ArticleDrug delivery2022
Pharmacokinetic improvement provided by microneedle patch in delivering bee venom, a case study in combating scopolamine-induced neurodegeneration in mouse model.
Article in Drug delivery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Bioactivity Exerted by theMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Melittin - the main component of bee venom: a promising therapeutic agent for neuroprotection through keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 pathway activation.Chinese medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much research has shown Bee venom to be an effective neuroprotective agent. However, the usual transdermal injection of bee venom poses many pharmacokinetic disadvantages. Here, we compared the administration of bee venom via subcutaneous injection (SC) and via Microneedle patch (MN). Both administrated routes produce significant recovery effects, however: the MN significantly prolongs the bio-significant-and-yet-lower concentration of bee venom in mice bodies. In contrast, SC could produce only a short period of much higher bee venom levels in the blood and brain. We also see that due to the concentration-response-curve of bee venom (represented by melittin): mice bodies do not require much higher bee venom concentration (seen in the SC group) to produce a much more significant neuroprotective effect (than seen in those treated with the MN method). Therefore, a MN could maintain bee venom levels in mice bodies at lower-yet-more-efficient concentrations. This is important, as bee venom can cause more adverse effects and pain sensations, at higher concentrations. For the first time, we confirmed that the pharmacokinetic advantages of MN delivered bee venom also guarantee a holistic neuroprotection effect (which was shown by SC delivered bee venom in previous research). This was proven via the results of the water maze experiments for long-term learning memory assessment and protein analysis of key neuronal regulatory proteins: BDNF, p-CREB, iNOS, and mArhR 1. In conclusion, for situations where we ought to administrate drugs at a more downward amount, such as bee venom, MN can keep the therapeutic concentrations at a lower, yet interestingly, more-efficient level.
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.