ArticleJournal of biomechanics2008
Structural biomechanics modulate intramuscular distribution of locally delivered drugs.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heparinoid Complex-Based Heparin-Binding Cytokines and Cell Delivery Carriers.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Noninvasive imaging of Staphylococcus aureus infections with a nuclease-activated probe.Nature medicine · 2014Article
- Local epicardial inotropic drug delivery allows targeted pharmacologic intervention with preservation of myocardial loading conditions.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2011Article
- Intramuscular drug transport under mechanical loading: resonance between tissue function and uptake.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As local drug delivery continues to emerge as a clinical force, so does understanding of its potentially narrow therapeutic window. Classic molecular transport studies are of value but do not typically account for the local nature of drug transport or the effects of regional dynamic function in target tissues like muscle that may undergo cyclical and variable mechanical motion and loading. We examined the impact of dynamic architecture on intramuscular drug distribution. We designed a tissue mounting technique and mechanical loading system that uniquely enables pharmacokinetics investigations in association with control of muscle biomechanics while preserving physiologic tissue architecture. The system was validated and used to elucidate the influence of architecture and controlled cyclic strain on intramuscular drug distribution. Rat soleus muscles underwent controlled deformations within a drug delivery chamber that preserved in vivo physiology. Penetration of 1mM 20 kDa FITC-dextran at planar surfaces of the soleus axial cross-section increased significantly from 0.52+/-0.09 mm under 80 min of static (0%) strain to 0.81+/-0.09 mm under cyclic (3 Hz, 0-20% peak-to-peak) strain, demonstrating the driving effect of cyclic loading on transport. Penetration at curved margins was 1.57- and 2.53-fold greater than at planar surfaces under static and cyclic strain, respectively, and was enhanced 1.6-fold more by cyclic strain, revealing architecturally dictated spatial heterogeneity in transport and modulation of motion dynamics. Architectural geometry and dynamics modulate the impact of mechanical loading on local drug penetration and intramuscular distribution. Future work will use the biomechanical test system to investigate mechanisms underlying transport effects of specific loading regimens. It is hoped that this work will initiate a broader understanding of intramuscular pharmacokinetics and guide local drug delivery strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.