Schematic drawing of drug permeation across oral mucosa from the buccal/sublingual formulation.
Human saliva has been reported to have a pH range of 6.2–7.6 [14]. The composition of saliva secreted from different regions differs, leading to different saliva pH. The pH in the palate, the floor of the mouth, the buccal mucosa and the tongue, in humans, have been reported to be 7.3, 6.5, 6.3 and 6.8, respectively [33]. The flow of saliva with a buffer capacity resisting pH shift could remove acidic and basic foods on the oral mucosa, maintaining the pH in the oral cavity near neutrality in a long term. The bicarbonate, the phosphate and the protein buffer systems in the whole saliva are the major systems contributing to the buffer capacity, and their concentration and buffer capacity are dependent on the secretion rate of saliva [34,35,36].
3.2. Secretion Rate of Saliva and Thickness of Salivary Film
Saliva is a complex mixture secreted by salivary glands. There are three pairs of major glands: the parotid, submandibular and sublingual glands, and numerous minor salivary glands
[37]. Salivary secretion continues throughout the day, with an average total volume of 500–600 mL. Previous studies have reported that the mean flow rate of unstimulated human saliva and stimulated human saliva is 0.35 mL/min and 2 mL/min, respectively
[16][38][16,38].
4. Drug Candidate and pH Modifier for Buccal/Sublingual Dosage Forms
4.1. Drug Candidate
The low drug loading capacity of buccal/sublingual formulations and the limited absorption area in the oral cavity are two main limitations for buccal/sublingual drug delivery. Thus, drug candidates should be high potency to achieve successful therapeutic efficacy. In addition, suitable drug candidates must not cause local irritation and toxicity at oral mucosa. Regarding physicochemical properties, high lipophilicity (log P (octanol/water) > 2), fairly good water-solubility and small molecular size (less than 800 Da) are typically considered as ideal parameters for drug candidates, as described previously
[3]. The extent of different drug transport pathways across the epithelium depends on the drug physicochemical properties
[39][40][43,44]. Typically, drug candidates with high lipophilicity can move across the lipid-rich epithelial cell membrane with relative ease. Fairly good water solubility allows for the fast drug release of buccal/sublingual formulations and drug diffusion across the hydrophilic cytoplasm of cells and paracellular passage. Macromolecules can be delivered via the oral mucosa, e.g., buccal insulin spray (Generex Oral-lyn
®) was approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients under the Investigational New Drug (IND) program
[41][42][43][45,46,47]. However, the number of marketed buccal/sublingual macromolecules is very small.
However, over 40% of marketed drugs and approximately 90% of drug candidates are reported to be poorly water-soluble
[5], and most of them are weakly ionizable drugs, indicating that their solubility and/or permeability across the lipid-rich epithelium are pH-dependent
[44][45][46][47][49,50,51,52]. Typically, the ionic form of a drug is more water soluble than its non-ionic form. A change in the pH might influence the ratio of the ionized form of the dissolved drug, according to the Henderson-Hasselbach equation (Equation (4))
[48][53]. When the difference in the water solubility (and/or lipophilicity) between the two forms is big enough, a slight pH change might have a significant effect on the drug solubility. Therefore, drug candidates suitable for pH
M modification should have pH-dependent solubility and/or pH-dependent lipophilicity and be poorly soluble at physiological pH in the oral cavity.
4.2. pH Modifier
There are a few concerns about the excipients used in pharmaceutical formulations. A pH modifier can only be considered as a pharmaceutical excipient if it has been demonstrated to be safe for human beings. So far, various pH modifiers have been applied in the food and pharmaceutical industries. The Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list of the FDA lists some safe pH modifiers that have been added to food. In addition, various pH modifiers recommended for oral liquids have been collected in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). However, the specific pH modifiers for buccal/sublingual formulations were not referenced. The pH modifiers collected in the USP
[49][67] and their maximum potency per unit dose used in solid oral and buccal/sublingual formulations in the database of Inactive Ingredient Search for Approved Drug Products Search, provided by the FDA
[50][68]. The pH modifiers can be divided into three categories: acidifying agents, alkalizing agents and buffering agents. Currently, only a few pH modifiers, were applied in the commercial buccal/sublingual formulations approved by the FDA. pH modifiers demonstrated without local irritation and toxicity to oral mucosa could also be potential choices for the buccal/sublingual dosage forms.
5. Methods for Microenvironmental pH Measurement
5.1. pH Electrode Approach
The most common method to determine the pH
M is the pH electrode approach. As the previous studies described
[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][57,77,78,79,80,81,82], formulations (e.g., tablets, film and patch) were allowed to swell in a limited volume of buffer solution (at neutral pH) at room temperature for a certain period. Subsequently, the pH on the surface of the formulations was determined using a pH electrode. Mucoadhesive buccal films containing ornidazole were allowed to swell in 4 mL of phosphate buffer (pH 6.8 ± 0.1) at room temperature for 120 min and the surface pH was measured using an electrode pH meter
[52][77].
5.2. Computer-Enhanced Color Images Method
To gain more information on the pH
M change during the dissolving process of the fentanyl tablet, a computer-enhanced color images (of pH paper) method was used to record the pH
M as it varied over the surface of the swelling tablet
[58][54]. The schematic view of the setup and the computer-enhanced color images of pH paper are shown in
Figure 3. A piece of pH paper was placed over a tablet. The tablet with the pH paper was held between two microscope slides, and a small volume of deionized water was applied to the pH paper. The tablet was rapidly wetted by the water that permeated the pH paper. As the tablet swelled, the pH paper was digitally photographed at different time intervals. The pH over the distinct regions of the tablet surface were then determined from the digital images and in comparison to the reference pH standards. The pH
M decreased from 7.0 to 5.0, and then gradually increased to around 6.0 during the first 5 min of the dissolving process
[58][54].
Figure 3.
Schematic view of the setup of the computer-enhanced color images method.
5.3. UV/Vis Imaging Method
In a previous works, an UV/Vis imaging method with an agarose hydrogel mimicking the fluid on the surface of the buccal mucosa was constructed. The effect of the malic acid dose on the pHM during the initial dissolution of the buccal films, and the information related to film the swelling and possible drug precipitation in the films were monitored using this method [59]. The agarose hydrogel contained agarose (0.5% during the initial dissolution of the buccal films, and the information related to film the swelling and possible drug precipitation in the films were monitored using this method [58]. The schematic view of the UV/Vis imaging setup is shown in Figure 4. The agarose hydrogel contained agarose (0.5% /), bromothymol blue (pH indicator, 6.29 × 10 M) and a buffer solution, simulating the human saliva pH and buffer capacity. A buccal film was attached on the agarose hydrogel, and the absorbance change of the pH indicator in the hydrogel at a wavelength of 610 nm was monitored during the swelling of the film. To relate the absorbance of bromothymol blue to the pH in the hydrogel, an absorbance-pH profile was constructed as a calibration curve. Based on the calibration curve, the pH during the swelling of the buccal film could be measured.
6. Microenvironmental pH (pHM) Modification Methods
6.1. Microenvironmental pH Modification Using Acidifying/Alkalizing Agents
The most direct and effective way to change the pH
M is to add acids or bases into the formulations. The pH
M change might compromise the drug release from the formulations and the drug permeation, hence improving the drug absorption at the oral mucosa. Suitable pH shifts might increase the drug solubilities, despite them being poorly soluble in human saliva at the physiological pH. Previous studies have shown that the addition of organic acids leads to a significant increase in the dissolution of dapoxetine hydrochloride (DPX) particles in phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 (37 ± 0.5 °C) due to the pH-dependent solubility of DPX and the low pH
M around the drug particles
[60][61][62,63]. In addition, the enhanced pharmacokinetic performance of DPX via the buccal films with organic acids in male Wistar rats was observed compared to that of the marketed DPX oral tablet (Priligy
®)
[61][63].
6.2. Microenvironmental pH Modification Using Buffering Agents
The pH
M in the vicinity of formulations at the oral mucosa is generally affected by the release of the ingredients (particularly the acidic and basic ingredients) from the formulations. The pH
M changes over time, along with the ingredients released upon dissolution. To maintain the suitable pH
M and achieve optimal drug absorption at the oral mucosa, buffer agents are incorporated in formulations. The addition of buffering agents can form a buffer system in and around the matrix of the formulations and prevent the pH
M from changing. This method was demonstrated to be effective in some cases. Phosphate buffer and borate buffer were used in methylcellulose-based gels to create pH
M 7.4, 8.5, 9.0 and 9.5 for the buccal delivery of metoprolol in Göttingen minipigs in a previous study. A higher buccal absorption of metoprolol from the gels was observed at higher pH values, and the absolute bioavailability of metoprolol via buccal dosing was significantly higher compared to that via oral administration
[29]. In the study, the metoprolol release from the gels might be similar, and the pH has little effect on metoprolol release, because the concentration of methylcellulose used in the gels was the same (1%,
w/
v) and metoprolol had already been dissolved in the gels. Metoprolol permeability across the buccal mucosa is the rate-limit step for the buccal absorption of metoprolol. Furthermore, metoprolol with p
Ka 9.56
[62][85] has a pH-dependent lipophilicity and permeability in vitro and ex vivo
[29][63][29,86]. Thus, the pH has a crucial influence on the buccal absorption of metoprolol incorporated in gels.
6.3. Microenvironmental pH Modification Using Effervescence
Formulations with effervescence generally contain an alkaline agent (e.g., sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate) and an acid that is capable of inducing the effervescence reaction during the dissolution
[64][87]. The carbonic acid produced from the chemical reaction could decrease the pH
M and rapidly convert to water and carbon dioxide. The tablet using an effervescence reaction (containing citric acid and bicarbonate) was employed to enhance the absorption of fentanyl at the buccal mucosa
[58][65][66][54,56,88]. A dynamic shift in the pH
M (pH was decreased and subsequently be increased) occurred in the microenvironment between the tablet and the buccal mucosa, and the pH
M shift might be the main factor for the enhanced buccal absorption of fentanyl. The initial decrease in the pH, caused by the carbonic acid and release of citric acid from the tablet, facilitated the release of fentanyl from the tablet. The pH subsequently increased due to the dissociation of carbonic acid (into CO
2 and water) and the dissipation of the CO
2, which favored the formation of unionized fentanyl. The unionized fentanyl can move across the lipid-rich oral mucosal membrane with greater ease than the ionized fentanyl
[58][65][66][54,56,88].