4.7 Article

Improving Transungual Permeation Study Design by Increased Bovine Hoof Membrane Thickness and Subsequent Infection

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13122098

关键词

ungual permeation model; onychomycosis; bovine hoof; bifonazole; scanning electron microscopy

资金

  1. Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used bovine hoof membranes to investigate the permeation of healthy and Trichophyton rubrum-infected membranes. The results showed that membrane thickness and infection status significantly affected drug permeation, highlighting the importance of appropriate experimental setups for accurate assessment.
Ungual formulations are regularly tested using human nails or animal surrogates in Franz diffusion cell experiments. Membranes sometimes less than 100 mu m thick are used, disregarding the higher physiological thickness of human nails and possible fungal infection. In this study, bovine hoof membranes, healthy or infected with Trichophyton rubrum, underwent different imaging techniques highlighting that continuous pores traversed the entire membrane and infection resulted in fungal growth, both superficial, as well as in the membrane's matrix. These membrane characteristics resulted in substantial differences in the permeation of the antifungal model substance bifonazole, depending on the dosage forms. Increasing the thickness of healthy membranes from 100 mu m to 400 mu m disproportionally reduced the permeated amount of bifonazole from the liquid and semisolid forms and allowed for a more pronounced assessment of the effects by excipients, such as urea as the permeation enhancer. Similarly, an infection of 400-mu m membranes drastically increased the permeated amount. Therefore, the thickness and infection statuses of the membranes in the permeation experiments were essential for a differential readout, and standardized formulation-dependent experimental setups would be highly beneficial.

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