| Literature DB >> 28878145 |
Hiroaki Todo1,2.
Abstract
Excised human skin is utilized for in vitro permeation experiments to evaluate the safety and effect of topically-applied drugs by measuring its skin permeation and concentration. However, ethical considerations are the major problem for using human skin to evaluate percutaneous absorption. Moreover, large variations have been found among human skin specimens as a result of differences in age, race, and anatomical donor site. Animal skins are used to predict the in vivo human penetration/permeation of topically-applied chemicals. In the present review, skin characteristics, such as thickness of skin, lipid content, hair follicle density, and enzyme activity in each model are compared to human skin. In addition, intra- and inter-individual variation in animal models, permeation parameter correlation between animal models and human skin, and utilization of cultured human skin models are also descried. Pig, guinea pig, and hairless rat are generally selected for this purpose. Each animal model has advantages and weaknesses for utilization in in vitro skin permeation experiments. Understanding of skin permeation characteristics such as permeability coefficient ( P ), diffusivity ( D ), and partition coefficient ( K ) for each skin model would be necessary to obtain better correlations for animal models to human skin permeation.Entities:
Keywords: in vitro skin permeation; skin permeation; species difference; transdermal drug delivery
Year: 2017 PMID: 28878145 PMCID: PMC5620574 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics9030033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Comparison of skin thickness among species and anatomical locations.
| Species | SC (μm) | Epidermis (μm) | Whole Skin (mm) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human forearm | 17 | 36 | 1.5 | [ |
| Human | 16.8 | 46.9 | 2.97 | [ |
| Human | 18.2 ± 3.3 | 51.2 ± 12.2 | 2.58 ± 0.07 | [ |
| Pig, back | 26 | 66 | 3.4 | [ |
| Pig ear | 10 | 50 | 1.3 | [ |
| Pig | 26.4 | 65.8 | 3.43 | [ |
| Pig | 17.5 ± 2.4 | 50.7 ± 11.4 | 1.74 ± 0.18 | [ |
| Guinea pig | 18.6 ± 1.2 | 20.8 ± 1.4 | 1.15 ± 0.07 | [ |
| Mouse, back | 5 | 13 | 0.8 | [ |
| Hairless mouse | 8.8 ± 1.0 | 18.0 ± 1.5 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | [ |
| Rat | 18 | 32 | 2.09 | [ |
| Hairless rat | 8.9 | 28.6 | 0.70 | [ |
| Hairless rat | 15.4 ± 3.3 | 28.3 ± 5.3 | 0.86 ± 0.06 | [ |
Figure 1Relationship between skin permeation parameter of excised human cadaver skin and log Ko/w values of chemical compounds. (a) log Ko/w vs. log P, (b) log Ko/w vs. log KL, and (c) log Ko/w vs. log DL−2. Semi-solid line represents the calculated value: Symbols represents observed values. Symbols: ▲; human skin, □: hairless rat skin. Cited from [28,34].
Figure 2Relationships between log p-values of excised human cadaver skin and log p-values in cultured skin models. (a) LSE-high versus excised human cadaver skin; (b) EpiDerm versus excised human cadaver skin; (c) Vitrolife-skin versus excised human cadaver skin; (d) Neoderm-E versus excised human cadaver skin; (e) LabCyte EPI-model versus excised human cadaver skin; and (f) Episkin versus excised human cadaver skin. Each point represents the mean ± S.E. (n = 4–6). Cited from [34].