PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of aapspharmspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
 
AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004 March; 5(1): 121.
Published online 2009 November 27. doi:  10.1208/pt050117
PMCID: PMC2784851

In vitro test to evaluate the interaction between synthetic cervical mucus and vaginal formulations

Abstract

The interaction and mixing between a bilayer sample of mucus and vaginal formulation was evaluated through viscosity measurements with respect to time and shear. Physical mixtures of mucus and vaginal formulation were used as controls. Three test protocols were designed: (1) constant shear, (2) intermittent shear, and (3) delayed shear. Several marketed vaginal products (Gynol II, KY Plus, KY, and Advantage-S) and experimental formulations (C31G with hydroxyethylcellulose [HEC]) were evaluated and compared by these tests. The results of the constant shear test showed that the shear stress profile of the bilayer approached that of the corresponding physical mixture, consistent with complete mixing of the bilayer under shear. The time taken for the bilayer to mix completely was in the following order: KY Plus > Gynol II and C31G > KY > Advantage-S. Under the intermittent shear protocol, the following order for complete mixing was observed: KY Plus > C31G > Gynol II > KY > Advantage-S. The 2 products evaluated by the delayed shear test, C31G and Gynol II, were both completely mixed at 180 minutes. The development of an in vitro test, when coupled with in vivo data, should serve in the screening and evaluation of future vaginal formulations.

Key words: formulations, vaginal, mucus, viscosity

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (360K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
1. Gandhi RB, Robinson JR. Bioadhesion in drug delivery. Indian J Pharm Sci. 1988;50:145–152.
2. Hassan EE, Gallo JM. A simple rheological method for the in vitro assessment of mucin-polymer bioadhesive bond strength. Pharm Res. 1990;7:491–495. doi: 10.1023/A:1015812615635. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Lee C-H, Chien YW. Development and evaluation of a mucoadhesive drug delivery system for dual-controlled delivery of nonoxynol-9. J Control Release. 2004;39:93–103. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(95)00142-5. [Cross Ref]
4. Robinson JR, Bologna WJ. Vaginal and reproductive system treatments using a bioadhesive polymer. J Control Release. 1994;28:87–94. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(94)90156-2. [Cross Ref]
5. Gene L, Oguzlar C, Guler E. Studies in vaginal bioadhesive tablets of acyclovir. Pharmazie. 2000;55:297–299. [PubMed]
6. Richardson JL, Whetstone J, Fisher AN, et al. Gamma-scintigraphy as a novel method to study the distribution and retention of a bioadhesive vaginal delivery system in sheep. J Control Release. 2004;42:133–142. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(96)01451-4. [Cross Ref]
7. Geraghty PB, Attwood D, Collett JH, Sharma H, Dandiker Y. An investigation of the parameters influencing the bioadhesive properties of Myverol 18-99/water gels. Biomaterials. 1997;18:63–67. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(96)00087-7. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Barnhart B, Pretorius ES, Stolpen A, Malamud D. Distribution of topical medication in the human vagina as imaged by magnetic resonance imaging. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:189–195. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01822-2. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Barnhart KT, Stolpen A, Pretorius ES, Malamud D. Distribution of a spermicide containing Nonoxynol-9 in the vaginal canal and the upper female reproductive tract. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1151–1154. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.6.1151. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
10. Peppas NA, Buri PA. Surface, Interfacial and Molecular Aspects of Bioadhesion on Soft Tissues. J Control Release. 1985;2:257–275. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(85)90050-1. [Cross Ref]
11. Caramella CM, Rossi S, Bonfemi MC. A rheological approach to explain the mucoadhesive behavior of polymer hydrogels. In: Mathiowitz E, Chickering DE, Lehr CM, editors. Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1999. pp. 1–10.
12. Riley RG, Smart JD, Tsibouklis J, Dettmar PW, Hampson F, Davis JA, Kelly G, Wilber WR. An investigation of mucus/polymer rheological synergism using synthesized and characterized poly(acrylic acid)s. Int J Pharm. 2001;217:87–100. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00592-0. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Madsen F, Eberth K, Smart JD. A rheological examination of the mucoadhesive/mucus interaction: the effect of mucoadhesive type and concentration. J Control Release. 1998;50:167–178. doi: 10.1016/S0168-3659(97)00138-7. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
14. Hägerström H, Paulsson M, Edsman K. Evaluation of mucoadhesion for two polyelectrolyte gels in simulated physiological conditions using rheological method. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;9:301–309. doi: 10.1016/S0928-0987(99)00070-6. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Bernkop-Schnürch A, Constantia EK, Richter MF. Improvement in the mucoadhesive properties of alginate by the covalent attachment of cysteine. J Control Release. 2001;71:277–285. doi: 10.1016/S0168-3659(01)00227-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
16. Rossi S, Ferrari F, Bonferni MC, Caramella C. Characterization of chitosan hydrochloride-mucin rheological interaction: influence of polymer concentration and polymerization weight ratio. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;12:479–485. doi: 10.1016/S0928-0987(00)00194-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
17. Burruano BT, Schnaare RL, Malamud D. Synthetic cervical mucus formulation. Contraception. 2002;66:137–140. doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00336-0. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Feddersen RL, Thorp SN. Sodium carboxymethylcellulose. In: Whistler RL, BeMiller J, editors. Industrial Gums—Polysaccharides and Their Derivatives. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1993. pp. 537–578.
19. Ch'ng HS, Park H, Kelly P, Robinson JR. Bioadhesive polymers as platforms for oral controlled drug delivery II. Synthesis and evaluation of some swelling, water insoluble bioadhesive polymers. J Pharm Sci. 1985;74:399–405. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600740407. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
20. Park H, Robinson JR. Mechanisms of mucoadhesion of poly(acrylic acid) hydrogels. Pharm Res. 1987;4:457–464. doi: 10.1023/A:1016467219657. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Park H, Robinson JR. Physico-chemical properties of water insoluble polymers important to mucin/epithelial adhesion. J Control Rel. 1985;2:47–57. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(85)90032-X. [Cross Ref]
22. Kibbe AH. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Pharmacists Association; 2000. pp. 87–90.
23. Rossi S, Bonferoni MC, Lippoli G, et al. Influence of mucin type on polymer-mucin rheological interactions. Biomaterials. 1995;16:1073–1079. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(95)98903-R. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Spence-Leung SH, Robinson JR. The contribution of anionic polymer structure to mucoadhesion. J Control Release. 1988;5:223–231. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(88)90021-1. [Cross Ref]
25. Voyutskii SS. Autohesion and Adhesion of High Polymers. New York, NY: Interscience; 1963.
26. Ponchel G, Touchard D, Duchéne D, Peppas NA. Bioadhesive analysis of controlled-release systems. I. Fracture and interpenetration analysis in poly(acrylic acid) containing systems. J Control Release. 1987;5:129–141. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(87)90004-6. [Cross Ref]
27. Mikos AG, Peppas NA. Bioadhesive analysis of controlled-release systems. IV. An experimental method for testing the adhesion of microparticles with mucus. J Control Release. 1990;12:31–37. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(90)90180-2. [Cross Ref]
28. Jabbari E, Wisinewski N, Peppas NA. Evidence of mucoadhesion by chain interpenetration at a poly(acrylic acid)/mucin interface using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. J Control Release. 1993;26:99–108. doi: 10.1016/0168-3659(93)90109-I. [Cross Ref]

Articles from AAPS PharmSciTech are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists