Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Pharmacotherapy Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria ISSN: 1596-5996 EISSN: 1596-9827 Vol. 9, Num. 1, 2010, pp. 91-104

Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, pp. 91-104

Review Article

Bioadhesive Polymeric Platforms for Transmucosal Drug Delivery Systems – a Review

Saroj Kumar Roy* and Bala Prabhakar

School of Pharmacy and Technology Management, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management & Higher Studies University, V.L.Mehta road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, 400 056, India

*Corresponding author:  E-mail: sarojroy79@rediffmail.com; sarojroy79@gmail.com; Tel: +91-0981922302

Received: 5 July 2009
Revised accepted: 30 October 2009

Code Number: pr10012

Of the various routes of drug delivery, the oral route is often preferred by the patient. However, peroral administration of drugs has disadvantages such as hepatic first-pass metabolism and enzymatic degradation within the gastrointestinal tract which constitutes a hindrance to oral administration of certain classes of drugs, especially peptides and proteins. Consequently, other absorptive mucosae are often considered as potential sites for drug administration. Transmucosal routes of drug delivery (i.e., the mucosal linings of the nasal, rectal, vaginal, ocular, and oral cavity) offer distinct advantages over peroral administration for systemic drug delivery. These advantages include possible bypass of first-pass effect, avoidance of presystemic elimination within the GI tract, and, depending on the particular drug, better enzymatic flora for drug absorption. However, the mucosa surface as a site for drug delivery has limitations as well. Other than the low flux associated with mucosal delivery, a major limitation of the transmucosal route of administration is the lack of dosage form retention at the site of absorption. Consequently, bioadhesive polymers have extensively been employed in transmucosal drug delivery systems. If these materials are then incorporated into pharmaceutical formulations, drug absorption by mucosal cells may be enhanced or the drug may be released at the site for an extended period of time.  This review describes various bio/mucoadhesive polymers used in transmucosal drug delivery. Starting with introduction of bioadhesion with theories and mechanism, history, different bioadhesive polymers, characteristics of desired bioadhesive polymers, this article then proceeds to cover the various sites suitable for mucoadhesive drug delivery system followed by the factors affecting bio/ mucoadhesion.

Keywords: Mucosa; Tansmucosal delivery; Bioadhesion; Lectin; Polymers; Thiomer; Fimbrins.

INTRODUCTION

Bioadhesion may be defined as the state in which two materials, at least one of which is of biological nature, are held together for extended periods of time by interfacial forces [1]. For drug delivery purposes, the term bioadhesion implies attachment of a drug carrier system to a specific biological location. The biological surface can be epithelial tissue or the mucous coat on the surface of a tissue. If adhesive attachment is to a mucous coat, the phenomenon is referred to as mucoadhesion [2]. Mucous coat includes the mucosal linings of the nasal, rectal, oesophageal, vaginal, ocular, and oral cavity.

The idea of bioadhesive drug delivery systems was introduced as a new concept to the pharmaceutical sciences by the pioneering work of several research groups in the United States, Japan and Europe in the mid-1980s [3-6]. Since then, the idea to “stick” dosage forms to the site of application and/or drug absorption, respectively, has stimulated researchers all over the world. Originally, the advantages of bioadhesive drug delivery systems were seen in their potential (i) to prolong the residence time at the site of drug absorption (e.g., to reduce the dosing frequency for bioadhesive controlled release formulations) and (ii) to intensify contact with the underlying mucosal epithelial barrier (e.g., to enhance the epithelial transport of usually poorly absorbed drugs, such as peptides and proteins).  The tight and close contact of drug delivery system (DDS) with the absorptive mucosa should generate a steeper concentration gradient, thus increasing the absorption rate [7]. This principle, in particular, supported hopes of increased bioavailability of peptide drugs.

Later, it was discovered that some mucoadhesive polymers can also modulate the permeability of epithelial tissues by loosening the tight intercellular junctions [8-9], and that some mucoadhesive polymers can also act as inhibitors of proteolytic enzymes [10-11].

Over the last 30 years, the market share of transmucosal drug delivery systems has significantly increased with an estimated value of $6.7 million in 2006 [12]. According to a recent report published by Kalorama, worldwide revenue in this area is expected to increase approximately 3.5 % a year to reach $7.9bn by 2010 [13]. This growth can be related to the ease with which transmucosal products can be designed and administered, with mucoadhesive polymers playing a vital role.

THEORIES AND MECHANISMS OF BIOADHESION

Bioadhesion is truly an interfacial phenomenon and only differs from conventional adhesion in the special properties and characteristics of the substrate(s) being adhered. The mechanistic and structural analyses of the phenomenon of bioadhesion have been carefully outlined in several comprehensive reviews [14-15]. The mechanisms of bioadhesion are often classified into chemical and physical mechanisms with the electronic theory and adsorption theory falling under the former mechanism, while wetting, interpenetration or diffusion, and fracture theory fall under the latter.

DEVELOPMENT OF MUCOADHESIVE POLYMERS - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The development of mucoadhesive polymers may be traced back to as far as 1947, when gum tragacanth and dental adhesive powders were combined to form a vehicle for applying penicillin to the oral mucosa. An improvement in this system resulted when carboxymethylcellulose and petrolatum were combined to form the vehicle. The development of Orahesive® followed, leading to trials of Orabase^® in 1959.

Table 1: Theories and mechanisms of bioadhesion [16]

Orahesive is a mixture of finely ground sodium carboxymethylcellulose (SCMC), pectin, and gelatin, while Orabase is a blend of these in a polymethylene/mineral oil base. A further development was the blending of sodium carboxymethylcellulose with poly (isobutylene) and laminating this mixture onto a polyethylene sheet. This system benefited from both wet-surface and dry-surface adhesion, with the added bonus of being protected from physical interference (e.g., from the tongue by polyethylene-sheet backing) [17-19].

The polymers identified as exhibiting the best adhesion were sodium alginate, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, guar gum, hydroxyethylcellulose, karya gum, methylcellulose, polyethylene glycol (PEG), retene and tragacanth. Acrylate polymers were soon recognised as useful mucoadhesive materials, and the early 1980s saw a plethora of patents in which hydroxypropylcellulose, or methylcellulose and poly (acrylic acid), were blended together to form mucoadhesive preparations. By far the most widely explored mucoadhesive polymers through the 1980s have been poly (acrylic acid), hydroxypropylcellulose, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose. The work of Chen and Cyr [20] together with Park [21] and Smart et al. [22], involved the investigation of a range of polymers of varying molecular character. These studies appeared to arrive at similar conclusions as to the molecular characteristics required for mucoadhesion. The properties exhibited by such a molecule, described by Peppas and Buri [5]   may be summarised as follows: (a) strong H-bonding groups (-OH; -COOH); (b) strong anionic charges; (c) sufficient flexibility to penetrate the mucus network or tissue crevices; (d) surface tension characteristics suitable for wetting mucus/mucosal tissue surfaces; and (e) high molecular weight.

CLASSES OF POLYMERS WITH BIOADHESIVE PROPERTIES

Hydrophilic polymers

Hydrogels

Co-polymers/Interpolymer complex

Thiolated polymers (Thiomers)

These are hydrophilic macromolecules exhibiting free thiol groups on the polymeric backbone. Based on thiol/disulfide exchange reactions and/or a simple oxidation process disulfide bonds are formed between such polymers and cysteine-rich subdomains of mucus glycoproteins building up the mucus gel layer. So far, the cationic thiomers, chitosan–cysteine, chitosan–thiobutylamidine as well as chitosan–thioglycolic acid, and the anionic thiomers, poly (acylic acid)–cysteine, poly (acrylic acid)–cysteamine, carboxy-methylcellulose–cysteine and alginate–cysteine, have been generated. Due to the immobilisation of thiol groups on mucoadhesive basis polymers, their mucoadhesive properties are 2- up to 140-fold improved [24].

APPLICATION OF SECOND GENERATION BIOADHESIVE POLYMERS

Mucosal immunization

The majority of pathogens initially infect their hosts through mucosal surfaces. Moreover, mucosal administration of vaccine avoids the use of needles and is thus an attractive approach for development of new generation vaccines. Current research in vaccine development has focused on treatment requiring a single administration, since the major disadvantage of many currently available vaccines is that repeated administrations are required. The ability to provide controlled release of antigens through bioadhesive DDS has given an impetus to research in the area of mucosal immunisation. Intravaginal immunisation has been tried in sheep for the influenza virus haemagglutinin [26].

Table 2: Rank order of mucoadhesive force for various polymers [25]

Site-targeted drug delivery

Bioadhesive DDS lack specificity, a factor that is especially important for orally delivered formulations that are targeted to sites within the GI tract. This lack of specificity targeting results in polymer adhering to the first mucosal surface that is encountered leading to localised tissue damage. Another issue with lack of specificity is that the formulation may interact with the loose mucus within the GI tract and be coated with this material and then pass through the GI tract when it comes into close contact with absorbing mucosal membrane. Therefore, developing a bioadhesive polymer which interacts with a particular target is a very attractive potential for targeted delivery.  Examples of molecules with specific adhesion include lectins, bacterial fimbrins and invasions [27].

(a) Bacterial adhesion

(b) Amino acid and Antibodies

Ion-exchange resins

Cell adhesion and bone formation

Protein and peptide drug delivery

Protein and peptide drugs offer formidable challenges for peroral delivery due to their relatively large size, enzymatic degradation and very low permeability across the absorptive epithelial cells. The luminal enzymatic degradation of proteins and peptides can be effectively minimised by direct contact with the absorptive mucosa and avoiding exposition to body fluids and enzymes. Specific enzyme inhibitors can be attached to the surface of bioadhesive formulation. Moreover, certain polymers, e.g., chitosan have been reported to possess permeability enhancing properties. Senel et al. observed a six- to seven-fold enhancement of permeability by chitosan for the bioactive peptide transforming growth factor (TGF-β) to which the oral mucosa was reported to be relatively impermeable [31].

Tissue engineering

The replacement of blood vessels is one of the most important procedures in cardiovascular surgery. The surgical insertion of arterial implants with an inner diameter of > 6 mm is possible with good long-term results but venous and arterial implants with a narrow lumen of < 4 mm, present current limitations. The blood coagulation cascade recognizing the synthetic surface occludes the blood vessels prosthesis after a short period. The lining of analogous endothelial cells (ECs) to prosthetic polytetra-fluoroethylene (PTFE)–grafts has been promoted as a method of improving graft potency. However, the performance of simple coating with extracellular matrix proteins is insufficient, in that the cells were washed away under perfusion. Thus, the researchers covalently coupled a specific cell-adhesion molecule to the polymer surface. Only PTFE–grafts covalently modified with the mentioned specific adhesion molecules showed a regular cell lining even under perfusion. The researchers were able to show that EC adhere on formerly inert PTFE surfaces and allow a complete lining of the graft. This cell monolayer was physiologically active and was able to withstand sheer stress in perfusion [32].

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN IDEAL MUCOADHESIVE POLYMER [33]

1. Rapid adherence to mucosa.
2. Exhibit strong interaction with the mucin epithelial tissue.
3. Minimum impact on drug release.
4. Good spreadability, wetting, swelling and solubility and biodegradability properties.
5. Unaffected by the hydrodynamic conditions, food and pH changes.
6. Easy to incorporate in various dosage forms.
7. Possess peel, tensile and shear strengths at the bioadhesive range.
8. Show bioadhesive properties in both dry and liquid state.
9. Demonstrate local enzyme inhibition and penetration enhancement properties.
10. Demonstrate acceptable shelf life.
11. Optimum molecular weight.
12. Possess adhesively active groups.
13. Possess required spatial conformation.
14. Sufficiently cross-linked but not to the degree of suppression of bond forming groups.
15. Possess good viscoelastic properties and no breakdown at the mucosa.

FACTORS AFFECTING MUCOADHESION IN ORAL CAVITY

Polymer-related factors

Molecular weight

In general, it has been shown that the bioadhesive strength of a polymer increases with molecular weights above 100,000. Interestingly, adhesiveness of non-linear molecular structure follows a quite different trend. The adhesiveness of dextran, with a very high molecular weight of 19,500,000, is similar to that of PEG with a molecular weight of 200,000 [2]. The reason for this similarity may be that the helical conformation of dextran may shield many of the adhesive groups, which are primarily responsible for adhesion, unlike the conformation of PEG.

Chain flexibility

Chain flexibility is critical for interpenetration and entanglement of mucoasadhesive polymers. As water soluble polymers become cross-linked, mobility of individual polymer chains decrease and thus the effective length of the chain that can penetrate into the mucous layer decreases, which reduces bioadhesive strength. The increased chain interpenetration was attributed to the increased structural flexibility of the polymer upon incorporation of poly (ethylene glycol) [35].

Hydrogen bonding capacity

Cross-linking density

The average pore size, the number average molecular weight of the cross-linked polymers, and the density of cross-linking are three important and interrelated structural parameters of a polymer network. Therefore, it seems reasonable that with increasing density of cross-linking, diffusion of water into the polymer network occurs at a lower rate which, in turn, causes an insufficient swelling of the polymer and a decreased rate of interpenetration between polymer and mucin. Flory has reported this general property of polymers, in which the degree of swelling at equilibrium has an inverse relationship with the degree of cross-linking of a polymer [37].

Charge

In a study of polymer adhesiveness, using a cell-culture-fluorescent probe technique, it was found that the charge sign of polymer is an important element for bioadhesion [3, 38]. The strength of mucoadhesion of polymers with carboxyl groups was much stronger than that of those with neutral groups [39]. Some generalizations about the charge of bioadhesive polymers have been made previously, where nonionic polymers appear to undergo a smaller degree of adhesion compared to anionic polymers. Peppas and Buri have demonstrated that strong anionic charge on the polymer is one of the required characteristics for mucoadhesion [5]. It has been shown that some cationic polymers, such as chitosan, exhibit superior mucoadhesive properties, especially in a neutral or alkaline medium [40].

Concentration

At low concentration of the polymer, the number of penetrating polymer chains per unit volume of the mucus is small and the interaction between polymer and mucus is unstable. A more concentrated polymer leads to longer penetrating chain length and better adhesion. Increased concentration of bioadhesive polymer, usually from 1.0 - 2.5 wt%, in principle, increased the binding potential. However, for each polymer, there is a critical concentration, above which the polymer produces an “unperturbed” state due to a significantly coiled structure. As a result, the accessibility of the solvent to the polymer decreases, and chain penetration of the polymer is drastically reduced [41].

Hydration (swelling)

A sufficient amount of water appears necessary to properly hydrate and expand the mucoadhesive network to expose available bioadhesive sites for bond formation by creating pores, channels or macromolecular mesh of sufficient size for diffusion of solutes or polymer chains, as well as mobilizing the polymer chain for interpenetration. Thus, polymer swelling permits a mechanical entanglement by exposing the bioadhesive sites for hydrogen bonding and/or electrostatic interaction between the polymer and the mucous network. However, a critical degree of hydration of the mucoadhesive polymer exists where optimum swelling and bioadhesion occurs [42].

Environment-related factors

pH

pH can influence the formal charge on the surface of mucus as well as certain ionisable bioadhesive polymers. Mucus will have a different charge density depending on pH due to difference in dissociation of functional groups on the carbohydrate moiety and the amino acids of the polypeptide backbone. For example, polycarbophil does not show a strong bioadhesive property above pH 5 because uncharged rather than ionised, carboxyl groups react with mucin molecules, presumably through numerous hydrogen bonds. However, at higher pH, the chains are fully expanded due to electrostatic repulsion of carboxylate anions [43].

Initial contact time

Contact time between the bioadhesive and mucus layer determines the extent of swelling and interpenetration of the bioadhesive polymer chains. Moreover, bioadhesive strength increases as the initial contact time increases [44]. 

Table 3:  Some currently available commercial bioadhesive drug formulations [58]

Mucin turnover rate

Estimation of mucin turnover varies widely, depending on location and method of measurement. Values ranging from a few hours to a day have been reported. However, residence times of bioadhesives that are thought to attach to mucin are typically longer than the reported mucin turnover, suggesting that the presence of bioadhesive polymer on mucin may alter the turnover of this biopolymer. The residence time of dosage forms is limited by the mucin turnover time, which has been calculated to range between 47 and 270 min in rats and 12 – 24 h in humans [45].

Physiological considerations

In many routes of administration, surface mucus is encountered by the bioadhesive before it reaches the tissue. The extent of interaction between the polymer and the mucus depends on mucus viscosity, degree of entanglement, and water content. Physiological considerations such as texture of mucosa, thickness of the mucous layer, its turnover time, and other factors, are to be considered in designing the dosage forms [46].

SITES FOR MUCOADHESIVE DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Buccal cavity

At this site, first-pass metabolism is avoided, and the non-keratinized epithelium is relatively permeable to drugs. Due to flow of saliva and swallowing, materials in the buccal cavity have a short residence time and so it is one of the most suitable areas for the development of bioadhesive devices that adhere to the buccal mucosa and remain in place for a considerable period of time

Vagina

The vagina is a highly suitable site for bioadhesive formulations and it is here that the success of the concept can be seen convincingly. The bioadhesion increases the retention time (up to 72 h) and a smaller amount of the active ingredient can be used, reducing any adverse effects [27].

Nasal cavity

Ease of access, avoidance of first-pass metabolism and a relatively permeable and well-vascularised membrane, contribute to make the nasal cavity an attractive site for drug delivery. Although the surface area is not large (between 150-200 cm²), one major disadvantage of nasal mucosa is the rapid removal of substances by mucociliary action (with a residence time half-life of 15 - 30 min) [47]. This makes it a prime target for bioadhesive formulations to prolong the residence time to allow drug release and absorption.

Eye

One major problem for drug administration to the eye is rapid loss of the drug and or vehicle as a result of tear flow, and so it is a target for prolonging the residence time by bioadhesion. The bioadhesive polymers are finding increasing use in ophthalmic formulations, but often as viscosity enhancers rather than as bioadhesives per se [27].

Gastrointestinal tract

The gastrointestinal tract has been the subject of intense study for the use of bioadhesive formulations to improve drug bioavailability. The problem associated is that the polymeric bioadhesive formulations bind the intestinal mucus, which is constantly turning over and are transported down the gut by peristalsis. Another problem is that with conventional formulations such as tablets, the active ingredient may diffuse relatively rapidly away from the bioadhesive [27].

Oesophagagus

Tablets or capsules lodging in the oesophagus leads to delayed absorption and therefore delayed onset of action, as the oesophageal epithelial layer is impermeable to most drugs. In addition, adhesion at such a site may cause problems if localisation of the drug or dosage form leads to irritation of the mucosa. Development of a DDS that adheres to the oesophagus has implications in both the protection of the epithelial surface from damage caused by reflux and as a vehicle to deliver drugs for local action within the oesophagus. Bioadhesive dosage forms that adhere to the oesophageal mucosa and prolong contact have been investigated to improve the efficacy of locally acting agents [48-49].

TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING BIOADHESIVE PROPERTIES

In vitro techniques

Tensile stress measurement

(i) Wilhelmy plate technique: The Wilhelmy plate technique is traditionally used for the measurement of dynamic contact angles. The instrument measures the bioadhesive force between mucosal tissue and the dosage form [50]. By using the CAHN software system, parameters such as fracture strength, deformation to failure and work of adhesion can be analysed.

(ii) Electromagnetic force transducer (EMFT): The EMFT uses a calibrated electromagnet to detach a magnetic loaded polymer DDS from a tissue sample [51]. It has the unique ability to record remotely and simultaneously the tensile force information as well as high magnification video images of bioadhesive interactions at near physiological conditions. EMFT measures tissue adhesive forces by monitoring the magnetic force required to exactly oppose the bioadhesive force.

Shear stress measurement

The shear stress technique measures the force that causes a mucoadhesive to slide with respect to the mucous layer in a direction parallel to their plane of contact [52]. Adhesion tests based on the shear stress measurement involve two glass slides coated with polymer and a film of mucus. Mucus forms a thin film between the two polymer coated slides, and the test measures the force required to separate the two surfaces. For this purpose, Mikos and Peppas designed the in vitro method of flow chamber [53].

Rheological approach

The rheological properties of the mucoadhesive interface (i.e. of the hydrated gel) are influenced by the occurrence of interpenetration step in the process of bioadhesion. Chain interlocking, conformational changes and chemical interaction, which occur between bioadhesive polymer and mucin chains, produce changes in the rheological behaviour of the two macromolecular species. The rheological studies provide an acceptable in vitro model representative of the in vivo behaviour of mucoadhesive polymers [54].

Colloidal gold staining method

This technique employs red colloidal gold particles, which are stabilized by the adsorbed mucin molecule by forming mucin–gold conjugates [55]. Upon interaction with mucin–gold conjugates, bioadhesive hydrogels develop a red colour on the surface. Thus, the interaction between them can easily be quantified, either by the measurement of the intensity of the red colour on the hydrogel surface or by the measurement of the decrease in the concentration of the conjugates from the absorbance changes at 525 nm.

Viscometeric method

A simple viscometric method was used by Hassan and Gallo to quantify mucin–polymer bioadhesive bond strength [56]. Viscosities of 15 %w/v porcine gastric mucin dispersion in 0.1M HCl (pH 1) or 0.1M acetate buffer (pH 5.5) were measured with a Brookefield viscometer in the absence or presence of selected neutral, anionic, and cationic polymers.  Viscosity components and the forces of bioadhesion were calculated.

Fluorescent probe method

Park and Robinson studied polymer interaction with the conjunctival epithelial cell membrane using fluorescent probes [3]. The study was done in an attempt to understand structural requirements for bioadhesion in order to design improved bioadhesive polymers for oral use. The membrane lipid bilayer and membrane proteins were labelled with pyrene and fluorescein isothiocyanate, respectively. The cells were then mixed with candidate bioadhesive, and the changes in fluorescence spectra were monitored. This gave a direct indication of polymer binding and its influence on polymer adhesion.

In vivo techniques

GI transit using radio-opaque technique

It involves the use of radio-opaque markers, e.g., barium sulfate, encapsulated in bioadhesive DDS to determine the effects of bioadhesive polymers on GI transit time. Faeces collection (using an automated faeces collection machine) and x-ray inspection provide a non-invasive method of monitoring total GI residence time without affecting normal GI motility. Mucoadhesives labelled with Cr-⁵¹, Tc-^99m, In-^113m, or I-¹²³ have been used to study the transit of the DDS in the GI tract [57].

Gamma scintigraphy technique

It is a valuable tool used in the development of pharmaceutical dosage forms. With this methodology, it is possible to obtain information non-invasively. This technique gives information in terms of oral dosage forms across the different regions of GI tract, the time and site of disintegration of dosage forms, the site of drug absorption, and also the effect of food, disease, and size of the dosage form on the in vivo performance of the dosage forms.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in bioadhesive-based drug delivery and, in particular, the delivery of novel, highly-effective and mucosa-compatible polymer, are creating new commercial and clinical opportunities for delivering narrow absorption window drugs at the target sites to maximise their usefulness. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems are being studied from different angles, including development of novel mucoadhesives, design of the device, mechanisms of mucoadhesion and permeation enhancement. With the influx of a large number of new drug molecules from drug discovery, mucoadhesive drug delivery will play an even more important role in delivering these molecules. Gains due to bioadhesion in the mucosal cavity are less obvious, but many potential systems are under investigation, and some of these may bear fruit in future.

REFERENCES

1. Chickering DE, Mathiowitz E. Definitions mechanisms and theories of bioadhesion. In: Mathiowitz E, Chickering DE, Lehr CM (eds). Bioadhesive drug delivery systems: Fundamentals, novel approaches, and developments, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1999, pp 1–10.
2. Ahuja A, Khar RK, Ali J. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm, 1997; 23 (5): 489–515.
3. Park K, Robinson JR. Bioadhesive polymers as platforms for oral controlled drug delivery: method to study bioadhesion. Int J Pharm, 1984; 19: 107–127.
4. Smart JD, Kellaway IW, Worthington HEC. An in vitro investigation of mucosa-adhesive materials for use in controlled drug delivery. J Pharm Pharmacol, 1984; 36: 295–299.
5. Peppas NA, Buri P. Surface, interfacial and molecular aspects of polymer bioadhesion on soft tissues. J Control Release, 1985; 2: 257–275
6. Nagai T, Nishimoto Y, Suzuki Y, Sekine K. Power dosage form of insulin for nasal     administration. J Control Release, 1984; 1: 15–22.
7. Lehr CM, Bouwstra JA, Kok W, De Boer AG, Tukker JJ, Verhoef JC, Breimer DD, Junginger HE.     Effects of the mucoadhesive polymer polycarbophil on the intestinal absorption of a peptide drug n the rat. J. Pharm. Pharmacolog, 1992; 44(5): 402-407.
8. Borchard G, Lueben HL, de Boer AG, Verhoef JC, Lehr CM, Junginger HE.  The potential of     mucoadhesive polymers in enhancing intestinal peptide drug absorption. III: Effects of chitosan–glutamate and carbomer on epithelial tight junctions in vitro. J Control Release, 1996; 39:131–138
9. Schipper NGM, Olsson S, Hoogstraate JA, de Boer AG , Varum, KM , Artursson, P. Chitosans     as absorption enhancers for poorly absorbable drugs 2: Mechanism of absorption enhancement.     Pharm Res, 1997; 147: 923–929.
10. Bai JPF, Chang L, Guo JH. Effects of polyacrylic polymers on the lumenal proteolysis of  peptide drugs in the colon. J Phar Sci, 1995; 84 (11): 1291–1294.
11. Lueben H, Verhoef JC, Borchard G, Lehr CM, de Boer AG , Junginger HE. Mucoadhesive  polymers in peroral peptide drug delivery. II. Carbomer and polycarbophil are potent inhibitors of the intestinal proteolytic enzyme trypsin. Pharm Res, 1995; 12: 1293–1298.
12. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug   delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009; 2009 : 505–518.
13. Kalorama Information Report. Transdermal and Transmucosal Drug Delivery. Drug Delivery  Markets. Vol. IV: 2007; KLI1399450
14. Hubbell JA. Biomaterials in tissue engineering. Biotechnology. 1995; 13: 565-576.
15. Peppas NA, Sahlin JJ. Hydrogels as mucoadhesive and bioadhesive materials: a review.  Biomaterials, 1996; 17: 1553–1561.
16. Smart JD. The basics and underlying mechanisms of mucoadhesion. Adv Drug Del Rev, 2005;  57: 1556-1568.
17. Scrivener CA, Schantz CW. Penicillin: new methods for its use in dentistry. J Am Dental Assoc, 1947; 35: 644-647.
18. Rothner JT, Cobe HM, Rosenthal SL, Bailin J. Adhesive penicillin ointment for topical  application. J Dent Res, 1949; 28: 544-548.
19. Keutscher AH, Zegarelli EV, Beube FE, Chiton NW. A new vehicle (Orabase) for the application  of drugs to the oral mucus membranes. Oral Pathol, 1959; 12: 1080-1089.
20. Chen JL, Cyr GN. Compositions producing adhesion through hydration. Manly RS (ed). In:  Adhesion in Biological Systems. Academic Press, New York: 1970, pp 163-167.
21. Park JB. Acrylic bone cement: in vitro and in vivo property-structural relationship: a selective  review. Ann Biomed Eng, 1983; 11: 297–312.
22. Smart JD, Kellaway IW, Worthington HEC. An in vitro investigation of mucosa adhesive materials for use in controlled drug delivery. J Pharm Pharmacol, 1984; 36: 295-299.
23. Zhao Y, Kang J, Tan T. Salt, pH and temperature-responsive semi-interpenetrating polymer  network hydrogel based on poly (aspartic acid) and poly (acrylic acid). Polym, 2006; 47 (22):   7702-7710
24. Bernkop-Schnurch, A., Thiomers: A new generation of mucoadhesive polymers. Adv Drug Del  Rev, 2005; 58: 1569-1582. 
25. Hunt G, Kearney P, Kellaway IW. Mucoadhesive polymers in drug delivery systems. In: Drug  Delivery System: Fundamental and Techniqes. Johnson P, Lloyed-Jones JG (sds).  Elis Horwood, Chichester, 1987, pp180.
26. O’Hagan DT, Rafferty D, Wharton S, Illum L. Intravaginal immunization in sheep using a  bioadhesive microsphere antigen delivery system. Vaccine, 1993; 11: 660–664.
27. Woodley J. Bioadhesion: New Possibilities for Drug Administration. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2001; 40 (2): 77-84.
28. Vasir JK, Tambwekar K, Garg S. Review: Bioadhesive microspheres as a controlled drug  delivery system. Int. J.Pharm, 2003; 255: 13-32
29. Jackson SJ, Bush D, Perkins AC. Comparative scintigraphic assessment of the intragastric  distribution and residence of Cholestyramine, Carbopol 934P and Sucralfate. Int J   Pharm, 2001; 212 (1): 55–62.
30. García AJ, Reyes CD. Bio-adhesive Surfaces to Promote Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone  Formation. Dent Res, 2005; 84 (5): 407-413
31. Senel S, Kremer MJ, Kas S, Wertz PW, Hincal AA, Squier CA. Enhancing effect of chitosan on peptide drug delivery across buccal mucosa. Biomaterials, 2000; 21: 2067–2071.
32. Haas J, Lehr CM. Development in the area of bioadhesive drug delivery system. Expert   opin Biol Ther, 2002; 2(3): 287-298.
33. Sudhakar Y, Kuotsu K, Bandyopadhyay AK. Review: Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery – A promising option for orally less efficient drugs. J Control Release, 2006; 114: 15-40
34. Tiwari D, Goldman D, Sause R, Madan PL. Evaluation of polyoxyethylene homopolymers for buccal bioadhesive drug delivery device formulations. AAPS Pharm Sci, 1999; 1: (E13).
35. Huang Y, Leobandung W, Foss A, Peppas NA. Molecular aspects of muco and bioadhesion: tethered structures and site-specific surfaces. J Control Release, 2000; 65: 63-71.
36. Park K, Robinson JR. Mechanisms of mucoadhesion of poly (acrylic acid) hydrogels. Pharm Res, 1987; 4: 457-464.
37. Flory PJ. Principle of Polymer Chemistry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York: 1953,  pp. 541-556.
38. Park K, Ch’ng HS, Robinson JR. Alternative approaches to oral-controlled drug delivery:  bioadhesive and in situ systems. In: Recent advances in Drug Deliverty System.  Anderson JM, Kim SW (eds). Plenum Press, New York: 1984, pp.163.
39. Ch’ng HS, Park K, Kelly P and Robinson JR. Bioadhesive polymers as platform for oral  controlled drug delivery. II Synthesis and evaluation of some swelling, water insoluble  bioadhesive polymers. J Pharm Sci, 1985; 74: 399-404.
40. Park H, Amiji M, Park K. Mucoadhesive hydrogels effective at neutral pH. Proc Int Symp  Control Release Bioact Mater, 1989; 16: 217-218.
41. Solomonidou D, Cremer K, Krumme M, Kreuter J. Effect of carbomer concentration and     degree of neutralization on the mucoadhesive properties of polymer films. J Biomater Sci,  2001; 12: 1191-1205.
42. Miller NS, Chittchang M, Johnston TP. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug  delivery. Adv Drug Del Rev, 2005; 57: 1666– 1691.
43. Asane GS, Nirmal SA, Rasal KB, Naik AA, Mahadik MS , Rao YR. Polymers for Mucoadhesive  Drug Delivery System: A Current Status. Drug Dev Ind Pharm, 2008; 34:1246–1266.
44. Kamath KR, Park K. Mucosal adhesive preparations. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC (eds).  Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology, New York: Marcel Dekker.1994 pp 133-138.
45. Lehr CM, Poelma FCG, Junginger HE, Tukker JJ. An estimate of turnover time of intestinal  mucus gel layer in the rats, in situ loop. Int. J. Pharm, 1991; 70: 235–240.
46. Lee JW, Park JH, Robinson JR. Bioadhesive Dosage Form: The Next Generation. J Pharm Sci, 2000; 89 (17): 850-866.
47. Coos Verhoef J, Merkus FWHM. Nasal absorption enhancement: relevance to nasal drug  delivery. In: de Boer AG (ed). Drug absorption enhancement: concepts, possibilities, limitations and trends. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994, pp 119-53.
48. O’Neill JL, Remington TL. Drug-induced esophageal injuries and dysphagia. Ann Pharmacother, 2003; 37: 1675–1683.
49. Hunt G, Kearney P, Kellaway IW. Mucoadhesive polymers in drug delivery systems. Johnson  P, Lloyed-Jones JG , Elis H(eds). In: Drug Delivery System: Fundamental and Techniques, Chichester, England: 1987, 180-199.
50. Santos CA, Jacob JS, Hertzog BA, Carino GP, Mathiowitz E. 2000; US Pat. No. 6,156,348.
51. Hertzog BA, Mathiowitz E. Novel magnetic technique to measure bioadhesion. Mathiowitz E,  Chickering DE, Lehr CM. (ed). In: Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems—Fundamentals  Novel Approaches and Development, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 147–171.
52. Kamath KR, Park K. Mucosal adhesive preparations. Swarbrick J, Boylan JC((eds). In:  Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology, vol. 10. Marcel Dekker, New York: 1994, pp. 133–163.
53. Mikos AG, Peppas NA. Bioadhesive analysis of controlled release systems. IV. An experimental method for testing the adhesion of microparticles with mucus.  J Control Rel,  1990; 12: 31–37.
54. Riley RG, Smart JD, Tsibouklis J, Dettmar PW, Hampson F, Davis JA, Kelly G, Wilber RW. An  investigation of mucus/polymer rheological synergism using synthesized and charac-erized poly(acrylic acid). Int J Pharm, 2001; 217: 87–100.
55. Park K. A new approach to study mucoadhesion: Colloidal gold staining. Int J Pharm, 1989;  53: 209–217.
56. Hassan EE, Gallo JM. Simple rheological method for the in vitro assessment of mucin-polymer bioadhesive bond strength. Pharm Res, 1990; 7: 491–498.
57. Mathiowitz E, Chickering D, Jacob JS, Santos C. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems.  Mathiowitz E(ed).  In:  Encyclopedia of Controlled Drug Delivery, vol.1. Wiley, New York, 1999, pp. 9–44.
58. Batchelor H. Novel bioadhesive formulation in drug delivery; The Drug Delivery Company  Report, 2004; pp 16-19

© Pharmacotherapy Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Benin, Benin City, 300001 Nigeria.