Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 1432–1441 | Cite as

Validation of a Static Franz Diffusion Cell System for In Vitro Permeation Studies

  • Shiow-Fern NgEmail author
  • Jennifer J. Rouse
  • Francis D. Sanderson
  • Victor Meidan
  • Gillian M. Eccleston
Research Article

Abstract

Over the years, in vitro Franz diffusion experiments have evolved into one of the most important methods for researching transdermal drug administration. Unfortunately, this type of testing often yields permeation data that suffer from poor reproducibility. Moreover, this feature frequently occurs when synthetic membranes are used as barriers, in which case biological tissue-associated variability has been removed as an artefact of total variation. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the influence of a full-validation protocol on the performance of a tailor-made array of Franz diffusion cells (GlaxoSmithKline, Harlow, UK) available in our laboratory. To this end, ibuprofen was used as a model hydrophobic drug while synthetic membranes were used as barriers. The parameters investigated included Franz cell dimensions, stirring conditions, membrane type, membrane treatment, temperature regulation and sampling frequency. It was determined that validation dramatically reduced derived data variability as the coefficient of variation for steady-state ibuprofen permeation from a gel formulation was reduced from 25.7% to 5.3% (n = 6). Thus, validation and refinement of the protocol combined with improved operator training can greatly enhance reproducibility in Franz cell experimentation.

KEY WORDS

franz cell in vitro diffusion cell reproducibility standardisation validation variability 

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Franz TJ. Percutaneous absorption. On the relevance of in vitro data. J Invest Dermatol. 1975;64:190–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Franz T. The finite dose technique as a valid in vitro model for the study of percutaneous absorption. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1978;7:58–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farinha A, Toscano C, Campos R, Bica A, Hadgraft J. Permeation of naproxen from saturated solutions and commercial formulations through synthetic membranes. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2003;29:489–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah V, Elkins J, Lam S, Skelly J. Determination of in vitro drug release from hydrocortisone creams. Int J Pharm. 1989;53:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siewert M, Dressman J, Brown C, Shah V. FIP/AAPS guidelines to dissolution/in vitro release testing of novel/special dosage forms. AAPS PharmSci Tech. 2003;4:7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah V, Elkins J, Williams R. Evaluation of the test system used for in vitro release of drugs for topical dermatological drug products. Pharm Dev Technol. 1999;4:377–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wester R, Maibach H. Review: percutaneous absorption of drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1992;23:253–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michaels A, Chandrasekaran SK, Francis W, Meredith M. Drug permeation through human skin: theory and in vitro experimental measurement. A I Ch E J. 1975;21:985–96.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henning A, Schaefer UF, Neumann D. Potential pitfalls in skin permeation experiments: influence of experimental factors and subsequent data evaluation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72:324–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan G, Frum Y, Sarheed O, Eccleston GM, Meidan VM. Assessment of drug permeability distribution in two different model skins. Int J Pharm. 2005;303:81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frum Y, Eccleston GM, Meidan VM. Evidence that drug flux through synthetic membranes is assocated with normally distributed permeability coefficients. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;67:434–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chilcott R, Barai N, Beezer A, Brain S, Brown M, Bunge A, et al. Inter- and intra-laboratory variation of in vitro diffusion cell measurements: an international multi-centre study using quasi-standardised methods and materials. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94:632–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diembeck W, Beck H, Benech-Kieffer F, Courtellemont P, Dupuis J, Lovell W, et al. Test guidelines for in vitro assessment of dermal absorption and percutaneous penetration of cosmetic ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol. 1999;37:191–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gale E, Folkes J. The Incorporation of glycerol and lysine into the lipid fraction of staphyloccoccus aureus. Biochem J. 1965;94:390–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He P, Davis S, Illum L. In vitro evaluation of the mucoadhesive properties of chitosan microspheres. Int J Pharm. 1998;166:75–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skelly J, Shah V, Maibach H, Guy R, Wester R, Flynn GL, et al. FDA and AAPS report of the workshop on principles and practices of in vitro percutaneous penetration studies—relevance to bioavailability and bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 1987;4:265–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FDA-SUPAC-SS. Guidance for Industry. SUPAC-SS non-sterile semisolid dosage forms. Scale-up and postapproval changes: chemistry, manufacturing and controls. In vitro release testing and in vivo bioequivalence documentation. 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gummer C, Hinz R, Maibach H. The skin penetration cell: a design update. Int J Pharm. 1987;40:101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rolland A, Demichelis G, Jamoule J, Shroot B. Influence of formulation, receptor fluid, and occlusion on in vitro drug release from topical dosage forms, using an automated flow-through diffusion cell. Pharm Res. 1992;9:82–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diez-Sales OACW, Herraez-Dominguez M, Javaloyes C, Hadgraft J. A mechanistic investigation of the in vitro human skin permeationi enhancing effect of Azone. Int J Pharm. 1996;129:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallagher SLT, Carter T, Heard C. Effects of membrane type and liquid/liquid phase boundary on in vitro release of Ketoprofen from gel formulations. J Drug Target. 2003;11:373–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haigh J, Smith E. The selection and use of natural and synthetic membranes for in vitro diffusion experiments. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1994;2:311–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheuplein R. The Skin as a barrier. In: Jarrett A, editor. The physiology and pathophysiology of skin. London: Academic; 1978. p. 1669–92.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akomeah F, Nazir T, Martin G, Brown M. Effect of heat on the percutaneous absorption and skin retention of three model penetrants. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2004;21:337–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiow-Fern Ng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer J. Rouse
    • 2
  • Francis D. Sanderson
    • 3
  • Victor Meidan
    • 2
  • Gillian M. Eccleston
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and BioMedical SciencesUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  3. 3.Pharmaceutical DevelopmentGlaxoSmithKlineHarlowUK

Personalised recommendations