, which is mainly affected by species of Lactobacillus.

Prostatitis

Prostatitis, or bacterially-induced swelling of the prostate gland, is treated with MT. Matrix tablets are used in the handling of prostatitis, which means swelling of the prostate gland hindered by bacteria like Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas, and Enterococci.

Trichomoniasis

Trichomonas vaginalis-related sexually transmitted diseases are treated with MT. Matrix tablets are used in the dealing of sexually transmitted disorders caused by Trichomonas vaginalis.

Urinary Tract Infections

MT are mostly used to treat bacteria such E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Enterococci, and K. pneumoniae that cause cystitis. Matrix tablets are mainly used to treat bacteria that cause urinary tract infections like cystitis caused by E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococci, and Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Side effects

  • A missed dose or an overdose may cause some problems.
  • Drug resistance.
  • Impaired liver functions.
  • Toxicity of neurons (convulsions, meningitis, peripheral neuropathy).
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid this product.
  • It can sometimes cause a drop in blood cell count (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, bone marrow aplasia).
  • Tendinitis and tendon rupture.

EVALUATION OF MATRIX TABLETS

Some evaluation methods-friability test, uniformity of weight, and hardness test should be performed for the evaluation of tablets according to British pharmacopoeia. By using vernier callipers dimensional tests are performed on tablets. The formulation blend was studied for flow properties before they were compressed into tablets.7,8

FLOW PROPERTIES

Angle of Repose (AR)

The force inherent in loose powder can be determined using the AR. It is clarified as the largest possible angle between the surface of the granule pile and the horizontal plane. More powder will slide down the pile’s sides if more is added, doing so until the surface angle created by the gravitational force and particle friction is equal. The AR was calculated using Newman’s funnel method. A funnel was used to pour the mixture through, and it could be raised vertically to raise the cone to its highest point (h). The AR was determined using the following formula after measuring the heap’s radius (r) (e.q.1).

Where, θ = AR; h = Height of the cone; r = Radius of the cone base.

Bulk Density

It is described as “weight per unit volume.” Pb is calculated by dividing the mass of the particle by the bulk volume. The key elements that affect a powder’s bulk density are the spreading of particle sizes, the form of the particles, and their propensity to adhere to one another. There are two types of bulk densities. The arrangement of the particles results in a light powder with a low bulk density because there are large voids between the surfaces of the particles. Because the smaller particles in this situation slip between the large particles, the result is a heavy powder with a high bulk density. The bulk density has a significant impact on the size of containers needed for the handling, delivery, and storage of raw materials and mixtures. It is also necessary for size blending machines. The mixture’s apparent bulk density was calculated after being poured into a graduated cylinder (Pb). Calculations were made for the bulk volume (Vb) and powder weight (M) (e.q.2).

Where, Pb= Bulk Density; M = Weight of sample in gm; Vb= Final volume of blend in cm3.

Tapped Density

It is the proportion of the powder’s overall mass to its tapped volume. The powder was tapped 500 times to determine the volume. The tapping was repeated and the volume of each tap was recorded (e.q.3).

Where, Pt= Tapped Density; M= Weight of the sample in gm; Vt= Tapped volume of blend in cm3.

Compressibility Index (CI) and Hausner’s Ratio (HR)

The CI and HR are the simple, rapid, and effective methods for estimating powder flow assets. The CI has been proposed as an indirect measure of bulk density of materials because all of these variables may affect the measured CI. To determine the CI and HR, the bulk volume and tapped volume of a powder are measured.

The fundamental procedure is measuring the powder’s unsettled apparent volume (V0) and final tapped volume (Vf) after tapping the substance until no more volume changes occur. The process for calculating the CI and HR varies in some ways. As seen below, the HR and CI are calculated (e.q. 4 and 5).

EVALUATION OF TABLETS

The manufactured MT’s overall appeal, thickness, hardness, weight fluctuation, friability, and medication amount were evaluated.

General Appeal

The prepared tablets were spherical, white, and of a rounded shape. They had no chips or cracks and were uniformly smooth.

Hardness test

Affords necessary to break a tablet is known as hardness (diameter-based crushing strength). A tablet’s strength can be determined by its hardness. The tablet must maintain its stability while being handled and transported mechanically. The level of hardness varies depending on the different tablet types and manufacturers. Hardness can be more than 4kg/cm2. A Monsanto tester was used to gauge the hardness.

Uniformity of weight

Periodically reviewing this vital in-process quality control test is required (every half an hour). During compression, the tablets underwent adjustments. Any variation in the weight of the tablet causes under medication or overmedication. Therefore, each batch of tablets should weigh the same amount. The 20 tablets were all individually weighed. The average weight was determined using the combined weight of all pills. The average weight and the individual weights were compared. The % difference between the weight variations should be within the permissible range (7.5%). (e.q.6).

Friability test

Friability is the term used to describe the weight loss of the tablet inside the container or package as a result of the disposal of microscopic particles from the surface. This in-process quality control test is done to confirm that tablets can resists shocks throughout production, handling, transit, and shipment. A Roche friability test was used to gauge the tablets’ level of friability. It was rotating at a speed of 25 rpm. Five pills that had each been individually weighed were placed inside the friabilator’s chamber. The tablets were subjected to rolling inside the friabilator’s chamber where they fell freely. Later on of 4 min, the tablets were taken and the entire batch of intact tablets was weighed once more (e.q.7).

Where, W1 = weight of the tablets before test; W2 = weight of the tablets after test.

Plant gums that were tried for making matrix tablets were summarized in Table 1.

Drug Polymer References
Albendazole Guar Gum (GG), Xanthan Gum (XG), and dextrin gum Kohri et al., 1999.9
Flubiprofen Hydroxy Propyl Methyl Cellulose (HPMC) Park et al., 1999.10
Nifedipine GG and XG Yan et al., 2000.11
Ambroxol HCl XG Heinanen et al., 2001.12
Ibuprofen HPMC Paradkar et al., 2003.13
Diltiazem HCl Methacrylic acid, Ethyl Cellulose (EC) Shimpi et al., 2004.14
Glipizide Olibanum gum and HPMC Patel et al., 2005.15
Amoxicillin HPMC and GG Patel et al., 2007.16
Nimodipine HPMC Kale et al., 2008.17
Propranolol HCl XG, Karaya Gum (KG) Hu et al., 2009.18
Ciprofloxacin Sida acuta gum, kondagogu gum and chitosan Nithiyananthan et al., 2009.19
Aceclofenac Prunus americana gum Shah et al., 2010.20
Tramadol HCl Gum copal and gum dammar Deore et al., 2010.21
Aceclofenac XG Katteboina et al., 2010.22
Indomethacin KG and Terminalia elliptica gum Mokarram et al., 2010.23
Ropinirole GG Stocchi et al., 2011.24
Repaglinide Carrageen gum and bhara gum Prajapati et al., 2011.25
Flutamide Glucires gum and badam gum Jyothi et al., 2011.26
Metformin Irvingia gabonensis gum Garud et al., 2012.27
Biguanide Grewia mollis gum Dilamian et al., 2013.28
Ketotifen fumarate HPMC and XG Prasad et al., 2013.29
Quetiapine fumarate GG and tara gum Naral et al., 2013.30
Diclofenac sodium Tamarind gum Hundekar et al., 2014.31
Fluvastatin Neem gum El-Helw et al.,2015.32
valsarton GG and XG Zhao et al., 2015.33
Labetalol HCl Polyox, EC, and sodium alginate Kumar et al., 2016.34
Felodipine XG, pectin, and cashew gum Jing et al., 2016.35
Licozinat Glycine, L-D methionine Otgonsuren et al., 2018.36
Eplerenone Aloe vera, GG, and Povidone-k Ozdemir et al., 2018.37
Ivabradine HPMC K-100, GG, and XG Sharma et al., 2019.38
Glibenclamide Locust bean gum and KG Chellappan et al., 2019.39
Lamivudine GG, XG, and pectin Ozturk et al., 2019.40
Losartan K XG and GG Harshitha et al., 201941
Azathioprine Wheat gluten and dextrin Aziz et al., 2019.42
Dextrome- thorphan HCl HPMC and carbopol Mohamed et al., 2020.43
Ambroxol HCl XG and pectin Hu et al., 2020.44
Furosemide Poly ethylene oxide Vlachou et al., 2020.45
Metoprolol succinate Polyethene glycol Shinde et al., 2021.46
Ciclopirox olamine GG Mahajan et al.,2021.47
Aceclofenac HPMC and GG Singh et al., 2021.48
Amoxicillin clavulanate HPMC and GG Mancabelli et al., 2021.49
Biguanide GMG Tang et al., 2021.50
Ketotifen fumarate HPMC Salman et al., 2021.51
Glibenclamide LBG and GG Arrua et al., 2021.52
Ciprofloxacin Chitosan and KG Hosseini et al., 2021.53
Table 1:

Plant gums/mucilage for making MT.

CONCLUSION

Matrix tablets have many advantages that make them interesting to use as an oral DF. Matrix tablets help increase the efficacy of the dose and patient compliance. The problem of high production costs, which was a disadvantage in the early days, has been solved with improvements in technology. These tablets improve safety and efficacy when used as an oral sustained-release formulation, but they should not be used for more effective therapies.

References

  1. Hindustan AA, Babu UA, Nagesh K, Kiran DS, Madhavi KB. Fabrication of glimepiride leaves mucilage and polyvinyl pyrrolidone sustained release matrix tablets: evaluation. Kathmandu Univ J Sci Eng Technol. 2012;8(1):63-72. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chinthaginjala H, Abdul H, Reddy APG, Kodi K, Manchikanti SP, Pasam D., et al. Nanosuspension as promising and potential drug delivery: a review. Int J Life Sci Pharm Res.. 2020;11(1):59-66. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hindustan AA, Chitta Suresh K, Kishore Kumar Reddy B, Suma Padmaja B, Chandra Sekhar A. Formulation and evaluation of mucilage sustained release matrix tablets of gliclazide. 2011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahad HA, Kumar CS, Kumar BA, Reddy B, Shekar A, Ravindra B, et al. Development and evaluation of glibenclamide Miller leaves mucilage controlled release matrix tablets. Int J PharmTech Res.. 2010;2(2):1018-21. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chinthaginjala H, Telkar MB, Hindustan AA, Bhupalam P. Formulation development and optimization of famotidine mucoadhesive tablets by central composite design. Indian J Pharm Educ Res. 2022;56(4):1044-51. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  6. Annepogu H, Ahad HA, Nayakanti D. Determining the best poloxamer carrier for thiocolchicoside solid dispersions. Turk J Pharm Sci. 2020;17(4):372-80. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  7. Ahad H, Bindu V, Padmaja B, Sreeramulu J, Ramyasree P, Sravanthi M., et al. Isolation and physicochemical characterization of fruit mucilage. Int J Green Pharm. 2011;5(2) [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  8. Kousar S, Abdul Ahad HA, Chinthaginjala H, Babafakruddin P, Lakunde J, Tarun K., et al. Gas generating floating tablets: A quick literature review for the scholars. Asian J Res Chem.. 2022;15:171-5. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  9. Kohri N, Yamayoshi Y, Xin HE, Iseki KE, Sato N, Todo S, et al. Improving the oral bioavailability of albendazole in rabbits by the solid dispersion technique. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1999;51(2):159-64. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  10. Park KM, Kim CK. Preparation and evaluation of flurbiprofen-loaded microemulsion for parenteral delivery. Int J Pharm.. 1999;181(2):173-9. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  11. Yan G, Li H, Zhang R, Ding D. Preparation and evaluation of a sustained-release formulation of nifedipine HPMC tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2000;26(6):681-6. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  12. Heinänen M, Barbas C. Validation of an HPLC method for the quantification of ambroxol hydrochloride and benzoic acid in syrup as pharmaceutical form stress test for stability evaluation. J Pharm Biomed Anal.. 2001;24(5-6):1005-10. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  13. Paradkar AR, Maheshwari M, Ketkar AR, Chauhan B.. Preparation and evaluation of ibuprofen beads by melt solidification technique. Int J Pharm.. 2003;255(1-2):33-42. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  14. Shimpi S, Chauhan B, Mahadik KR, Paradkar A.. Preparation and evaluation of diltiazem hydrochloride-Gelucire 43/01 floating granules prepared by melt granulation. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004;5(3):e43 [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  15. Patel JK, Patel RP, Amin AF, Patel MM. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive glipizide microspheres. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2005;6(1):E49-55. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  16. Patel JK, Patel MM. Stomach specific anti-helicobacter pylori therapy: preparation and evaluation of amoxicillin-loaded chitosan mucoadhesive microspheres. Curr Drug Deliv. 2007;4(1):41-50. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  17. Kale AA, Patravale VB. Design and evaluation of Self-Emulsifying Drug Delivery Systems (SEDDS) of nimodipine. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2008;9(1):191-6. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  18. Hu X, Pan J, Hu Y, Li G.. Preparation and evaluation of propranolol molecularly imprinted solid-phase microextraction fiber for trace analysis of β-blockers in urine and plasma samples. J Chromatogr A.. 2009;1216(2):190-7. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  19. Nithiyananthan TS, Shankarnath V, Rajashekar KK, Jyothikrishna K.. Preparation and evaluation of ciprofloxacin ocuserts. J Pharm Res. 2009;2(9):1496-9. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  20. Shah RR, Magdum CS, Patil SS, Niakwade NS. Preparation and evaluation of aceclofenac topical microemulsion. Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research: IJPR. 2010;9(1):5-11. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  21. Deore R, Kavitha K, Tamizhmani T. Preparation and evaluation of sustained release matrix tablets of tramadol hydrochloride using glyceryl palmitostearate. Trop J Pharm Res. 2010;9(3) [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  22. Katteboina S.. Aceclofenac Extended Release Matrix Tablets: Formulation and Evaluation. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2010;3(1):206-9. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  23. Mokarram AR. Preparation and evaluation of indomethacin nanoparticles. DARU J Pharm Sci.. 2010;18(3):185-92. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  24. Stocchi F, Giorgi L, Hunter B, Schapira AH. Prepared: comparison of prolonged and immediate release ropinirole in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2011;26(7):1259-65. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  25. Prajapati ST, Patel CG, Patel CN. Formulation and evaluation of transdermal patch of repaglinide. ISRN Pharm.. 2011;2011:651909 [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  26. Jeevana JB, Sreelakshmi K.. Design and evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system of flutamide. J Young Pharm. 2011;3(1):4-8. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  27. Garud N, Garud A. Preparation and evaluation of metformin microspheres using nonaqueous solvent evaporation technique. Trop J Pharm Res. 2012;11(4):577-83. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  28. Dilamian M, Montazer M, Masoumi J.. Antimicrobial electrospun membranes of chitosan/poly (ethylene oxide) incorporating poly (hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;94(1):364-71. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  29. Prasad SR, Elango K, Damayanthi D, Saranya JS. Formulation and evaluation of azathioprine loaded silver nanopartilces for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. AJBPS. 2013;3(23):28-32. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  30. Narala A, Veerabrahma K. Preparation, characterization and evaluation of quetiapine fumarate solid lipid nanoparticles to improve the oral bioavailability. J Pharm (Cairo). 2013;2013:265741 [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  31. Hundekar YR, Saboji JK, Patil SM, Nanjwade BK. Preparation and evaluation of diclofenac sodium cubosomes for percutaneous administration. World J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2014;3(1):523-39. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  32. El-Helw AR, Fahmy UA. Improvement of fluvastatin bioavailability by loading on nanostructured lipid carriers. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:5797-804. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhao K, Yuan Y, Wang H, Li P, Bao Z, Li Y., et al. Preparation and evaluation of valsartan by a novel semi-solid self-microemulsifying delivery system using Gelucire 44/14. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2016;42(10):1545-52. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  34. Rebecca Kumar R, Swamy VN. Formulation and evaluation of mouth dissolving tablets of labetalol HCl by sublimation method. Asian J Pharm Technol.. 2016;6(2):70-80. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  35. Jing B, Wang Z, Yang R, Zheng X, Zhao J, Tang S, et al. Enhanced oral bioavailability of felodipine by novel solid self-microemulsifying tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2016;42(3):506-12. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  36. Otgonsuren D, Davaasuren TS, Enkhtuul B, Davaadagva D, Jambaninj D.. Formulation and evaluation of Licozinat matrix tablet. J Dev Drugs. 2018;7(190):2 [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  37. Özdemir S, Çelik B, Sümer E, Acar ET, Üner M. Eplerenone nanoemulsions for treatment of hypertension. Part II: Physical stability assessment and study. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol.. 2018;45:287-95. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  38. Sharma V, Dewangan HK, Maurya L, Vats K, Verma H, Singh S., et al. Rational design and estimation of ivabradine hydrochloride loaded nanoparticles for management of stable angina. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2019;54:101337 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  39. Chellappan DK, Yee NJ, Kaur Ambar Jeet Singh BJ, Panneerselvam J, Madheswaran T, Chellian J, et al. Formulation and characterization of glibenclamide and quercetin-loaded chitosan nanogels targeting skin permeation. Ther Deliv. 2019;10(5):281-93. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  40. Öztürk AA, Kırımlıoğlu GY. Preparation and of characterization lamivudine loaded nanoparticles prepared by acid or ester terminated PLGA for effective oral antiretroviral therapy. J Res Pharm. 2019;23(5):897-913. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  41. Harshitha PS, Sahoo BM, Malini N, Kumar YT. Formulation and evaluation of losartan potassium as bilayered buccal tablets. J Pharm Adv Res. 2019;2(1):458-63. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  42. Aziz S, Hosseinzadeh L, Arkan E, Azandaryani AH. Preparation of electrospun snanofibers based on wheat gluten containing azathioprine for biomedical application. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater. 2019;68(11):639-46. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  43. Mohamed D, Hegazy MA, El-Sayed GM, Youssef SH. Greenness evaluation of different chromatographic approaches for the determination of dextromethorphan, phenylephrine and brompheniramine in their pharmaceutical formulation. Microchem J.. 2020;157:104893 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  44. Hu M, Zhu Z, Wu Y, Meng Q, Luo J, Wang H., et al. Exploring the potential of hydrophilic matrix combined with insoluble film coating: preparation and evaluation of ambroxol hydrochloride extended release tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech.. 2020;21(3):93 [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  45. Vlachou M, Geraniou E, Siamidi A.. Modified release of furosemide from Eudragits® and poly (ethylene oxide)-based matrices and dry-coated tablets. Acta Pharm. 2020;70(1):49-61. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  46. Shinde MB, Shinde GV, Patel RS, Dharmasi AT. Computational predictability of polyethylene glycol encapsulated modified release multiple unit pellets formulation of metoprolol succinate using different multivariate models. Mater Technol. 2021:1-6. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  47. Mahajan SS, RY Chaudhari C, VR Patil P. Formulation and evaluation of topical proniosomal gel of ciclopirox for antifungal therapy. Int J Pharm Investig. 2021;11(1):56-62. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  48. Singh P, Shrivastava AK, Kumar S, Dwivedi MD. Formulation and evaluation of sustained release matrix tablets of aceclofenac. Borneo J Pharm. 2021;4(2):99-109. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  49. Mancabelli L, Mancino W, Lugli GA, Argentini C, Longhi G, Milani C, et al. Evaluation of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid resistance in the Bifidobacterium genus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  50. Tang G, Tian Y, Niu J, Tang J, Yang J, Gao Y, et al. Development of carrier-free self-assembled nanoparticles based on fenhexamid and polyhexamethylene biguanide for sustainable plant disease management. Green Chem.. 2021;23(6):2531-40. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  51. Salman ZD. Optimization and evaluation of orodispersible solid dispersion tablet of ketotifen fumarate. Res J Pharm Technol.. 2021;14(7):3610-6. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  52. Arrua EC, Hartwig O, Ho DK, Loretz B, Murgia X, Salomon CJ, et al. Surfactant-free glibenclamide nanoparticles: formulation, characterization and evaluation of interactions with biological barriers. Pharm Res.. 2021;38(6):1081-92. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  53. Hosseini-Ashtiani N, Tadjarodi A, Zare-Dorabei R.. Low molecular weight chitosan-cyanocobalamin nanoparticles for controlled delivery of ciprofloxacin: preparation and evaluation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;176:459-67. [PubMed] | [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Related Posts