ArticleACS omega2026
Dynamic versus Static In Vitro Drug Release Testing of Subcutaneous Implants with Distinct Microstructures.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable long-acting drug delivery systems, such as subcutaneous implants, provide controlled, sustained release of an active ingredient. Although drug release kinetics are critical in the development of such systems, current in vitro release testing methods often fail to account for key physiological parameters such as pH, buffer capacity, flow conditions, as well as tissue/extracellular matrix (ECM) firmness and proteins. This study investigates the long-term in vitro release behavior of two biodegradable dexamethasone-loaded implants with different internal structures: dense implants produced via hot-melt extrusion (HME, 100% infill) and porous implants fabricated via fused filament fabrication (FFF, 25% infill). Phosphate buffers (10 mM and 100 mM), simulated body fluid, and simulated subcutaneous interstitial fluid were evaluated as potential release media. Among the tested buffers, the 100 mM phosphate buffer showed the highest long-term stability, maintaining a consistent buffer capacity with minimal fluctuations in pH and osmolarity and no precipitation at elevated temperatures. Protein-containing media, in general, showed precipitation and degradation and were therefore excluded from further studies. The effect of interstitial fluid flow was evaluated using the USP 4 apparatus, and release was studied over a period of 8 weeks. It was found thatcompared to static conditionsdrug release from porous FFF implants significantly increased from 23.71 ± 1.07% to 25.99 ± 0.41%. In contrast, dense HME implants exhibited diffusion-dominated release that was unaffected by flow. The underlying release mechanism, as determined by Korsmeyer-Peppas modeling, was dominated by diffusion for both implants, consistent with the behavior observed under static release conditions. The influence of tissue/ECM firmness was investigated in a gel-based setup using a 0.5% agarose gel, which allows diffusion of small molecules, mimics the bulk viscoelastic behavior of soft connective tissues/ECM, and shows comparable pore sizes. As expected, the overall drug release and underlying mechanism changed for both implant types, resulting in a lower absolute drug release and elevated
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.