| Literature DB >> 23008820 |
Abstract
This work evaluated the occlusive versus non-occlusive application of microemulsion (ME) for the transdermal delivery of progesterone. The mechanisms of enhanced skin penetration were investigated. ME comprised of oleic acid, Tween 80, propylene glycol, and water, was used neat or with ethanol as a volatile cosurfactant. The ME formulations enhanced progesterone transdermal flux compared to the saturated drug solution in 14% aqueous propylene glycol (control). Ethanol-containing ME (EME) was better than the ethanol-free system (EFME). Open application of EFME produced a marginal reduction in flux compared to occlusive application. For EME, open application reduced the flux by 26-28% with the flux remaining significantly higher than that obtained with EFME. The mechanistic studies revealed synergism between ethanol and EFME with EME, producing greater flux than the sum of fluxes obtained from 40% ethanol in water and EFME. Penetration enhancement and supersaturation played a role in enhanced transdermal delivery, but other mechanisms were also possible. This study thus introduced EME as a transdermal delivery system for progesterone with good potential for open application as a spray.Entities:
Keywords: Ethanolic microemulsion; Nanoemulsion transdermal; Open application; Phase behaviour; Supersaturation
Year: 2012 PMID: 23008820 PMCID: PMC3447611 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1201-01
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1Pseudo-ternary phase diagrams of oleic acid in the presence of different surfactant/cosurfactant systems. (a) is a Tween 80-based system, (b) is Tween 80 – propylene glycol (4:1), (c) is Tween 80 – propylene glycol – ethanol (4:1:1.8) and (d) is Tween 80 – propylene glycol – ethanol (4:1:5). ME = microemulsion and EM = coarse emulsion.
The composition of the tested formulations and drug solubility in each formulation.
| Formulation code | Composition | Solubility (mg/ml) |
|---|---|---|
| EFME | Tween 80: PG: oleic acid: water (56: 14: 15: 15) | 21.7 (0.8) |
| 20% EME | 20% ethanol in EFME | 48.7 (1.3) |
| 40% EME | 40% ethanol in EFME | 72.2 (2.6) |
| ETW | 40% ethanol in water | 1.43 (0.08) |
| ETPGW | Ethanol: PG: water (40: 14: 46) | 4.33 (0.23) |
| PGW | 14% PG in water | 0.176 (0.006) |
Values between brackets are SD, n = 3. PG is propylene glycol and ND means not determined.
Fig. 2Evaporation profiles of ethanol-free (EFME) and ethanol-containing 40% EME) formulations. The evaporation profile of pure ethanol was calculated from the weight loss of 40% EME considering that the weight loss is due to evaporation of ethanol.
The transdermal permeation parameters of progesterone obtained after occlusive and non-occlusive application of various formulations.
| Formulation | Occlusive application | Open application | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Flux (μg cm−2 h−1) | Lag time (h) | Flux (μg cm−2 h−1) | Lag time (h) | |
| EFME | 2.69 (0.24) | 3.22 (0.34) | 2.36 (0.08) | 3.41 (0.64) |
| 20% EME | 6.20 (0.68) | 1.47 (0.64) | 4.48 (1.44) | 1.50 (0.14) |
| 40% EME | 9.83 (2.77) | 0.91 (0.41) | 7.25 (2.01) | 0.28 (0.22) |
| ETW | 2.22 (0.28) | 1.88 (0.31) | 1.75 (0.25) | 0.29 (0.09) |
| PGW | 1.09 (0.18) | 2.45 (0.07) | 1.34 (0.33) | 3.62 (0.75) |
Values between brackets are SEM, n = 3.
The transdermal permeation parameters of progesterone obtained after non-occlusive (open) application of various formulations.
| Formulation | Open application without skin pretreatment | Open application after skin pretreatment with 40% ethanol | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFME | 2.36 (0.08) | 3.41 (0.64) | 2.85 (0.20) | 1.79 (0.12) |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| 40% EME | 7.25 (2.01) | 0.28 (0.22) | 5.85 (0.12) | 0.81 (0.19) |
Values between brackets are SEM, n = 3.
DS of 2 was prepared by dissolving 43.4 mg/ml of drug in 40% EME. Open application of this formulation will create ME with 2 DS after evaporation of ethanol.