Mathematical Models for Topical and Transdermal Drug Products

Chapter

Abstract

Mathematical models of epidermal and dermal transport, which includes transport of a solute through vehicle and various layers of the skin, metabolism in the skin and its subsequent distribution and clearance into systemic circulation from underlying tissues, play an essential role in development of topical and transdermal drug products and are reviewed in this chapter.

Keywords

Percutaneous drug delivery Mathematical modelling 

References

  1. 1.
    Roberts MS, Anissimov YG. Mathematical models in percutaneous absorption. In: Bronaugh RL, Maibach HI, Editors. Percutaneous absorption drugs—cosmetics—mechanisms—methodology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005. pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roberts MS, Walters KA. The relationship between structure and barrier function of skin. In: Roberts MS, Walters KA, editors. Dermal absorption and toxicity assessment. New-York: Marcel Dekker; 1998. pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheuplein RJ. A personal view of skin permeation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;26:199–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magnusson BM, et al. Molecular size as the main determinant of solute maximum flux across the skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;122(4):993–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sloan KB, Wasdo SC, Rautio J. Design for optimized topical delivery: prodrugs and a paradigm change. Pharm Res. 2006;23(12):2729–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts MS, Cross SE, Pellett MA. Skin transport. In: Walters KA, Editor. Dermatological and transdermal formulations. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2002. pp. 89–195.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuswahyuning R, Roberts MS. Concentration dependency in nicotine skin penetration flux from aqueous solutions reflects vehicle induced changes in nicotine stratum corneum retention. Pharm Res. 2014;31:1501–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunge AL, Persichetti JM, Payan JP. Explaining skin permeation of 2-butoxyethanol from neat and aqueous solutions. Int J Pharm. 2012;435(1):50–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frasch HF, et al. Dermal permeation of 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, a model water-miscible compound: effects of concentration, thermodynamic activity and skin hydration. Int J Pharm. 2014;460(1/2):240–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crank J. The mathematics of diffusion. 2 ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1975.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yano Y, et al. Two-compartment dispersion model for analysis of organ perfusion system of drugs by fast inverse Laplace transform (FILT). J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1989;17(2):179–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yano Y, Yamaoka K, Tanaka H. A nonlinear least squares program, MULTI(FILT), based on fast inverse Laplace transform for microcomputers. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1989;37(4):1035–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Purves RD. Accuracy of numerical inversion of Laplace transforms for pharmacokinetic parameter estimation. J Pharm Sci. 1995;84(1):71–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anissimov YG, Watkinson A. Modelling skin penetration using the Laplace transform technique. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;26(4/6):286–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pirot F, et al. Characterization of the permeability barrier of human skin in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1997;94(4):1562–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frasch HF, Barbero AM. The transient dermal exposure: theory and experimental examples using skin and silicone membranes. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(4):1578–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siddiqui O, Roberts MS, Polack AE. Percutaneous absorption of steroids: relative contributions of epidermal penetration and dermal clearance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1989;17(4):405–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts MS. Structure-permeability considerations in percutaneous absorption. In: Scott RC, et al., editors. Prediction of percutaneous penetration. London: IBC Technical Services; 1991. pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Diffusion modeling of percutaneous absorption kinetics: 1. Effects of flow rate, receptor sampling rate and viable epidermal resistance for a constant donor concentration. J Pharm Sci. 1999;88(11):1201–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parry GE, et al. Percutaneous-absorption of benzoic-acid across human skin .1. invitro experiments and mathematical-modeling. Pharm Res. 1990;7(3):230–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scheuplein RJ, Blank IH. Mechanism of percutaneous absorption IV. Penetration of non electrolytes (alcohols) from aqueous solutions and from pure liquids. J Invest Dermatol. 1973;60:286–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts MS, et al. The percutaneous absorption of phenolic compounds: the mechanism of diffusion across the stratum corneum. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1978;30(8):486–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. Physicochemical interpretation of the pharmacokinetics of percutaneous-absorption. J Pharmacokinetics Biopharmaceutics. 1983;11(2): pp. 189–203.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kubota K, Ishizaki T. A theoretical consideration of percutaneous drug absorption. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1985;13(1):55–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cooper ER, Berner B. Finite dose pharmacokinetics of skin penetration. J Pharm Sci. Oct 1985.74:1100–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Diffusion modeling of percutaneous absorption kinetics: 2. Finite vehicle volume and solvent deposited solids. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(4):504–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kasting GB. Kinetics of finite dose absorption through skin 1. Vanillylnonanamide. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(2):202–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scheuplein RJ, Ross LW. Mechanism of percutaneous absorption. V. Percutaneous absorption of solvent deposited solids. J Invest Dermatol. 1974;62(4):353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kakemi K, et al. Model studies on percutaneous absorption and transport in the ointment. I. Theoretical aspects. Chem Pharm Bull Tokyo. 1975;23(9):2109–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. A theoretical description relating skin penetration to the thickness of the applied medicament. Int J Pharm. 1980;6(3/4):321–32.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hadgraft J. The epidermal reservoir: a theoretical approach. Int J Pharm. 1979;2:265–74.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cleek RL, Bunge AL. A new method for estimating dermal absorption from chemical exposure .1. General approach. Pharm Res. 1993;10(4):497–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bunge AL, Cleek RL. A new method for estimating dermal absorption from chemical exposure: 2 Effect of molecular weight and octanol–water partitioning. Pharm Res. 1995;12(1):88–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seko N, et al. Theoretical analysis of the effect of cutaneous metabolism on skin permeation of parabens based on a two-layer skin diffusion/metabolism model. Biol Pharm Bull. 1999;22(3):281–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scheuplein RJ, Morgan LJ. “Bound water” in keratin membranes measured by a microbalance technique. Nature. 1967;214(87):456–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roberts MS, Triggs EJ, Anderson RA. Permeability of solutes through biological membranes measured by a desorption technique. Nature. 1975;275:225–7.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scheuplein RJ, Blank IH. Permeability of the skin. Physiol Rev. 1971;51(4):702–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mitragotri S, et al. Mathematical models of skin permeability: an overview. Int J Pharm. 2011;418:115–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Diffusion modeling of percutaneous absorption kinetics: 4. Effects of a slow equilibration process within stratum corneum on absorption and desorption kinetics. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:772–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Watkinson AC, et al. Computer simulation of penetrant concentration-depth profiles in the stratum corneum. Int J Pharm. 1992;87:175–82.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mueller B, Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Unexpected clobetasol propionate profile in human stratum corneum after topical application in vitro. Pharm Res. 2003;20(11):1835–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Diffusion modeling of percutaneous absorption kinetics: 3. Variable diffusion and partition coefficients, consequences for stratum corneum depth profiles and desorption kinetics. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(2):470–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hadgraft J. Calculations of drug release from controlled release devices: the slab. Int J Pharm. 1979;2:177–94.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chandrasekaran SK, Bayne W, Shaw JE. Pharmacokinetics of drug permeation through human skin. J Pharm Sci, 1978;67:1370–4.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Iordanskii AL, et al. Modeling of the drug delivery from a hydrophilic transdermal therapeutic system across polymer membrane. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2000;49(3):287–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Higuchi WI. Diffusional models useful in biopharmaceutics. J Pharm Sci. 1967;56:315–24.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Riegelman S. Pharmacokinetics: pharmacokinetic factors affecting epidermal penetration and percutaneous adsorption. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974;16(5 Part 2):873–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wallace SM, Barnett G. Pharmacokinetic analysis of percutaneous absorption: evidence of parallel penetration pathways for methotrexate. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1978;6(4):315–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roberts MS, Anissimov YG, Gonsalvez RA. Mathematical models in percutaneous absorption. In: Bronaugh RL Maibach HI, editors. Percutaneous absorption drugs—cosmetics—mechanisms—methodology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999. pp. 3–55.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McCarley KD, Bunge AL. Physiologically relevant two-compartment pharmacokinetic models for skin. J Pharm Sci. 2000;89(9):1212–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    McCarley KD, Bunge AL. Physiologically relevant one-compartment pharmacokinetic models for skin. 1. Development of models. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(4):470–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zatz J. Simulation studies of skin permeation. J Soc Cosm Chem. 1992;43:37–48.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Anissimov YG. Mathematical models for different exposure conditions. In: Roberts MS, Walters KA, Editors. Dermal absorption and toxicity assessment. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008, pp. 271–86.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roberts MS, Anderson RA, Swarbrick J. Permeability of human epidermis to phenolic compounds. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1977;29(11):677–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wu MS. Determination of concentration dependent water diffusivity in a keratinous membrane. J Pharm Sci. 1983;72:1421–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gienger G, Knoch A, Merkle HP. Modeling and numerical computation of drug transport in laminates—model case evaluation of transdermal delivery system. J Pharm Sci. 1986;75(1):9–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Higuchi WI, Higuchi T. Theoretical analysis of diffusion movement through heterogeneous barriers. J Am Pharm Assoc Sci Ed. 1960;49:598–606.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chandrasekaran SK, et al. Scopolamine permiation through human skin in vitro. AlChE J. 1976;22:828–32.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kubota K, Koyama E, Twizell EH. Dual sorption model for the nonlinear percutaneous permeation kinetics of timolol. J Pharm Sci. 1993;82(12):1205–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ando HY, Ho NFH, Higuchi WI. Skin as an active metabolizing barrier. 1. Theoretical analysis of topical bioavailability. J Pharm Sci. 1977;66:1525–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yu CD, et al. Physical model evaluation of topical prodrug delivery-simultaneous transport and bioconversion of vidarabine-5′-valerate II: parameter determinations. J Pharm Sci. 1979;68(11):1347–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yu CD, et al., Physical model evaluation of topical prodrug delivery-simultaneous transport and bioconversion of vidarabine 5′-valerate. Part 1. Physical model development. Part 2. Parameter determinations. J Pharm Sci. 1979;68:1341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yu CD, et al., Physical model evaluation of topical prodrug delivery-simultaneous transport and bioconversion of vidarabine 5'-valerate. Part 5. Mechanistic analysis of influence of nonhomogeneous enzyme distributions in hairless mouse skin. J Pharm Sci. 1980;69:775–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fox JL, et al. General physical model for simultaneous diffusion and metabolism in biological-membranes—computational approach for the steady-state case. Int J Pharm. 1979;2(1):41–57.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hadgraft J. Theoretical aspects of metabolism in the epidermis. Int J Pharm. 1980;4:229–39.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. Percutaneous metabolism with saturable enzyme-kinetics. Int J Pharm. 1982;11(3):187–97.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kubota K, Ademola J, Maibach HI. Simultaneous diffusion and metabolism of betamethasone 17-valerate in the living skin equivalent. J Pharm Sci. 1995;84(12):1478–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. Pharmacokinetics of percutaneous absorption with concurrent metabolism. Int J Pharm. 1984;20:43–51.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hadgraft J, Wolff HM. In vitro/in vivo correlations in transdermal drug delivery. Dermal Absorption Toxicity Assessment. 1998;91:269–79.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robinson PJ. Prediction: Simple risk models and overview of dermal risk assessment. In: Roberts MS, Walters KA, editors. Dermal absorption and toxicity assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998. pp. 203–29.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yalkowsky SH, Valvani SC. Solubility and partitioning I: solubility of nonelectrolytes in water. J Pharm Sci. 1980;69(8):912–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Reifenrath WG, Robinson PB. In vitro skin evaporation and penetration characteristics of mosquito repellents. J Pharm Sci, 1982;71:1014–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. Percutaneous absorption kinetics of topically applied agents liable to surface loss. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1984;35:103–13.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Guy RH, Hadgraft J. A theoretical description of the effects of volatility and substantivity on percutaneous-absorption. Int J Pharm. 1984;18(1/2):139–47.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Saiyasombati P, Kasting GB. Disposition of benzyl alcohol after topical application to human skin in vitro. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92(10):2128–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kasting GB, Miller MA. Kinetics of finite dose absorption through skin 2: volatile compounds. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95(2):268–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Miller MA, Bhatt V, Kasting GB. Dose and airflow dependence of benzyl alcohol disposition on skin. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95(2):281–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Scheuplein RJ. Mechanism of percutaneous absorption. II. transient diffusion and the relative importance of various routes of skin penetration. J Invest Dermatol. 1967;48(1):79–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ghanem AH, et al. The effects of ethanol on the transport of beta-estradiol and other permeants in hairless mouse skin. II. a new quantitative approach. J Controlled Release. 1987;6:75–83.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hatanaka T, et al. Prediction of skin permeability of drugs .2. development of composite membrane as a skin alternative. Int J Pharm. 1992;79(1):21–8.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tojo K, Chiang CC, Chien YW. Drug permeation across the skin: effect of penetrant hydrophilicity. J Pharm Sci. 1987;76:123–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Yamashita F, et al. Analysis of skin penetration enhancement based on a 2-layer skin diffusion-model with polar and nonpolar routes in the stratum-corneum—dose-dependent effect of 1-geranylazacycloheptan-2-one on drugs with different lipophilicities. Biol Pharm Bull. 1993;16(7):690–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Edwards DA, Langer R. A linear-theory of transdermal transport phenomena. J Pharm Sci. 1994;83(9):1315–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Malkinson FD, Ferguson EH. Percutaneous absorption of hydrocortisone-4-C14 in two human subjects. J Invest Dermatol. 1955;25(5):281–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Vickers CF. Stratum corneum reservoir for drugs. Adv Biol Skin. 1972;12:177–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Reddy MB, Guy RH, Bunge AL. Does epidermal turnover reduce percutaneous penetration? Pharm Res. 2000;17(11):1414–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Roberts MS, Cross SE, Anissimov YG. Factors affecting the formation of a skin reservoir for topically applied solutes: skin pharmacology and applied skin. Physiology. 2004;17:3–16.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rohatagi S, et al. Integrated pharmacokinetic and metabolic modeling of selegiline and metabolites after transdermal administration. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1997;18(7):567–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cross SE, Wu Z, Roberts MS. Effect of perfusion flow rate on the tissue uptake of solutes after dermal application using the rat isolated perfused hindlimb preparation. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1994;46(10):844–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cross SE, Wu Z, Roberts MS. The effect of protein binding on the deep tissue penetration and efflux of dermally applied salicylic acid, lidocaine and diazepam in the perfused rat hindlimb. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996;277(1):366–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Williams PL, Carver MP, Riviere JE. A physiologically relevant pharmacokinetic model of xenobiotic percutaneous-absorption utilizing the isolated perfused porcine skin flap. J Pharm Sci. 1990;79(4):305–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Reddy MB, McCarley KD, Bunge AL. Physiologically relevant one-compartment pharmacokinetic models for skin. 2. comparison of models when combined with a systemic pharmacokinetic model. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(4):482–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Roberts MS, et al., Modeling of subcutaneous absorption kinetics of infusion solutions in the elderly using technetium. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm, 1997;25:1–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Singh P, Roberts MS, Maibach HI. Modeling of plasma-levels of drugs following transdermal iontophoresis. J Controlled Release. 1995;33(2):293–8.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Imanidis G, et al. Estimation of skin target site acyclovir concentrations following controlled (trans)dermal drug-delivery in topical and systemic treatment of cutaneous hsv-1 infections in hairless mice. Pharm Res. 1994;11(7):1035–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tegeder I, et al. Application of microdialysis for the determination of muscle and subcutaneous tissue concentrations after oral and topical ibuprofen administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;65(4):357–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Cooper ER. Pharmacokinetics of skin penetration. J Pharm Sci. 1976;65(9):1396–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Cooper ER, Effect of diffusional lag time on multicompartmental pharmacokinetics for transepidermal infusion. J Pharm Sci. 1979;68:1469–1470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    McDougal JN. Prediction—physiological models. In: Roberts MS, Walters KA, Editors. Dermal absorption and toxicity assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998. pp. 189–202.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Jepson GW, McDougal JN. Physiologically based modeling of nonsteady state dermal absorption of halogenated methanes from an aqueous solution. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;144(2):315–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Timchalk C, et al. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) model for the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos in rats and humans. Toxicol Sci. 2002;66(1):34–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Poet TS, et al. PBPK modeling of the percutaneous absorption of perchloroethylene from a soil matrix in rats and humans. Toxicol Sci. 2002;67(1):17–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Poet TS, et al. Assessment of the percutaneous absorption of trichloroethylene in rats and humans using MS/MS real-time breath analysis and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Toxicol Sci. 2000;56(1):61–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Poet TS, et al. Utility of real time breath analysis and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to determine the percutaneous absorption of methyl chloroform in rats and humans. Toxicol Sci. 2000;54(1):42–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Thrall KD, Weitz KK, Woodstock AD. Use of real-time breath analysis and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to evaluate dermal absorption of aqueous toluene in human volunteers. Toxicol Sci. 2002;68(2):280–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Qiao GL, et al. Dermatoxicokinetic modeling of p-nitrophenol and its conjugation metabolite in swine following topical and intravenous administration. Toxicol Sci. 2000;54(2):284–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Riviere JE, et al. Dermal absorption and distribution of topically dosed jet fuels jet-A, JP-8, and JP-8(100). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1999;160(1):60–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Benowitz NL, et al. Stable isotope method for studying transdermal drug absorption: the nicotine patch. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50(3):286–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Welin-Berger K, et al. In vitro-in vivo correlation in man of a topically applied local anesthetic agent using numerical convolution and deconvolution. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92(2):398–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Anissimov YG, et al. Mathematical and pharmacokinetic modelling of epidermal and dermal transport processes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:169–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Jepps OG, et al. Modeling the human skin barrier—towards a better understanding of dermal absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:152–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Gupta E, Wientjes MG, Au JL. Penetration kinetics of 2',3'-dideoxyinosine in dermis is described by the distributed model. Pharm Res. 1995;12(1):108–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Cross SE, et al. Self promotion of deep tissue penetration and distribution of methylsalicylate after topical application. Pharm Res. 1999;16(3):427–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kretsos K, Kasting GB, Nitsche JM. Distributed diffusion-clearance model for transient drug distribution within the skin. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(11):2820-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Anissimov YG, Roberts MS. Modelling dermal drug distribution after topical application in human. Pharm Res. 2011;28(9):2119–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Schaefer H, Stuttgen G. Absolute concentrations of an antimycotic agent, econazole, in the human skin after local application. Arzneimittelforschung. 1976;26(3):432–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Schaefer H, Zesch A. Penetration of vitamin A acid into human skin. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1975;74:50–5.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schaefer H, Zesch A, Stuttgen G. Penetration, permeation, and absorption of triamcinolone acetonide in normal and psoriatic skin. Arch Dermatol Res. 1977;258(3):241–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Schaefer H, et al. Quantitative determination of percutaneous absorption of radiolabeled drugs in vitro and in vivo by human skin. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1978;7:80–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zesch A, Schaefer H. [Penetration of radioactive hydrocortisone in human skin from various ointment bases. II. In vivo-experiments (author’s transl)]. Arch Dermatol Forsch. 1975;252(4):245–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Dancik Y, et al. Convective transport of highly plasma protein bound drugs facilitates direct penetration into deep tissues after topical application. Brit J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73(4):564–78.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Singh P, Maibach HI, Roberts MS. Site of effects. Dermal absorption toxicity assessment. 1998;91:353–70.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    McNeill SC, Potts RO, Francoeur ML. Local enhanced topical delivery (LETD) of drugs: does it truly exist? Pharm Res. 1992;9(11):1422–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Singh P, Roberts MS. Blood-flow measurements in skin and underlying tissues by microsphere method—application to dermal pharmacokinetics of polar nonelectrolytes. J Pharm Sci. 1993;82(9):873–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Singh P, Roberts MS. Dermal and underlying tissue pharmacokinetics of salicylic acid after topical application. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21(4):337–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Roberts MS, Cross SE. A physiological pharmacokinetic model for solute disposition in tissues below a topical application site. Pharm Res. 1999;16(9):1392–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Nakayama K, et al. Estimation of intradermal disposition kinetics of drugs: I. analysis by compartment model with contralateral tissues. Pharm Res. 1999;16(2):302–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Higaki K, et al. Estimation of intradermal disposition kinetics of drugs: II. factors determining penetration of drugs from viable skin to muscular layer. Int J Pharm. 2002;239(1/2):129–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Singh P, Roberts MS. Effects of vasoconstriction on dermal pharmacokinetics and local tissue distribution of compounds. J Pharm Sci. 1994;83(6):783–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Cross SE, et al., Is there tissue penetration after application of topical salicylate formulations? Lancet, 1997;350:636.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Muller M, et al. Diclofenac concentrations in defined tissue layers after topical administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;62(3):293–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Beastall J, et al. The influence of urea on percutaneous-absorption. Pharm Res. 1986;3(5):294–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Demana PH, et al., Evaluation of the proposed FDA pilot dose response methodology for topical corticosteroid bioequivalence testing. Pharm Res, 1997;14:303–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Singh GJ, et al. Evaluation of the proposed FDA pilot dose-response methodology for topical corticosteroid bioequivalence testing [letter]. Pharm Res, 1998;15(1):4–7 (Biol Sciences Journal holding: [v.1](1984)-12(1995);13(1996)).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Smith EW, Haigh JM, Walker RB. Analysis of chromameter results obtained from corticosteroid-induced skin blanching. Part 1. manipulation of data. Pharm Res. 1998;15:280–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Cordero JA, et al. In vitro based index of topical anti-inflammatory activity to compare a series of NSAIDs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;51(2):135–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kasting GB. Theoretical-models for iontophoretic delivery. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 1992;9(2/3):177–99.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Roberts MS, Lai PM, Anissimov YG. Epidermal iontophoresis: I. development of the ionic mobility-pore model. Pharm Res. 1998;15(10):1569–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Cross SE, Roberts MS. Importance of dermal blood supply and epidermis on the transdermal iontophoretic delivery of monovalent cations. J Pharm Sci. 1995;84(5):584–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Mitragotri S, Blankschtein D, Langer R. An explanation for the variation of the sonophoretic transdermal transport enhancement from drug to drug. J Pharm Sci. 1997;86(10):1190–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Tezel A, et al. Frequency dependence of sonophoresis. Pharm Res. 2001;18(12):1694–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Tezel A, Sens A, Mitragotri S. Description of transdermal transport of hydrophilic solutes during low-frequency sonophoresis based on a modified porous pathway model. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92(2):381–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Jiang R, et al. Absorption of sunscreens across human skin: an evaluation of commercial products for children and adults. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48(4):635–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Kubota K, Sznitowska M, Maibach HI. Percutaneous-absorption—a single-layer model. J Pharm Sci. 1993;82(5):450–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Beckett AH, Taylor DC, Gorrod JW. Comparison of oral and percutaneous routes in man for systemic administration of ephedrines. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1972;24:65–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland Micro- and Nanotechnology CentreGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biomolecular and Physical SciencesGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  3. 3.Therapeutics Research Unit, School of MedicineThe University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra HospitalWoolloongabbaAustralia
  4. 4.School of Pharmacy & Medical SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations