A review on Gastroretentive Drug Delivery Systems
PharmaTutor (July- 2016)
Print-ISSN: 2394 - 6679
e-ISSN: 2347 - 7881
(Volume 4, Issue 7)
Received On: 08/02/2016; Accepted On: 29/02/2016; Published On: 01/07/2016
Hemendrasinh J Rathod*, Dhruti P. Mehta, Jitendra Singh Yadav
Department of Pharmaceutics, Vidyabharti Trust College of Pharmacy,
Umrakh, Gujarat, India.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of writing the review on gastroretentive drug delivery systems (GRDDS) was to accumulate the current literature with a special emphasis on several gastroretentive approaches that have recently become important methodologies in the field of site-specific orally administered sustained/controlled release drug delivery. Technological efforts have been made in research and development of rate-controlled oral drug delivery systems to solve physiological difficulties, like short gastric residence times (GRT) and unpredictable gastric emptying times (GET). GRDDS are an approach to prolong the GRT, thereby targeting site-specific drug release in the upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) for local or systemic effect. Conventional oral dosage forms pose low bioavailability problems because of their quick gastric transition from the stomach, particularly in case of drugs that are less soluble at an alkaline pH of the intestine. Also, drugs that produce their local action in the stomach get quickly emptied and don’t get sufficient residence time in the stomach. Several efforts have been made to extend the retention time of drug delivery system to reduce the frequency of dose administration. GRDFs not only prolong dosing intervals, but also increase patient compliance beyond the level of existing controlled release dosage forms. This article gives an overview on advantages, disadvantages and characterization of gastroretentive drug delivery systems. This review also includes commercially available gastroretentive products and patents.
How to cite this article: Rathod HJ, Mehta DP, Yadav JS; A review on Gastroretentive Drug Delivery Systems; PharmaTutor; 2016; 4(7); 29-40