Author(s):
Sumaiya Khan, Nasiba Binte Bahar, Sumiya Sharmin Mou, Adeeba Jaheen Faruqui, Md. Elias Al-Mamun
Email(s):
elias_0276@du.ac.bd
DOI:
10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00038 
Address:
Sumaiya Khan1, Nasiba Binte Bahar2, Sumiya Sharmin Mou1,2, Adeeba Jaheen Faruqui1,2, Md. Elias Al-Mamun2*
1Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, 74/A Green Road, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh.
2Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 19,
Issue - 1,
Year - 2026
ABSTRACT:
The current study was performed to design and evaluate the mucoadhesive buccal tablets of omeprazole employing the direct compression technique to overcome its delayed release, circumvent the hepatic first-pass metabolism, lessen the frequency of dosing and dose-driven side effects associated with the conventional dosage forms with a view to ensuring improved oral bioavailability, optimal therapeutic outcome and better patient's convenience. Therefore, a total of nine formulations were developed with differing concentrations of carbopol 934P, HPMC K4M and xanthan gum as the mucoadhesive polymers. Croscarmellose sodium was utilized as super-disintegrant to improve the release profile of omeprazole. The prepared tablets were then assessed for in-vitro dissolution and drug release kinetic analysis, with several of pre-compression and post-compression quality control criteria. Among all the formulations, the F-1 formulation containing 30 grams of carbopol 934P demonstrated the highest release rate of 94% within 3 hours, showing the best fitting with the first order kinetic model with a R2 value of 0.986. Additionally, it exhibited the greatest mucoadhesive strength, with a satisfactory mucoadhesive force of 8.829 N. This indicated that the F-1 formulation was optimized for fast release and strong mucoadhesion, suggesting potential effectiveness in its intended application.
Cite this article:
Sumaiya Khan, Nasiba Binte Bahar, Sumiya Sharmin Mou, Adeeba Jaheen Faruqui, Md. Elias Al-Mamun. Formulation and In-vitro Evaluation of Directly Compressed Mucoadhesive Buccal Tablets Containing Omeprazole for the Treatment of Peptic Ulcer. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(1):269-7. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00038
Cite(Electronic):
Sumaiya Khan, Nasiba Binte Bahar, Sumiya Sharmin Mou, Adeeba Jaheen Faruqui, Md. Elias Al-Mamun. Formulation and In-vitro Evaluation of Directly Compressed Mucoadhesive Buccal Tablets Containing Omeprazole for the Treatment of Peptic Ulcer. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(1):269-7. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00038 Available on: https://www.rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2026-19-1-38
REFERENCES:
1. Nwozor CM. The Role of Helicobacter pylori in Peptic Ulcer Disease. Gastric Cancer. 2013; 50: 60. doi:10.15580/GJMS.2013.6.070513704
2. Tai FW, McAlindon ME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract. Clinical Medicine. 2021; 21(2): 131-4. doi:10.7861/clinmed.2021-0039
3. Shin JM, Sachs G. Pharmacology of proton pump inhibitors. Current Gastroenterology Reports. 2008; 10(6): 528-34. doi: 10.1007/s11894-008-0098-4
4. Yuan Y, Padol IT, Hunt RH. Peptic ulcer disease today. Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2006; 3(2): 80-9. doi: 10.1038/ncpgasthep0393
5. Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Nelis F, Dent J, Snel P, Mitchell B, Prichard P, Lloyd D, Havu N, Frame MH, Romàn J, Walan A. Long-term omeprazole treatment in resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease: efficacy, safety, and influence on gastric mucosa. Gastroenterology. 2000; 118(4): 661-9. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70135-1
6. Small DS, Farid NA, Payne CD, Weerakkody GJ, Li YG, Brandt JT, Salazar DE, Winters KJ. Effects of the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel and clopidogrel. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2008; 48(4): 475-84. doi: 10.1177/0091270008315310
7. Soujanya B, Priya GP, Murthy TE. Studies on Influence of Process and Formulation Variables on Performance of Omeprazole Pellets. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2015; 7(1): 21-9. doi: 10.5958/0975-4377.2015.00005.1
8. 8.Manasa V, Vanitha K, Venkataswamy M, Prabhakar P, Ramesh A. Formulation and Evaluation of Aqueous Enteric Coated Delayed Release Omeprazole Pellets. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2016; 8(1): 1-4. doi: 10.5958/0975-4377.2016.00002.1
9. Horn JR, Howden CW. Similarities and differences among delayed‐release proton‐pump inhibitor formulations. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2005; 22: 20-4. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02714.x
10. McQuaid KR. Drugs used in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. 14th ed. McGraw-Hill Education. 2018:1087-119.
11. Strand DS, Kim D, Peura DA. 25 years of proton pump inhibitors: a comprehensive review. Gut and Liver. 2016; 11(1): 27. doi: 10.5009/gnl15502
12. Salamat-Miller N, Chittchang M, Johnston TP. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2005; 57(11): 1666-91. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2005.07.003
13. Kumar U, Lal K, Patel N, Prakash J, Prakash J, Gurjar R, Gupta A, Prakash C, Agrawal M, Tripathi DK, Alexander A. Understanding the concept of mucoadhesive drug delivery system: a novel approach over conventional dosage forms. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2018; 10(2): 103-8. doi: 10.5958/0975-4377.2018.00016.2
14. Venkataswamy M, Arul B, Sagar AK, Mohan SD, Vanitha K, Alluri R. Preparation and Evaluation of a Mucoadhesive Polymer from the Extract of Seeds of Annona squamosa Linn. Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Science. 2017; 7(3): 149-56. doi: 10.5958/2231-5659.2017.00024.8
15. Aher SS, Sangale VD, Saudagar RB. Mucoadhesive Formulations for Buccal Mucosa. Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Science. 2016; 6(3): 146-52. doi: 10.5958/2231-5659.2016.00020.5
16. Kumar A, Saharan VA. A comparative study of different proportions of superdisintegrants: Formulation and evaluation of orally disintegrating tablets of salbutamol sulphate. Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017; 14(1): 40. doi: 10.4274/tjps.74946
17. Koirala S, Nepal P, Ghimire G, Basnet R, Rawat I, Dahal A, Pandey J, Parajuli-Baral K. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal tablets of aceclofenac. Heliyon. 2021; 7(3). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06439
18. Mamatha T, Zubair M, Nasreen NS, Ahmeduddin M. Formulation and Evaluation of Oro dispersible Tablets of Fosinopril Sodium. Dhaka University Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2015; 14(1): 11-6. doi: 10.3329/dujps.v14i1.23729
19. Shabaraya A, Aiswarya K, Azharuddin M. Formulation and Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Bi-layer Buccal Tablets of Labetalol Hydrochloride Using Natural Polymers. International Journal of Advances in Pharmacy, Biology And Chemistry (IJAPBC). 2012; Sep; 1: 2277-4688.
20. Li KL, Castillo AL. Formulation and evaluation of a mucoadhesive buccal tablet of mefenamic acid. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2020 Jun 21; 56: e18575. doi: 10.1590/s2175-97902019000418575
21. Pham EC, Van LV, Nguyen CV, Duong NT, Le Thi TV. Formulation development, optimization, in vivo antidiabetic effect and acute toxicity of directly compressible herbal tablets containing Merremia tridentata (L.) extract. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology. 2023 Jun 1; 84: 104445. doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2023.104445
22. 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 Journal of Pharmaceuticals and Biomaterials. 2024 Apr 6; 3(1): 3-18. doi: 10.5530/gjpb.2024.1.2
23. Lalwani PM, Barhate SD, Bari MM. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive tablet of ondansetron HCl. Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 8(3): 132-8. doi: 10.5958/2231-5713.2018.00021.1
24. Wagh PK, Ahirrao SP, Kshirsagar SJ. Novel mucoadhesive gastro retentive drug delivery system of ranitidine hydrochloride. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2019; 9(2): 80-6. doi: 10.5958/2231-5691.2019.00013.3
25. Dasari N, Vaddi H, Muvvala S. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal tablets of resperidone. Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 12(1): 13-9. doi: 10.52711/2231-5713.2022.00003
26. Lunkad SH, Sarode S. Formulation and Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Tablet of Valsartan. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2019; 9(4): 229-37. doi: 10.5958/2231-5691.2019.00037.6
27. Chiluka R, Maurya G, Jangla P, Suthar D, Raut R. Mucoadhesive buccal tablet formulation of azithromycin dihydrate for treatment of upper respiratory tract infection. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(3): 1033-9. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00160
28. Choi HG, Kim CK. Development of omeprazole buccal adhesive tablets with stability enhancement in human saliva. Journal of Controlled Release. 2000 Sep 3; 68(3): 397-404. doi: 10.1016/S0168-3659(00)00276-5
29. Nagaveni P, Sirisha S, Rao CA. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal tablets of anti-diabetic drug using 23 factorial design. Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 11(4): 261-6. doi: 10.52711/2231-5713.2021.00043
30. Choi HG, Jung JH, Yong CS, Rhee CD, Lee MK, Han JH, Park KM, Kim CK. Formulation and in vivo evaluation of omeprazole buccal adhesive tablet. Journal of Controlled Release. 2000 Sep 3; 68(3): 405-12. doi: 10.1016/s0168-3659(00)00275-3