PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare two sampling methods--dermal Open-Flow Microperfusion (dOFM) and dermal Microdialysis (dMD) in an international joint experiment in a single-laboratory setting. We used human ex-vivo skin and sampled topically administered Fentanyl and Benzoic Acid. The second purpose was to provide guidance to researchers in choosing the most efficient method for a given penetrant and give suggestions concerning critical choices for successful dermal sampling. METHODS: The dOFM and dMD techniques are compared in equal set-ups using three probe-types (one dOFM probe and two dMD probe-types) in donor skin (n = 9)--27 probes of each type sampling each penetrant in solutions applied in penetrationchambers glued to the skin surface over a time range of 20 h. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic results demonstrated concordance between dOFM and dMD sampling technique under the given experimental conditions. The methods each had advantages and limitations in technical, practical and hands-on comparisons. CONCLUSION: When planning a study of cutaneous penetration the advantages and limitations of each probe-type have to be considered in relation to the scientific question posed, the physico-chemical characteristics of the substance of interest, the choice of experimental setting e.g. ex vivo/in vivo and the analytical skills available.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare two sampling methods--dermal Open-Flow Microperfusion (dOFM) and dermal Microdialysis (dMD) in an international joint experiment in a single-laboratory setting. We used human ex-vivo skin and sampled topically administered Fentanyl and Benzoic Acid. The second purpose was to provide guidance to researchers in choosing the most efficient method for a given penetrant and give suggestions concerning critical choices for successful dermal sampling. METHODS: The dOFM and dMD techniques are compared in equal set-ups using three probe-types (one dOFM probe and two dMD probe-types) in donor skin (n = 9)--27 probes of each type sampling each penetrant in solutions applied in penetrationchambers glued to the skin surface over a time range of 20 h. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic results demonstrated concordance between dOFM and dMD sampling technique under the given experimental conditions. The methods each had advantages and limitations in technical, practical and hands-on comparisons. CONCLUSION: When planning a study of cutaneous penetration the advantages and limitations of each probe-type have to be considered in relation to the scientific question posed, the physico-chemical characteristics of the substance of interest, the choice of experimental setting e.g. ex vivo/in vivo and the analytical skills available.
Authors: Manfred Bodenlenz; Lukas A Schaupp; Tatjana Druml; Romana Sommer; Andrea Wutte; Helga C Schaller; Frank Sinner; Paul Wach; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: J D Ringe; H Faber; O Bock; S Valentine; D Felsenberg; M Pfeifer; H W Minne; S Schwalen Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2002-07-10 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Manfred Bodenlenz; Christian Dragatin; Lisa Liebenberger; Bernd Tschapeller; Beate Boulgaropoulos; Thomas Augustin; Reingard Raml; Christina Gatschelhofer; Nathalie Wagner; Khaled Benkali; Francois Rony; Thomas Pieber; Frank Sinner Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Judith C J Holzer-Geissler; Simon Schwingenschuh; Martin Zacharias; Johanna Einsiedler; Sonja Kainz; Peter Reisenegger; Christian Holecek; Elisabeth Hofmann; Barbara Wolff-Winiski; Hermann Fahrngruber; Thomas Birngruber; Lars-Peter Kamolz; Petra Kotzbeck Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-04-06
Authors: Thomas Birngruber; Arijit Ghosh; Sonja Hochmeister; Martin Asslaber; Thomas Kroath; Thomas R Pieber; Frank Sinner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240