ArticlePharmaceutical research2024
Comparative Study of Dermal Pharmacokinetics Between Topical Drugs Using Open Flow Microperfusion in a Pig Model.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Film-Forming Gels for Topical Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Formulation on Film Performance, Drug Release, and Skin Permeation.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Local Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Topically-Applied Bimatoprost to the Scalp of Male Patients With Androgenetic Alopecia.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Advancing transdermal drug delivery using translational data and mechanistic based modeling.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- Dermal Concentration Versus Systemic Bioavailability of Topical Lidocaine and Tetracaine: An Exploratory Pharmacokinetic Pilot Study in Göttingen Minipigs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems: Different Generations and Dermatokinetic Assessment of Drug Concentration in Skin.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate methods to determine dermal pharmacokinetics are important to increase the rate of clinical success in topical drug development. We investigated in an in vivo pig model whether the unbound drug concentration in the interstitial fluid as determined by dermal open flow microperfusion (dOFM) is a more reliable measure of dermal exposure compared to dermal biopsies for seven prescription or investigational drugs. In addition, we verified standard dOFM measurement using a recirculation approach and compared dosing frequencies (QD versus BID) and dose strengths (high versus low drug concentrations).
methodsDomestic pigs were topically administered seven different drugs twice daily in two studies. On day 7, drug exposures in the dermis were assessed in two ways: (1) dOFM provided the total and unbound drug concentrations in dermal interstitial fluid, and (2) clean punch biopsies after heat separation provided the total concentrations in the upper and lower dermis.
resultsdOFM showed sufficient intra-study precision to distinguish interstitial fluid concentrations between different drugs, dose frequencies and dose strengths, and had good reproducibility between studies. Biopsy concentrations showed much higher and more variable values. Standard dOFM measurements were consistent with values obtained with the recirculation approach.
conclusionsdOFM pig model is a robust and reproducible method to directly determine topical drug concentration in dermal interstitial fluid. Dermal biopsies were a less reliable measure of dermal exposure due to possible contributions from drug bound to tissue and drug associated with skin appendages.
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.