| Literature DB >> 29160824 |
Qiang Zu1,2, Yanyan Yu3, Xiaolin Bi4,5, Ren Zhang6, Liuqing Di7,8.
Abstract
This study examined the efficacy of the percutaneous delivery of a tetramethylpyrazine-loaded microemulsion (TMP-ME) on skin pretreated with microneedles (MN). The TMP-ME formulation was optimized in vitro with skin permeation experiments, using a uniform experimental design, guided by a pseudo-ternary phase diagram, in which the TMP skin permeation level and mean particle size were indices. The effects of MN pretreatment on skin permeation by TMP-ME were assessed using in vitro skin permeation, in vivo skin microdialysis, and pharmacokinetic studies in rats. The influence of MN pretreatment on the skin barrier function was evaluated by measuring the electrical resistance of rat skin before and after MN insertion. In the optimal formulation of TMP-ME, the weight percentages of Maisine® 35-1 (oil phase), Labrasol® (surfactant), and Transcutol® P (co-surfactant) were 7%, 30% and 10%, respectively, with 1.5% TMP loading. In the in vitro skin permeation study, MN-assisted TMP-ME exhibited a two-fold increase in a 24-h cumulative TMP permeation compared with TMP-ME alone (p < 0.05). In the skin microdialysis study, TMP in MN-assisted TMP-ME exhibited a 1.25-fold increase in Cmax, a 0.93-fold decrease in Tmax, and a 0.88-fold increase in AUC0-t (p < 0.05). Similarly, in the pharmacokinetic study, TMP in MN-assisted TMP-ME exhibited a 2.11-fold increase in Cmax, a 0.67-fold decrease in Tmax, and a 1.07-fold increase in AUC0-t (p < 0.05). The percutaneous electrical resistance of rat skin before and after MN insertion was 850 ± 50 Ω/cm² and 283 ± 104 Ω/cm² respectively, indicating that MN dramatically compromises the skin barrier. These results suggest that MN assistance increases the skin permeation rate and the extent of percutaneous absorption of TMP-ME, and that the mechanism may involve the reversible barrier perturbation effect. The rate and extent of percutaneous absorption of TMP-ME can be significantly enhanced by MN assistance, possibly because MN causes a reversible barrier perturbation effect on skin.Entities:
Keywords: microemulsion; microneedle; skin permeation; tetramethylpyrazine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29160824 PMCID: PMC6150303 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22112022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Pseudo-ternary phase diagram for TMP-ME. S&Cos is surfactant (Labrasol) and co-surfactant (Transcutol P); Oil is the oil phase (Maisine35-1); and circles show the compositions of TMP-MEs used for formulation optimization.
Figure 2Cumulative in vitro skin permeation for TMP-MEs. The TMP-MEs used for formulation optimization are shown as ME-1 through ME-9.
Characteristics of TMP-ME formulations.
| Formulation | TMP 24-h Cumulative Skin Permeation (µg/cm2) | Mean Particle Size (nm) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1103.90 ± 117.32 | 63.61 ± 0.72 |
| 2 | 1311.12 ± 40.24 | 86.84 ± 0.41 |
| 3 | 1158.98 ± 109.01 | 55.96 ± 0.34 |
| 4 | 1883.34 ± 123.26 | 101.2 ± 0.65 |
| 5 | 1849.33 ± 16.63 | 83.57 ± 0.59 |
| 6 | 1735.46 ± 125.78 | 96.04 ± 0.28 |
| 7 | 1248.86 ± 132.42 | 119.4 ± 0.15 |
| 8 | 714.97 ± 252.10 | 117.4 ± 0.35 |
| 9 | 1103.90 ± 117.32 | 189.2 ± 0.45 |
Figure 3Cumulative in vitro skin permeation for TMP-ME and MN-assisted TMP-ME.
Figure 4TMP levels in rat skin dialysate in vivo for TMP-ME and MN-assisted TMP-ME (n = 5).
TMP pharmacokinetic parameters for TMP-ME and MN-assisted TMP-ME in the skin microdialysis study.
| Parameter | MN-Assisted TMP-ME | TMP-ME |
|---|---|---|
| Cmax (µg/mL) | 4.79 ± 0.68 * | 2.13 ± 0.16 |
| Tmax (h) | 1.60 ± 0.22 * | 3.10 ± 0.22 |
| AUC (h * µg/mL) | 21.90 ± 2.14 * | 11.65 ± 0.58 |
Note: * represents p < 0.05, compared with TMP-ME.
Figure 5TMP levels in rat plasma for TMP-ME and MN-assisted TMP-ME (n = 5).
TMP pharmacokinetic parameters for TMP-ME and MN-assisted TMP-ME in the pharmacokinetic study.
| Parameter | MN-Assisted TMP-ME | TMP-ME |
|---|---|---|
| Cmax (µg/mL) | 8.25 ± 0.51 * | 2.65 ± 0.36 |
| Tmax (h) | 1.20 ± 0.45 * | 2.00 ± 0.00 |
| AUC (h * µg/mL) | 41.11 ± 3.11 * | 19.87 ± 2.40 |
| t1/2 (h) | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 |
| V (mL) | 2219.01 ± 401.80 * | 4642.66 ± 634.70 |
| Cl (mL/h) | 360.47 ± 28.82 * | 746.00 ± 90.89 |
| MRT (h) | 4.56 ± 0.17 * | 6.03 ± 0.33 |
Note: * represents p < 0.05, compared with TMP-ME.
Experimental design for optimization of the TMP-MP formulation.
| Formulation | Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Water (%) | |||
| 1 | 1 (5.0) | 4 (50.0) | 45.0 |
| 2 | 2 (5.0) | 8 (60.0) | 35.0 |
| 3 | 3 (5.0) | 3 (40.0) | 55.0 |
| 4 | 4 (7.5) | 7 (60.0) | 32.5 |
| 5 | 5 (7.5) | 2 (40.0) | 52.5 |
| 6 | 6 (7.5) | 6 (50.0) | 42.5 |
| 7 | 7 (10.0) | 1 (40.0) | 50.0 |
| 8 | 8 (10.0) | 5 (50.0) | 40.0 |
| 9 | 9 (10.0) | 9 (60.0) | 30.0 |
Notes: X1 represents the weight content of Maisine35-1 (oil phase) in the TMP-ME formulation; X2 represents the weight content of Labrasol and Transcutol P (surfactant and co-surfactant); the loading of TMP is 1.5% (w/w).