Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22100440›Full record

ArticleJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2012

A physical mechanism to explain the delivery of chemical penetration enhancers into skin during transdermal sonophoresis - Insight into the observed synergism.

Baris E Polat, William M Deen, Robert Langer, Daniel Blankschtein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mechanism investigation of ethosomes transdermal permeation.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2019
    Article
  10. Defining optimal permeant characteristics for ultrasound-mediated gastrointestinal delivery.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Applicability and safety of dual-frequency ultrasonic treatment for the transdermal delivery of drugs.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Rapid skin permeabilization by the simultaneous application of dual-frequency, high-intensity ultrasound.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Baris E PolatDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
William M Deen
Robert Langer
Daniel Blankschtein

Funding

Ultrasound Polymeric Drug DeliveryR01EB000351 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI LANGER, ROBERT SAMUEL · 2002 to 2013
$3.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS EB-00351NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB000351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The synergism between low-frequency sonophoresis (LFS) and chemical penetration enhancers (CPEs), especially surfactants, in transdermal enhancement has been investigated extensively since this phenomenon was first observed over a decade ago. In spite of the identifying that the origin of this synergism is the increased penetration and subsequent dispersion of CPEs in the skin in response to LFS treatment, to date, no mechanism has been directly proposed to explain how LFS induces the observed increased transport of CPEs. In this study, we propose a plausible physical mechanism by which the transport of all CPEs is expected to have significantly increased flux into the localized-transport regions (LTRs) of LFS-treated skin. Specifically, the collapse of acoustic cavitation microjets within LTRs induces a convective flux. In addition, because amphiphilic molecules preferentially adsorb onto the gas/water interface of cavitation bubbles, amphiphiles have an additional adsorptive flux. In this sense, the cavitation bubbles effectively act as carriers for amphiphilic molecules, delivering surfactants directly into the skin when they collapse at the skin surface as cavitation microjets. The flux equations derived for CPE delivery into the LTRs and non-LTRs during LFS treatment, compared to that for untreated skin, explain why the transport of all CPEs, and to an even greater extent amphiphilic CPEs, is increased during LFS treatment. The flux model is tested with a non-amphiphilic CPE (propylene glycol) and both nonionic and ionic amphiphilic CPEs (octyl glucoside and sodium lauryl sulfate, respectively), by measuring the flux of each CPE into untreated skin and the LTRs and non-LTRs of LFS-treated skin. The resulting data shows very good agreement with the proposed flux model.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsModels, BiologicalSkin AbsorptionAcousticsAdministration, CutaneousAnimalsFemaleGlucosidesPropylene GlycolSkinSodium Dodecyl SulfateSurface-Active AgentsSwineGlucosidesoctyl-beta-D-glucosidePropylene GlycolSodium Dodecyl SulfateSurface-Active Agents

Identifiers

PMID22100440
PMCPMC3294085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.