ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2025
Optimizing hydrophilic drug incorporation into SEDDS using dry reverse micelles: a comparative study of preparation methods.
Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2025. 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.
- Intracellular Fate of a Dual-Fluorescent Hydrophobic Ion Pair: Comparison of Lipid-Based Nanocarriers.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Strategies to Improve the Lipophilicity of Hydrophilic Macromolecular Drugs.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIt was the aim of this study to compare two different dry reverse micelle (RM) preparation methods for the incorporation of hydrophilic drugs into oral self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS).
methodsCationic ethacridine lactate, anionic fluorescein sodium salt and the antibiotic peptide bacitracin were solubilized in RM containing sodium docusate, soy phosphatidylcholine and sorbitan monooleate in highly lipophilic oils such as squalane. In the dry addition (DA) method, drugs were directly added to empty RM in their powder form. In the organic solvent-aided (OS) method, drugs were pre-dissolved in ethanol or 2-propanol, which were then evaporated to form loaded dry RM.
resultsRM with sorbitan monooleate prepared via the DA method yielded up to 2.7-fold higher solubility only for bacitracin compared to the OS method. In contrast, OS-RM with sodium docusate and soy phosphatidylcholine exhibited significantly higher drug solubilities, achieving up to 109-fold, 44-fold and 97-fold increase for ethacridine, fluorescein and bacitracin, respectively. For all model drugs, the logD
conclusionThe DA method is an easier approach for incorporating hydrophilic drugs into dry RM. However, the OS method presents a more promising alternative as it significantly enhanced the solubility and retention of these drugs in highly lipophilic formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39821869What 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.