ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2025
Development and Evaluation of Huperzine A-Loaded Microneedles for Transdermal Delivery and Pretreatment of GD Poisoning.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Huperzine A (Hup A), a reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, shows protective potential against neurotoxic poisoning. Current formulations (oral tablets/capsules and injectables) face limitations: oral administration suffers from first-pass metabolism and fluctuating plasma concentrations due to frequent dosing, while injectables require sterile administration, reducing long-term compliance. The aim of this study was to prepare dissolving microneedles (MNs) patches containing Hup A for pretreatment against soman (GD) poisoning. Hyaluronic acid (HA), polyvinylpyrrolidone K30 (PVP K30) and sorbitol were selected as matrix materials in specific proportions and concentration ranges based on single-factor screening experiments and orthogonal design optimization. In order to further evaluate the potential of the Hup A MNs, optimized formulations were selected for subjected to characterization. This evaluation encompassed morphological observation, mechanical properties, skin penetration efficacy, recovery time, in vitro drug release study, permeability assays, pharmacokinetic study, and pharmacodynamic study. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t-tests for pairwise comparisons and one-way ANOVA for multiple comparisons. The results demonstrated that prepared Hup A MNs had a conical shape with a smooth surface and sharp tips. Hup A MNs had sufficient mechanical strength (122.3 ± 15.3 N) to penetrate through the skin and could be quickly skin of recovery 6 min. In permeability assays, the cumulative Hup A release was about 35.4 μg at 2 h and 58 μg at 10 h. Pharmacodynamic results demonstrated that compared to oral administration, Hup A MNs reduced the onset time (30 min vs. 60 min) and extended the effective prevention duration against GD poisoning (6 h vs. 2 h). Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that MNS administration can maintain a more lasting and stable blood concentration as compared to oral administration. MNs are a valuable drug delivery system, benefiting the patients with minimal skin invasion. Taken together, these results demonstrated that Hup A-loaded MNs are acquiring a new alternative for pretreatment of OPNAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40481368What 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.