Next Article in Journal
Release of Tenofovir from Carrageenan-Based Vaginal Suppositories
Previous Article in Journal
Inhalable PEGylated Phospholipid Nanocarriers and PEGylated Therapeutics for Respiratory Delivery as Aerosolized Colloidal Dispersions and Dry Powder Inhalers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Flux of Select NSAIDs through Silicone Membranes from Mineral Oil

Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Florida, P.O. Box 100485, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2014, 6(3), 354-365; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics6030354
Submission received: 23 May 2014 / Revised: 16 June 2014 / Accepted: 23 June 2014 / Published: 2 July 2014

Abstract

:
Here we report the experimental log maximum fluxes of n = 9 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) through silicone membranes from the lipid mineral oil (experimental (Exp.) log JMPMO) and correlate those Exp. log JMPMO values with their experimental log maximum fluxes through human skin in vivo from mineral oil (Exp. log JMHMO). The correlation was only fair (r2 = 0.647) for n = 9 but improved dramatically if Nabumetone was removed from the correlation (n = 8, r2 = 0.858). Non-linear regression of the n = 8 Exp. log JMPMO values as the dependent variable against their log solubilities in mineral oil (log SMO) and in pH 7.4 or 1.0 buffers (log S7.4 or S1.0, respectively), and their molecular weights as independent variables in the Roberts–Sloan (RS) equation gave a new set of coefficients for the independent variables in RS. Those coefficients have been used to calculate log JMPMO values which have been correlated with the Exp. log JMPMO values to give r2 = 0.911 if log S7.4 and r2 = 0.896 if log S1.0 were used as aqueous phases. Thus, silicone membranes appear to be good surrogates for predicting flux through human skin if the vehicle is a lipid such as mineral oil.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In the presently available literature, there is an increasing body of information examining whether the flux of pharmaceuticals through silicone membranes can serve as a surrogate for flux through human or animal skin [1,2]. The need for this alternative method of predicting transdermal drug delivery arises in part due to the European Union’s ban on topical drug or cosmetic formulations tested on animals [3]. Among the literature on models predicting flux, the Roberts–Sloan (RS) equation (Equation (1)) that proposes that maximum flux (JM) of a molecule through a membrane can be mathematically predicted when the molecular weight (MW), water solubility (SAQ), and lipid solubility (SLIPID) of the permeant are known, has been shown to be quite versatile [4].
log JM = x + y log SLIPID + (1 - y) log SAQz MW
Not only does the RS equation predict log JM when an aqueous vehicle is used, but it can be used to predict log JM when a lipid vehicle is used. If an aqueous vehicle is used, it can be shown that Fick’s law Equation (2) can be expanded to Equation (1) as follows:
J = (D/L)( CM1 - CMn)
JM = (D/L)( SM1 - CMn)
SM1 = (SVEH)(KM1:VEH)
SM1 = (SAQ)(KM1:AQ)
where D is the diffusion coefficient, L is the thickness of the membrane, CM1 is the concentration of the molecule in the first few layers of the membrane, CMn is the concentration in the last few layers of the membrane, SM1 is the solubility in the first few layers of the membrane, SVEH is the solubility in the vehicle (VEH), SAQ is the solubility in water (AQ), KM1:VEH is the partition coefficient for the molecule between the first few layers of the membrane M1 and the vehicle and KM1:AQ is the partition coefficient where the vehicle is water. If solubility in octanol, SOCT, is used as a lipid surrogate for SM1 in KM1:AQ, (KOCT:AQ)y∙c, where c is a constant, can be substituted for KM1:AQ to give Equation (3):
SM1 = (KOCT:AQ)y∙c (SAQ)
log SM1 = y log SOCT - y log SAQ + log c + log SAQ
log SM1 = y log SOCT + (1 - y) log SAQ + log c
If D0 exp (–z MW) is substituted for D in Equation (2), L is assumed to be a constant in Equation (2), CMn is assumed to approach zero in Equation (2) and Equation (3) is substituted for SM1 in Equation (2), collection of log c, log D0 and log L into a new constant x gives Equation (1) where the lipid phase is octanol and the vehicle is water: Equation (4).
log JMAQ = x + y log SOCT + (1 - y) log SAQ - z MW
In order to accommodate a lipid vehicle, KM1:VEH in Equation (2) becomes KM1:LIPID which can be substituted for by KM1:AQ/KLIPID:AQ. Since KM1:AQ can be substituted for by (KLIPID:AQ)y∙c, as in Equation (3), KM1: LIPID becomes (KLIPID:AQ) y·c/KLIPID:AQ and SM1 becomes Equation (5):
SM1 = [(KLIPID:AQ)y∙c/KLIPID:AQ](SLIPID)
log SM1 = y log SLIPID - y log SAQ + log c - log SLIPID + log SAQ + log SLIPID
log SM1 = y log SLIPID + (1-y) log SAQ + log c
Thus log SM1 has the same form in Equation (5) as in Equation (3) and Equation (4) becomes Equation (6) where any lipid vehicle such as mineral oil, MO, can be used in the RS equation: Equation (1) is the same form as Equation (6) but the coefficients will be different depending on the membrane and the actual vehicle and lipid surrogate for M1 used:
log JMLIPID = x + y log SLIPID + (1 - y) log SAQz MW
A recently collected n = 70 database of compounds for maximum flux through silicone membrane from water (log JMPAQ, where “P” stands for a polydimethylsiloxane membrane) and an n = 55 database for maximum flux through human skin in vivo from water (log JMHAQ, where “H” stands for a human skin membrane) were each individually fitted to the RS equation with good results [2]. An n = 52 subset of log JMPAQ values were common to the n = 55 log JMHAQ database. The correlation of the n = 52 log JMPAQ data with their corresponding log JMHAQ was good and suggests that log JMHAQ can be predicted from known log JMPAQ data [2].
The literature currently lacks substantial data for maximum flux through human skin and silicone from vehicles other than water that can be used to determine if there is any correlation between fluxes through the two membranes. It is unknown if flux from a non-aqueous vehicle through silicone can predict flux from a non-aqueous vehicle through human skin. An n = 30 database of flux of Naltrexone prodrugs through human skin in vitro from mineral oil (log JMHMO) has been collected [5]. However, it would be inconvenient as a first step to determine flux of these same prodrugs through silicone membrane from mineral oil (log JMPMO) since each compound would need to be independently synthesized first. A much more convenient approach to answer the question above would be to determine the experimental log JMPMO for commercially available pharmaceuticals that have already been studied in human skin. The log JMHMO (in vivo) for an n = 10 group of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) has been published [6] and that database was found to give a good fit to the RS equation [7].
The data collected here is for the experimentally determined log JMPMO (Exp. log JMPMO) for n = 9 of the NSAIDs utilized in the in vivo human skin study [6]. One compound (Tenoxicam) was not utilized due to unavailability. Once the Exp. log JMPMO data were obtained, a determination was made of how well Exp. log JMPMO correlates with Exp. log JMHMO. A new set of coefficients from the fit of the Exp. log JMPMO data for the n = 9 NSAIDs and their corresponding solubilities and MWs to RS was obtained and used to calculate log JMPMO (calculated (Calc.) log JMPMO). The Exp. log JMPMO data was also fit to various iterations of the RS equation using coefficients which were previously determined from Exp. log JMPAQ or log JMHMO.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The Franz diffusion cells (surface area 4.9 cm2, receptor phase volume 20 mL) were obtained from Crown Glass (Somerville, NJ, USA) and the water bath was from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburg, PA, USA). Diclofenac, Ibuprofen, Ketoprofen, and Naproxen were purchased from TCI (Tokyo, Japan). Nabumetone, Piroxicam, Diflunisal, and Theophylline were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Flufenamic Acid was purchased from Acros Organics (Geel, Belgium). Aspirin was purchased from Eastman Kodak Chemicals (Rochester, NY, USA). Silicone membranes (0.254 mm) were purchased from Pillar Surgical (La Jolla, CA, USA) and all solvents were purchased from Fisher Scientific.

2.2. Solubilities

The solubilities of each NSAID in octanol (SOCT), pH 7.4 phosphate buffer solution (S7.4), and acidic water (S1.0) were calculated from Wenkers and Lippold’s partition coefficients in their Table 1 and Table 2 and given here in Table 1 [6]. Experimental solubility in mineral oil from Wenkers and Lippold [6] was converted to units of mM from mg/dL. The values of log S7.4 were calculated from log SOCT − log KOCT:7.4, the values of log SOCT were calculated from log KOCT:MO + log SMO, and the values of log S1.0 were calculated from log SMO − log KMO:1.0.
Table 1. Molecular weights; calculated log partition coefficients; calculated solubilities; flux through human skin in vivo; flux through silicone membrane.
Table 1. Molecular weights; calculated log partition coefficients; calculated solubilities; flux through human skin in vivo; flux through silicone membrane.
No.CompoundMWlog KOCT:MO a,clog KMO:1.0 a,dlog SOCT a,e,hlog S7.4 a,f,hlog S1.0 a,g,hlog JMHMO a,ilog JMPMO b,i
1Diclofenac2962.911.411.89−0.09−2.43−2.89−1.91
2Flufenamic Acid2811.932.742.460.31−2.21−1.86−0.60
3Ibuprofen2061.153.063.242.02−0.97−0.250.34
4Ketoprofen2543.54−0.193.243.27−0.11−2.09−1.18
5Naproxen2302.840.382.372.02−0.85−2.00−1.46
6Nabumetone2280.572.721.76−1.12−1.53−1.10−1.53
7Piroxicam3311.490.200.750.95−0.94−2.40−2.08
8Aspirin1803.96−2.023.145.181.26−1.72−1.18
9Diflunisal2503.360.882.191.61−2.05−2.44−1.69
a From Wenkers and Lippold 1999; b Measured directly; c Calculated from log KOCT:1.0 − log KMO:1.0; d Calculated from log KOCT:1.0 − log KOCT:MO; e Calculated from log KOCT:MO − log SMO; f Calculated from log SOCT − log KOCT:7.4; g Calculated from log SMO − log KMO:1.0; h Units of mM; i Units of µmol cm−2 h−1.
Experimental solubilities in octanol, SOCT, for each of the compounds were also measured experimentally in this work according to general procedures previously published [8]. An amount of each NSAID expected to saturate 2 mL of octanol was estimated from the previously calculated solubility values. Suspensions of NSAIDs in excess of the estimated values were made in triplicate and were stirred overnight. Samples of NSAIDs in acetonitrile were made with known concentrations and their absorption data were measured using UV spectroscopy. A plot of absorbance versus concentration produced a slope that represented the molar extinction coefficient in units of M−1. Using these experimental molar extinction coefficients and the calculated solubility in octanol, dilution factors were calculated to place the saturated solution absorbance values between 2.000 and 3.000. Concentrations of the saturated solutions were then calculated from experimentally measured absorbance values and the dilution factors used. These data were collected to verify the SOCT data calculated from Wenkers and Lippold [6]. Because the data were similar (percent variation ranged from 2% to 17%), none of the experimentally determined octanol solubility values were used in calculations or analysis to be consistent with the rest of the Wenkers and Lippold data [6].

2.3. Molar Extinction Coefficients in pH 7.1 Phosphate Buffer

Molar extinction coefficients for the compounds in pH 7.1 phosphate buffer, the receptor phase, were determined experimentally. Each compound was initially dissolved in a small volume of acetonitrile (except Diflunisal, which was dissolved in ethanol). These solutions were diluted further with the buffer solution to concentrations that would produce accurate UV absorptions. A plot of absorbance versus concentration produced the slope in units of M−1. Table 2 contains the λmax, molar extinction coefficient, and standard deviation for each compound. There was only one instance of a major variation in this procedure. Aspirin readily hydrolyzed to salicylic acid and acetic acid in the phosphate buffer. Thus, the molar extinction coefficient and the concentrations measured after 24 h were that of salicylic acid.
Table 2. λmax, molar extinction coefficients in pH 7.1 phosphate buffer, and standard deviations (SD).
Table 2. λmax, molar extinction coefficients in pH 7.1 phosphate buffer, and standard deviations (SD).
Compoundλmax (nm)ε ± SD (M−1)
Diclofenac27610,423 ± 74
Flufenamic acid28814,075 ± 228
Ibuprofen265299 ± 37
Ketoprofen26014,791 ± 818
Naproxen2715,116 ± 433
Nabumetone2716,631 ± 334
Piroxicam2869,778 ± 131
Aspirin2953,389 ± 96
Diflunisal3056,895 ± 1,009

2.4. Diffusion Cell Experiments: Determination of log JMPMO

Suspensions were prepared by stirring 0.5 g of each NSAID (1.0 g of Ibuprofen) in 10 mL of light mineral oil for 24 h. The experiments were run in triplicate using silicone membranes placed in Franz static diffusion cells that were kept at a constant 32 °C temperature with a circulating water bath according to general procedures previously published [8]. The membranes were kept in contact with a de-ionized water donor phase and pH 7.1 phosphate buffer receptor phase for 3 h to condition the membranes. A 1 mL aliquot of the NSAID suspension was applied to each of the membranes as the donor phase, and after 5 h the receptor phases were changed. The suspensions were left on the membrane for 16 more hours. Samples of the receptor phases were then taken at 21 h and analyzed by UV spectroscopy to determine the most appropriate sampling time to ensure that the sample would produce accurate UV absorption values and the receptor phases would maintain sink conditions. Further samples were taken every 3 h for all compounds except for Flufenamic acid, Nabumetone and Aspirin (2 h), and Piroxicam (4 h) so that at least four samples were taken for each NSAID. Donor phases were changed as needed to maintain suspensions throughout the experiment.
After the first application, membranes were washed 3–4 times with ethanol to remove the suspensions. Methanol was then left in the donor phase to leach out any remaining residue in the membrane. All membranes were leached for 48 h. After leaching, a 1 mL aliquot of 600 mg/9 mL of theophylline in propylene glycol (Th/PG) was applied as the donor phase. Receptor phases were sampled and replaced every 24 h for a total of 3 samples. The flux of Th/PG, log JMPPG, was compared to previous control flux values to determine if the silicone membranes had been altered by the first applications. Altered membranes would produce higher fluxes than the literature values [8]. All second application fluxes of Th/PG were within the SD of previously reported values. The diffusion cells were dismantled and cleaned after the second application. Membranes were cleaned by soaking in ethanol for 24 h, followed by methanol for 48 h.
Flux values, log JMPMO and log JMPPG, were obtained by plotting cumulative amounts of permeated compound in the receptor phase from 21 h until at least four samples were obtained versus time. The slopes of the plots were calculated as µmole per hour (r2 at least 0.949 for all plots) and divided by the area of the membrane to provide the units of flux, µmol cm−2 h−1.

2.5. Calculations

Linear regression correlations were made between experimental log JMPMO and Wenkers and Lippold log JMHMO. Nonlinear regression analyses of the present data were utilized to determine coefficients for a new Roberts-Sloan equation and were performed using SPSS 9.0.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The SPSS statistical software was not used to calculate the statistical significance of each coefficient individually, but only for regressions that gave a good r2.
Flux values were also calculated from the coefficients to previously published iterations of the RS equation and these calculated log JMPMO were used in linear regressions against experimental log JMPMO. All plots and linear regressions were performed with Excel 14 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and OriginPro 8.5.1 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Comparison of Flux through Silicone Membranes and Human Skin in Vivo

The first analysis performed was how well the experimentally determined flux through silicone membrane (log JMPMO) compared with the human skin in vivo (log JMHMO) dataset published by Wenkers and Lippold [6]. The log JMHMO dataset was plotted versus log JMPMO and a linear regression was performed (Figure 1). It yielded a fair correlation (r2 = 0.647). A notable outlier in the log JMPMO data was Nabumetone. Flux through silicone membranes is typically higher than flux through human skin, as shown in a recent review article on silicone membranes [1]. However, the log JMPMO of Nabumetone was notably lower than its log JMHMO. A major concern with this data was that the Nabumetone data was originally collected in 3 h intervals and it was hypothesized that the receptor phase was no longer under sink conditions (concentration at less than 30% solubility). This saturation of the receptor phase would cause the measured flux to not be the maximum flux, JM. The Nabumetone diffusion cell was performed again with 2 h collection intervals. Even shorter intervals were preferred but smaller intervals would have made the measured UV absorbance to be too low for accurate measurements. Though these cells produced receptor phases with ≤20% saturation, flux was almost unchanged (log JMPMO = −1.53 versus −1.55 in the first procedure). These results cannot be explained currently but will be further investigated when more log JMHMO data are available for comparison. A new plot and linear regression analysis of the data with Nabumetone removed from the dataset yields a better correlation between human skin in vivo and silicone membranes (circled data point in Figure 1 removed. r2 = 0.858).
Figure 1. Plot of experimental (Exp.) log JMHMO versus Exp. log JMPMO. The circled point is Nabumetone.
Figure 1. Plot of experimental (Exp.) log JMHMO versus Exp. log JMPMO. The circled point is Nabumetone.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g001

3.2. Calculation of Roberts–Sloan (RS) Equation Coefficients Derived from Experimental Data

New RS equation coefficients for the present data were estimated using nonlinear regression. In total, eight regressions were performed using the log JMPMO data. Regressions were performed using either the n = 9 dataset or n = 8 (Nabumetone removed). The regressions were performed with each possible combination of log SOCT or log SMO for lipid solubility and log S7.4 or log S1.0 for aqueous solubility.
The first regressions performed utilized log SOCT as lipid solubility and log S7.4 as water solubility in the RS equation. The majority of the literature regarding silicone membranes as surrogates for measuring flux utilize log SOCT in the RS equation or in other related equations. It therefore seemed logical to attempt to estimate equation coefficients using the same lipid solubility. For the n = 9 NSAID database and log S7.4 as aqueous solubility, the coefficient estimates were x = −4.550 (±1.119), y = 1.172 (±0.141), z = −0.0033 (±0.0045), and r2 = 0.558. These calculated coefficients differ from much of the previous available literature. The y coefficient is above 1, meaning there is an inverse relationship between log S7.4 and log JMPMO. Similarly, a negative z coefficient implies a direct relationship with molecular weight and log JMPMO. A regression with Nabumetone removed yielded similar coefficient estimates (x = −4.567, y = 1.168, and z = −0.0034) with a similar correlation of r2 = 0.549.
When utilizing log S1.0 for aqueous solubility and keeping SOCT as lipid solubility, regression of the n = 9 database provides coefficient estimates of x = −4.999 (±1.386), y = 1.062 (±0.210), z = −0.0048 (±0.0048), and r2 = 0.457. The peculiarities of the previous regressions are the same for log SAQ = log S1.0. Analysis of the n = 8 database in the same manner produces similar coefficients with a similar correlation: x = −5.233, y = 1.068, z = −0.0054, and r2 = 0.493.
Noting the poor r-squared values using log SOCT, regressions were performed instead using log SMO for lipid solubility. The coefficient estimates for the n = 9 database using log S7.4 as SAQ were x = −2.592 (±0.790), y = 0.734 (±0.058), z = −0.0039 (±0.0030), and r2 = 0.803. Use of mineral oil solubility showed a dramatic improvement in the fit of the parameter estimates to the RS equation. However, the z coefficient was still notably negative despite the previous literature typically yielding positive values. A regression with the same solubilities but with removal of Nabumetone substantially improves the fit with coefficients of x = −1.755 (±0.799), y = 0.822 (±0.067), z = −0.0015 (±0.0028), and r2 = 0.882.
Using log S1.0 for aqueous solubility and SMO for lipid solubility, the n = 9 database coefficient estimates provided a poor fit with values of x = −1.375 (±1.131), y = 0.703 (±0.126), z = −0.0020 (±0.0045), and r2 = 0.533. This fit was greatly improved to r2 = 0.846 with removal of Nabumetone from the regression and coefficient estimations of x = −0.712 (±0.735), y = 0.823 (±0.067), and z = 0.00053 (±0.0029). This set of coefficients is notably different from those produced in other regressions. It is the only set where the z coefficient was estimated as a positive value as would be predicted based on prior literature.
In both regressions with good r2, the z coefficient is statistically insignificant (p = 0.615 and 0.862, respectively). This issue was previously noted in the analysis of the Wenkers and Lippold human skin in vivo data and is likely due to the narrow range of MW compounds used [7]. However, because the z coefficient is reasonably similar to previous iterations of the RS equation [1,2,5], log JM should retain its dependence on the MW until more flux data can be experimentally determined.
The regressions with the best fit were obtained from the n = 8 dataset using log SMO and either log S7.4 (r2 = 0.882) or log S1.0 (r2 = 0.846). Plots of Calc. log JMPMO using the estimated coefficients from the fit of the n = 8 dataset to RS where SMO was the lipid phase versus Exp. log JMPMO are provided in Figure 2. These linear plots give good correlations of r2 = 0.911 (S7.4) and r2 = 0.896 (S1.0).
Figure 2. Plot of log JM calculated with the coefficients derived from nonlinear regressions performed in this work versus n = 8 Exp. log JMPMO. (a) Dataset using n = 8, SMO, S7.4 and (b) Dataset using n = 8, SMO, S1.0.
Figure 2. Plot of log JM calculated with the coefficients derived from nonlinear regressions performed in this work versus n = 8 Exp. log JMPMO. (a) Dataset using n = 8, SMO, S7.4 and (b) Dataset using n = 8, SMO, S1.0.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g002

3.3. Comparison of Experimental log JMPMO with Calculated log JM Using SOCT as the Lipid Solubility Term

The final analysis performed was of the linear regression between the experimental log JMPMO data and those calculated from the previously published coefficients to the various iterations of the RS equations below. Because there was prior literature for S7.4 and S1.0 for the NSAIDs examined [6], calculations of flux were done using both S7.4 and S1.0. The variables x, y, and z are all coefficients estimated from previous non-linear regressions on experimentally determined data. Coefficients used in these analyses are reproduced in Table 3.
Table 3. RS equation coefficients from previous literature and SLIPID utilized.
Table 3. RS equation coefficients from previous literature and SLIPID utilized.
ReferencexyzSLIPID
Sloan, et al. [1]−1.6070.7010.00492SOCT
Prybylski, et al. [2] (n = 70)−1.6060.6950.00490SOCT
Prybylski, et al. [2] (n = 55)−3.0050.6540.00112SOCT
Sloan, et al. [5]−1.8230.4620.00153SMO
Roberts, et al. [7]−1.4590.7220.00013SMO
The first iteration of the RS equation (Equation (4)) used was from the Sloan et al. review on surrogates for topical delivery in human skin [1]. The coefficients used [1] were calculated from an n = 63 database of flux of molecules through silicone membranes from water. A plot and linear regression of calculated log flux values from Equation (4) versus experimental log flux for the n = 9 NSAIDs was performed and these data are shown in Figure 3. The data yields a poor correlation for each of the regressions performed (r2 = 0.295 or 0.341 when using S7.4 or S1.0, respectively). Removal of Nabumetone from the dataset slightly reduces each r2 value (0.284 and 0.330, respectively).
Figure 3. Plot of log JM calculated with Sloan, et al. surrogate review coefficients [1] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Figure 3. Plot of log JM calculated with Sloan, et al. surrogate review coefficients [1] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g003
A recent paper by Prybylski, et al. expanded on the n = 63 database with an additional seven substituted phenolic compounds to give an n = 70 database [2]. This addition provided an improved fit of the n = 70 compounds to the RS equation with a slight change in the coefficient values [2]. A second linear regression of the n = 9 NSAIDs was performed here with the altered coefficients [2]. The correlation for each regression performed was still poor (r2 = 0.292 or 0.337 when using S7.4 or S1.0, respectively). Removal of Nabumetone from the dataset once again slightly reduced each r2 value (0.280 and 0.326, respectively).
The Prybylski work also expanded the n = 48 database of log JMHAQ to give an n = 55 database. The plot of flux calculated using the coefficients [2] to the fit of RS to the n = 55 database versus the experimental log JMPMO produced a poor correlation, r2 = 0.249 using S7.4 or 0.302 using S1.0, that was further decreased with the removal of Nabumetone from the data (r2 = 0.241 and 0.289, respectively). These plots are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Plot of log JM calculated with Prybylski, et al. coefficients [2] from the n = 55 database versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Figure 4. Plot of log JM calculated with Prybylski, et al. coefficients [2] from the n = 55 database versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g004

3.4. Comparison of Experimental log JMPMO with Calculated log JM Using SMO as the Lipid Solubility Term

Another set of coefficients utilized was obtained from an analysis of pooled n = 30 of Stinchcomb et al. data on the flux of Naltrexone prodrugs through human skin in vitro from mineral oil [5]. Flux of NSAIDs was calculated from coefficients to the fit of RS to the n = 30 database using Equation (7) and plotted versus experimental log JMPMO (Figure 5). The correlation between these data was poor (r2 = 0.393) when using S7.4 and was essentially unchanged using S1.0 (r2 = 0.398).
log JMAQ = x + y log SMO + (1 - y) log SAQz MW
Figure 5. Plot of log JM calculated with Stinchcomb et al. coefficients [5] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Figure 5. Plot of log JM calculated with Stinchcomb et al. coefficients [5] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g005
A final regression was performed utilizing coefficients derived from an analysis of data from the Wenkers and Lippold human skin in vivo experiment [7] fit to Equation (7). There was a reasonable correlation between the log JMPMO values for the n = 9 NSAIDs calculated from Equation (7) and experimental log JMPMO obtained here: use of S7.4 yielded r2 = 0.792 and use of S1.0 yielded r2 = 0.635 (Figure 6). These correlations were improved with the removal of Nabumetone from the dataset (r2 = 0.831 and 0.832, respectively).
Figure 6. Plot of log JM calculated with the coefficients from the Roberts et al. analysis of Wenkers and Lippold [7] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Figure 6. Plot of log JM calculated with the coefficients from the Roberts et al. analysis of Wenkers and Lippold [7] versus Exp. log JMPMO using (a) S7.4 or (b) S1.0.
Pharmaceutics 06 00354 g006

4. Conclusions

Comparison of flux for the n = 9 NSAID compounds through silicone and through human skin in vivo yields a fair correlation that is vastly improved with the removal of the outlier Nabumetone from the dataset. Further investigation of this anomaly is warranted. Calculated coefficients for log JMPMO fit to the RS equation have the best fit and the best correlation between calculated and experimental log JMPMO when utilizing SMO as the surrogate for the lipid phase in RS and S7.4 or S1.0 for the aqueous phase in RS for n = 8 compounds. Expansion of the dataset is needed to increase the validity of the calculated coefficients. There is a generally poor correlation between the experimental flux and flux calculated using RS equation coefficients derived from previously published experiments using an aqueous or mineral oil donor and human skin in vitro or an aqueous donor and silicone membrane. The reason that none of the other coefficients to RS worked is because none were obtained using mineral oil as the donor phase and silicone membranes as in the present case.

Author Contributions

Kenneth B. Sloan conceived the study and its design. Paul S. Mertz conducted the experimental procedure and drafted the initial manuscript. Both authors interpreted the data and revised the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sloan, K.B.; Synovec, J.; Ketha, H. A surrogate for topical delivery in human skin: Silicone membranes. Ther. Deliv. 2013, 4, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Prybylski, J.; Sloan, K.B. The flux of phenolic compounds through silicone membranes. Pharmaceutics 2013, 5, 434–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Toyoda, H. Regulation of the animal experiments and testing in EU. Environ. Mutagen. Res. 2005, 27, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Majumdar, S.; Thomas, J.; Wasdo, S.C.; Sloan, K.B. The effect of water solubility of solutes on their flux through human skin in vitro. Int. J. Pharm. 2007, 329, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sloan, K.B.; Devarajan-Ketha, H.; Wasdo, S.C. Dermal and transdermal delivery: Prodrugs. Ther. Deliv. 2011, 2, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wenkers, B.P.; Lippold, B.C. Skin penetration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs out of a lipophilic vehicle: Influence of the viable epidermis. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88, 1326–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Roberts, W.J.; Sloan, K.B. Application of the transformed Potts–Guy equation to in vivo human skin data. J. Pharm. Sci. 2001, 90, 1318–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wasdo, S.; Juntunen, J.; Devarajan, H.; Murray, T.; Nickels, D.; Singh, S.; Shanks, T.; Ulmer, K.; Sloan, K.B. Modeling of flux through silicone membranes from water. J. Pharm. Sci. 2008, 34, 321–332. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mertz, P.S.; Sloan, K.B. The Flux of Select NSAIDs through Silicone Membranes from Mineral Oil. Pharmaceutics 2014, 6, 354-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics6030354

AMA Style

Mertz PS, Sloan KB. The Flux of Select NSAIDs through Silicone Membranes from Mineral Oil. Pharmaceutics. 2014; 6(3):354-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics6030354

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mertz, Paul S., and Kenneth B. Sloan. 2014. "The Flux of Select NSAIDs through Silicone Membranes from Mineral Oil" Pharmaceutics 6, no. 3: 354-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics6030354

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop