4.7 Article

Quantitative MALDI mass spectrometry imaging for exploring cutaneous drug delivery of tofacitinib in human skin

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2020.12.008

关键词

Cutaneous drug delivery; Skin; Tofacitinib; Mass spectrometry imaging; Skin penetration; Skin permeation; MALDI-MSI; In vitro release testing; HPLC-MS/MS

资金

  1. Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) [7038-00017B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, HPLC-MS/MS and MALDI-MSI were used to analyze drug penetration in the skin, revealing the impact of different formulations on drug release and retention in the skin, with C1 showing the highest retention of tofacitinib and the gel and C2 demonstrating higher permeation.
In skin penetration studies, HPLC-MS/MS analysis on extracts of heat-separated epidermis and dermis provides an estimate of the amount of drug penetrated. In this study, MALDI-MSI enabled qualitative skin distribution analysis of endogenous molecules and the drug molecule, tofacitinib and quantitative analysis of the amount of tofacitinib in the epidermis. The delivery of tofacitinib to the skin was investigated in a Franz diffusion cell using three different formulations (two oil-in-water creams, C1 and C2 and an aqueous gel). Further, in vitro release testing (IVRT) was performed and resulted in the fastest release of tofacitinib from the aqueous gel and the lowest from C2. In the ex vivo skin penetration and permeation study, C1 showed the largest skin retention of tofacitinib, whereas, lower retention and higher permeation were observed for the gel and C2. The quantitative MALDI-MSI analysis showed that the content of tofacitinib in the epidermis for the C1 treated samples was comparable to HPLC-MS/MS analysis, whereas, the samples treated with C2 and the aqueous gel were below LOQ. The study demonstrates that MALDI-MSI can be used for the quantitative determination of drug penetration in epidermis, as well as, to provide valuable information on qualitative skin distribution of tofacitinib.

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

4.7
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