4.4 Article

Effects of three penetration enhancers on transcorneal permeation of cyclosporine

期刊

CORNEA
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 505-508

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200107000-00013

关键词

penetration enhancers; benzalkonium chloride; dimethylsulfoxide; Chremophor-EL; human cornea; permeability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To investigate the permeation of cyclosporin A (CsA) through fresh and frozen human corneas in the presence and absence of three penetration enhancers: benzalkonium chloride (BZCl), dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), and Cremophor-EL. Methods. Human corneas, unsuitable for transplantation, were either freshly used for permeability experiments or snap-frozen in Liquid nitrogen and stored at -85 degreesC. CsA permeation through either fresh or thawed frozen corneal tissue was determined using a flow-through diffusion apparatus (20 degreesC for 24 hours). Flux rates for CsA were determined in the presence and absence of the penetration enhancers 0.01% BZCl, 20% DMSO, and Cremophor-EL (10% and 20%). Analysis of variance and Duncan's multiple-range test were used to test for steady state, and an unpaired Student t test with Welch's correction was used to test for differences between the mean flux values at each time point. A significance level of 5% was used for all of the statistical tests. Results. No statistically significant differences in flux values of CsA could be detected between fresh and frozen corneas. In the presence of Cremophor-EL (10% and 20%) and 0.01% BZCl, statistically significant increases in flux values of CsA before 16 hours and after 16 hours, respectively, could be observed. In the presence of 20% DMSO, no statistically significant increases in flux values could be detected. Conclusions, The permeation of CsA through human corneas appeared to be enhanced by the presence of BZCl and Cremophor-EL. Additionally, it was shown that the flux rate of CsA across fresh and frozen corneas was not significantly different.

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