Effects of microemulsions on the stratum corneum and hydrocortisone penetration
Effects of microemulsions on the stratum corneum and hydrocortisone penetration
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0939-6411(01)00160-6
复制
发表时间：
2001-09-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Gloor, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lehmann, L;Keipert, S;Gloor, M
我们测试了高含水量亲水性微乳液 (ME 1) 和低含水量亲脂性微乳液 (ME 2) 是否适合用于皮肤科，特别是作为替代氢化可的松 (HC) 载体。两种研究产品的亲脂性成分是肉豆蔻酸异丙酯。 ME 1 的表面活性剂/辅助表面活性剂体系由两种蔗糖酯组成，ME 2 的表面活性剂/辅助表面活性剂体系由 Tagat (R) S 和 Plurololeat (R) 的混合物组成。在对绒毛尿囊膜进行的鸡蛋测试中，两种 ME 均未表现出体外刺激性。 在 14 名受试者中，在使用 ME 1 或 ME 2 3 天之前和之后以及两个未经处理的对照部位，通过角质测量法测定角质层含水量，并通过 Tewameter 测定经表皮失水量 (TEWL)。 ME 1 产生脱水并增加 TEWL 作为屏障受损的证据。 ME 2 也增加了 TEWL，但没有脱水作用。然后受试者用表面活性剂溶液进行标准化清洗。在这些条件下，用 ME 2 预处理也会产生脱水，但程度比用 ME 1 预处理要小。在同一受试者中，根据色度计测定的漂白效果与仅用闭塞膜敷料处理的部位相比，评估两种 ME 对 HC 渗透（0.5%，24 小时闭塞）的影响。比较剂是双亲乳膏（Basiscreme (BC) Deutscher Arzneimittel Codex（德国处方集））。与 BC 相比，ME 1 产生的刺激性皮肤发红是显着的，而 ME 2 产生的刺激性皮肤发红是轻微但明显的。所有研究产品均通过热烫效果证明了 HC 渗透率，并且与 BC 相比，ME 1 的渗透率明显更高，ME 2 的渗透率略高。然而，两种ME都不会改善HC治疗，因为刺激作用太大，以致于ME 1中配制的HC的漂白作用明显较小，并且ME 2中的HC的漂白作用略小于BC中配制的HC的漂白作用。 (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 保留所有权利。
We tested a high-water-content hydrophilic microemulsion (ME 1) and a low-water-content lipophilic microemulsion (ME 2) for their suitability for use in dermatology, in general, and as alternative hydrocortisone (HC) vehicles, in particular. The lipophilic component of both study products was isopropyl myristate. The surfactant/cosurfactant system of ME 1 consisted of two sucrose esters and that of ME 2 was a mixture of Tagat (R) S and Plurololeat (R). Both MEs showed no in vitro irritability in the hen's egg test on chorioallantoic membranes.In 14 subjects, stratum corneum water content was determined by corneometry and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) by the Tewameter before and after 3 days use of ME 1 or ME 2 as well as on two untreated control sites. ME 1 produced dehydration and increased TEWL as evidence of barrier compromise. ME 2 also produced an increase in TEWL but had no dehydrating effect. Subjects then underwent standardized washing with a surfactant solution. Under these conditions, pretreatment with ME 2 also produced dehydration, but to a lesser extent than did pretreatment with ME 1.In the same subjects, the impact of the two MEs on HC penetration (0.5%, 24 h occlusion) was evaluated in terms of the chromameter-determined blanching effect compared with that on a site treated only with an occlusive film dressing. The comparator was an ambiphilic cream (Basiscreme (BC) Deutscher Arzneimittel Codex (German Formulary)). Irritative skin redness produced by ME 1 was significant and that produced by ME 2 was slight but visible, compared with BC. HC penetration was demonstrable from all the study products via the blanching effect and was significantly greater from ME 1 and slightly greater from ME 2 than from BC. However, neither ME would improve HC therapy because the irritative effects were so great that the blanching effect of HC formulated in ME 1 was significantly smaller and that of HC in ME 2 slightly smaller than that of HC formulated in BC. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.