A microdialysis study of topically applied diclofenac to healthy humans: Passive versus iontophoretic delivery

Diclofenac in vitro microdialysis study comparing different experimental setups to improve quantitative recovery

Several studies investigated diclofenac tissue concentrations using microdialysis (MD). However, thorough evaluations of the optimal MD set‐up for diclofenac are unavailable. Thus, this in vitro MD study aimed to compare different set‐ups to improve quantitative recovery of diclofenac. In forward and reverse in vitro MD experiments with diclofenac at two concentrations (1 and 100 ng/ml), the perfusion solutions physiological saline 0.9% (PS) and human albumin 1% (HSA) were compared using tissue probes (10‐mm membrane) and customized intravenous (iv) probes (30‐mm membrane). Using PS, the mean relative recovery of diclofenac at 1 ng/ml was 1.6% ± 0.04% and 3.12% ± 0.00% with the tissue probe and the iv probe, respectively. The respective mean relative recovery for diclofenac at 100 ng/ml was 0.02% ± 0.01% and 0.21% ± 0.11%. Using HSA, the mean relative recovery was 314% ± 25% (tissue probe) and 1064% ± 97% (iv probe) for diclofenac at 1 ng/ml and 444% ± 91% and 1415% ± 217% for diclofenac at 100 ng/ml. In reverse dialysis using PS, the mean relative loss of diclofenac was 99.2% ± 0.5% (tissue probe) and 95.8% ± 1.7% (iv probe). Using HSA, the mean relative loss was −4.4% ± 7.2% and 0.2% ± 7.5%, respectively. PS and HSA were not suitable perfusion solutions for quantification of absolute diclofenac concentrations. Despite methodological challenges, HSA may be used for comparative experiments or bioequivalence studies.

Electroporation technique for joint pain - Pilot feasibility study on TMD patients

Objective(s)

It is well appreciated that traditional analgesic delivery routes used to treat pain associated with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) often have harmful unintended side effects as a consequence of systemic distribution. Further, localized delivery of analgesic medication via intra‐articular injections involves a different set of issues limiting their clinical viability. As an option, transdermal analgesic delivery provides for prolonged pain relief and flexibility in dose administration, while limiting systemic exposure and minimizing adverse events. Incorporation of a novel electroporation technique may further increase transdermal drug penetration into synovial tissue/fluid and enhance pain reduction. The present feasibility study compares the effectiveness of an electroporation‐enhanced transdermal application of diclofenac sodium to a conventional intra‐articular injection of triamcinolone acetonide suspension (corticosteroids) to treat patients with TMD associated pain.

Methods

Pre‐ and post‐treatment maximal incisal mouth opening (MIO), pain visual analog scale (VAS) and surface electromyography (EMG) of 22 patients treated with electroporation‐enhanced diclofenac and 37 patients treated with corticosteroids injections were collected and analyzed.

Results

In general, patients treated with electroporation exhibited better results in terms of pain improvement (corrected p‐value = .01) compared to the standard treatment, but both methods were similarly effective for improvement of MIO (corrected p‐value = .71) and improvement of all EMG indices (corrected p‐values ≥ .05).

Conclusion

The enhancing effect of electroporation in transdermal delivery of diclofenac sodium was demonstrated by decreased pain, increase MIO and EMG improvement to normal values. Its analgesic and inflammatory results are comparable with standard treatment offered by corticosteroids.

Lack of dermal penetration of topically applied gentamicin as pharmacokinetic evidence indicating insufficient efficacy

Background

Treatment of skin and superficial soft tissue infections with topically applied antibiotics is a controversial topic, because only few clinical studies exist and target site concentrations after topical treatment are widely unknown.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the target site concentration of topically applied gentamicin as a potential cause of therapeutic failure and to explore if microporation by laser might be used to improve penetration of gentamicin through the skin barrier.

Methods

Six healthy volunteers were included in this cross-over Phase 1 study. On two study days, separated by a washout period, microdialysate and plasma sampling was performed for 6 h after administration of 500 mg of gentamicin cream on a predefined area. On one of the study days the skin was microporated before drug application using the P.L.E.A.S.E. Professional laser system.

Results

In intact skin, Cmax and AUC values were 3.3 ± 5.64 ng/mL and 5.4 ± 10.4 ng·h/mL, respectively; thereby far under the threshold needed to treat common pathogens. With a Cmax of 474.2 ± 555.3 ng/mL laser application showed a significant increase in tissue penetration and decrease in pharmacokinetic variability; however, even after microporation no therapeutically active concentrations were achieved as indicated by Cmax/epidemiological cut-off ratios of 0.237 and 0.059 for Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, respectively. Solely after administration on microporated skin, plasma concentrations of gentamicin were quantifiable (lower limit of quantification 10 pg/mL).

Conclusions

This study confirmed that after topical administration gentamicin penetration through the dermal barrier is insufficient, providing pharmacokinetic evidence that topical gentamicin in its current form might be inappropriate to treat skin infections.

Iontophoresis driven concentrations of topically administered diclofenac in skeletal muscle and blood of healthy subjects

PURPOSE

The present open single-centre, descriptive and comparative pharmacokinetic study aimed to investigate the efficacy of iontophoresis to enhance transdermal delivery by measuring concentration vs. time profiles of diclofenac in local tissue and in plasma in two separate study periods.

METHODS

Period 1 determined diclofenac concentrations in both calf muscles simultaneously by using microdialysis after applying diclofenac gel topically as a single dose of 5 g with or without iontophoresis in eight healthy volunteers. In period 2, the same dose was applied to another 8 volunteers to determine plasma concentrations of diclofenac either with or without iontophoresis in a cross over design.

RESULTS

In period 1, tissue concentrations were found to be under the limit of detection of 0.5 ng/ml both with and without iontophoresis in all subjects. In period 2, after iontophoresis in 75% of study participants, plasma concentrations of diclofenac could be determined, but only in 25% without iontophoresis. Although area under the concentration-time-curve (AUC, 187.97 ± 315.92 vs. 22.92 ± 42.44 ng*min/ml) and maximum concentration (Cmax, 2.06 ± 3.79 vs. 0.22 ± 0.41 ng/ml) values showed a numerically clear trend for higher values with iontophoresis compared to passive diffusion, no significant difference could be found due to high inter-individual variability. In total, 18.75% of all subjects presented adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a higher percentage of subjects showed detectable plasma levels of diclofenac after iontophoresis, iontophoresis failed to achieve potentially more effective topical concentrations. The typical mechanism of iontophoresis like electromigration, electroosmosis and increased subcutaneous circulation could be responsible for the results of the present observation. Additional clinical studies are needed to justify the transdermal delivery of diclofenac by using iontophoresis.