ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2024
Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of skin penetration enhancer Putocrin®.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2024. 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.
- Amber LED photobiomodulation versus tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma: randomized controlled double-blind pilot trial.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the In Vivo Skin Penetration of TXVector by Confocal Raman Spectroscopy.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubstances that can efficiently enhance skin penetration while exerting no adverse effect are useful for drug and cosmetics formulation.
objectiveTo investigate the safety and enhance skin penetration efficacy of Putocrin®, a combination containing 2% isosorbide dimethyl ether, 1% pentanediol, and 0.5% inositol.
methodsAn in vitro keratinocyte cell assay using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2,5 diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT), and an in vitro EpiKutis® skin study adopted hematoxylin and eosin staining, immunostaining, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis were carried out to investigate the safety of Putocrin®. A pigskin-Franz cell system experiment applied high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to compare the skin penetration efficiency of fluorescein isothiocyanate (Fitc)-labeled tranexamic acid with or without the assistance of Putocrin®. The safety and efficacy of Putocrin® was further evaluated on zebrafish embryos.
resultsThe MTT assay showed that Putocrin® at concentration ≤2.5% did not significantly affect cell viability. The in vitro EpiKutis® skin study revealed that 2.5% Putocrin® did not affect skin morphology, filaggrin content, ceramide/protein, or fatty acid/protein ratios, but significantly increased loricrin content by 86.00% (p < 0.001). The pigskin-Franz cell penetration experiment demonstrated that Fitc-labeled tranexamic acid could barely penetrate the skin (with penetration rate of 1.121%), while Putocrin® significantly enhanced the penetration rate up to 83.983%, which was close to unlabeled tranexamic acid (90.013%). The zebrafish embryo study showed that 2.5% Putocrin® did not exert observable toxicity and obviously assisted the skin penetration of Fitc-labeled tranexamic acid into fish embryos. These results indicate the strong enhancing skin penetration potency of Putocrin®.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the safety as well as the strong enhancing skin penetration potency of Putocrin® for cosmetics formulation use.
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.