4.4 Article

Cutaneous delivery of α-tocopherol and lipoic acid using microemulsions: influence of composition and charge

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 817-826

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jphp.12045

关键词

cutaneous delivery; lipoic acid; medium chain monoglycerides; microemulsions; phytosphingosine; alpha-tocopherol

资金

  1. NIH [1R15AR060008-01A1]
  2. PhRMA foundation
  3. Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess whether the composition and charge of microemulsions affect their ability to simultaneously deliver -tocopherol and lipoic acid into viable skin layers. Methods -Tocopherol and lipoic acid were added (1.1 and 0.5% w/w, respectively) to decylglucoside-based microemulsions containing mono-dicaprylin. Microemulsions containing surfactant:oil:water (w/w/w) at 60:30:10 (ME-O) and 46:23:31 (ME-W), as well as a cationic form of ME-W containing 1% phytosphingosine (ME-Wphy) were characterized, and their ability to disrupt the skin barrier and deliver the antioxidants in vitro in the skin was evaluated. Antioxidant activity in ME-Wphy-treated skin was assessed using the thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) assay. Key findings The internal phase diameters of microemulsions ranged between 42 and 55nm; phytosphingosine addition and pH adjustment to 5.0 increased zeta potential from 4.3 to +29.1mV. ME-O displayed w/o structure, whereas ME-W and ME-Wphy were consistent with o/w. Microemulsions affected skin electrical resistance and transepidermal water loss, but did not affect lipoic acid penetration. -Tocopherol delivery increased following the order ME-O < ME-W < ME-Wphy. ME-Wphy presented suitable short-term stability. The antioxidants delivered by ME-Wphy decreased TBARS cutaneous levels. Conclusions Even though microemulsion structure only affected tocopherol penetration, delivered levels of both antioxidants were sufficient for a decrease in TBARS, supporting their use for enhanced protection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据