FORMULATION AND IN VITRO EVALUATION OF PIROXICAM CONVENTIONAL AND HOLLOW SUPPOSITORIES
Objective: The objective of this study was to develop higher and rapid release of piroxicam from suppositories of different types (conventional and hallow) using different bases.
Methods: Thirteen formulas (F1–F13) were prepared (five conventional and the rest were hollow type suppositories) by using different bases such as witepsol H35, polyethylene glycols (PEGs) with different ratio and glycerinated gelatin. The prepared suppositories were evaluated for physical properties such as hardness, melting time, softening time and for dissolution profiles.
Results: All of the prepared suppositories had acceptable physical properties. The maximum percent release of piroxicam was 98%, 97%, 95% and 91% within 50 min were obtained from hollow type suppositories containing piroxicam in a solution form and utilizing witepsol H35 base (F10), glycerinated gelatin base (F13), PEGs 400:4000 (70:30) (F12) and PEGs 200:6000 (70:30) (F11), respectively. Also, they exhibited rapid release of piroxicam however, F10 and F12 released 65% and 50% of piroxicam within 5 min while, F11 released 57% within 10 min.
Conclusion: Hollow type suppositories containing piroxicam in a solution form can be considered as the most suitable formulas (F10–F13). So that, the hollow-type suppository is useful as a promising approach for enhancing the release of piroxicam to be administered rectally. Also, the study revealed that in addition to the type of suppositories, the type of the base, the grade and the ratio of PEGs bases are other important factors affecting the physical properties of suppositories and the dissolution profile of piroxicam.
2. Baviskara P, Bedsea A, Sadiqueb S, Kundea V, Jaiswala S. Drug delivery on rectal absorption: suppositories. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 2013;21:70-6.
3. Takatori T, Yamamoto K, Yamaguchi T, Higaki K, kimura T. Design of controlled release morphine suppositories containing polyglycerol ester of fatty acid. Biol Pharm Bull 2005;28:1480-4.
4. Zuheir A, Samein LH, Aiash N, Preparation and in vitro evaluation of metoclopramide HCl hollow suppository. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013;5 Suppl 2:660-6.
5. The United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) 36, USP The united states pharmacopoeial convention Inc; 2012.
6. Moffat AC, Osslton MD, Widdop B, Watts J. Clarke's analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London, Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 1940.
7. Olkkola KT, Brunetto AV, Mattila MJ. Pharmacokinetics of oxicam nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994;26:107-20.
8. Khalil YI. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of oxcarbazepine conventional and hollow–type rectal suppositories. Jordan J Pharma Sci 2013;6:56-70.
9. Kamal BA. The release of diazepam from different conventional and hollow-type suppository bases. Iraqi J Pharm Sci 2007;16:21-5.
10. Yousif HS. Formulation of tinidazole rectal suppositories. AJPS 2011;10:68–83.
11. Adegboye TA, Itiola O. Physical and release properties of metronidazole suppositories. Trop J Pharm Res 2008;7:887-96.
12. Block LH. Medicated topical. In: Tory DB, Hauber MJ. editors. Remington: The science and practice of pharmacy. 21th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincot Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 883-6.
13. El-Majri MA, Sharma RK. Formulation and evaluation of piroxicam suppositories. Int J Drug Delivery 2010;2:108-12.
14. Daoud WM, Rajab MA, Rajab NA. Preparation, in vitro characterization and clinical study of propranolol HCl vaginal contraceptive hollow-type suppositories. World J Pharm Res 2017;6:86-99.
15. Lachman L, Lieberman HA, Kanig JL. Theory and practice of industrial pharmacy. 3thed. U. S. A., Lea and Fibiger, Philadelphia; 1986. p. 564-85.
16. Ying Hua X, Xiao Yun L, Yan L, Sha Z. Preparation and quality control of metronidazole hollow suppository. Hebei J Industrial Sci Technol 2009;4:4-8.
17. Matsumoto Y, Watanabe Y, Yamamoto I, Matsumoto M. Difference in rectal absorption of morphine from hollow-type and conventional suppositories in rabbits. Biol Pharm Bull 1993;16:150-3.
18. Loyd V, Allen JR. Suppositories. USA. Pharmaceutical Press; 2008.
19. British Pharmacopoeia, London, the stationary office; 2009. p. 3921-2.
20. Sah Ml, Saini TR. Formulation development and release studies of indomethacin suppositories. Indian J Pharm Sci 2008;70:498-501.
21. Baviskar P, Jaiswal S, Sadique S, Landged A. Formulation and evaluation of lornoxicam suppositories. Pharma Innovation J 2013;2:20-8.
22. Swarbrick J. Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology. 3thed. New York, Informa Healthcare USA, Inc; 2007. p. 1298-310.
23. Shinoda M, Akita M, Hasegawa M, Nadai M, Hasegawa T, Nabeshima T. Pharmaceutical evaluation of carbamazepine suppositories in rats. Biol Pharm Bull 1995;18:1289-91.
24. Uekama K, Iami T, Maeda T, Irie T, Hirayama F, Otagiri M. Improvement of dissolution and suppository release characteristics of flurbiprofen by inclusin complexation with heptakis (2, 6-di-O-methyl)-?–cycleodextrin. J Pharm Sci 1985;74:841-5.
25. Nief RA. Design and in vitro characterization of bisacodyl as a hollow-type suppositories. J Pharm Res 2018;12:702-6.
26. Paek SH, Xuan JJ, Choi HG, Park BC, Lee YS, Jeong TC, et al. Poloxamer 188 and propylene glycol based rectal suppository enhances anticancer effect of 5-fluorouracil in mice. Biol Pharm Bull 2006;29:1060-3.
27. Ibtisam G. In vitro availability of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole from suppository dosage form", Thesis for M. Sc. degree. College Pharmacy, University of Baghdad; 1986.
28. Ibrahim EH, El-Faham TH, Mohammed FA, El-Eraky NS. Formulation, in vitro release and bioavailability study of domperidone rectal suppositories. Int J Innovations Pharm Sci 2012;1:8-14.
29. Al-Ghurabawi FH. Formulation of ibuprofen as a suppository dosage form. Thesis for M.Sc. degree. College of Pharmacy, University of Baghdad; 2002.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.