Author:
Bodenlenz Manfred,Yeoh Thean,Berstein Gabriel,Mathew Shibin,Shah Jaymin,Banfield Christopher,Hollingshead Brett,Steyn Stefanus J.,Osgood Sarah M.,Beaumont Kevin,Kainz Sonja,Holeček Christian,Trausinger Gert,Raml Reingard,Birngruber Thomas
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Accurate methods to determine dermal pharmacokinetics are important to increase the rate of clinical success in topical drug development. We investigated in an in vivo pig model whether the unbound drug concentration in the interstitial fluid as determined by dermal open flow microperfusion (dOFM) is a more reliable measure of dermal exposure compared to dermal biopsies for seven prescription or investigational drugs. In addition, we verified standard dOFM measurement using a recirculation approach and compared dosing frequencies (QD versus BID) and dose strengths (high versus low drug concentrations).
Methods
Domestic pigs were topically administered seven different drugs twice daily in two studies. On day 7, drug exposures in the dermis were assessed in two ways: (1) dOFM provided the total and unbound drug concentrations in dermal interstitial fluid, and (2) clean punch biopsies after heat separation provided the total concentrations in the upper and lower dermis.
Results
dOFM showed sufficient intra-study precision to distinguish interstitial fluid concentrations between different drugs, dose frequencies and dose strengths, and had good reproducibility between studies. Biopsy concentrations showed much higher and more variable values. Standard dOFM measurements were consistent with values obtained with the recirculation approach.
Conclusions
dOFM pig model is a robust and reproducible method to directly determine topical drug concentration in dermal interstitial fluid. Dermal biopsies were a less reliable measure of dermal exposure due to possible contributions from drug bound to tissue and drug associated with skin appendages.
Funder
Pfizer
JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Organic Chemistry,Pharmaceutical Science,Pharmacology,Molecular Medicine,Biotechnology
Reference68 articles.
1. Fernando K, Menon S, Jansen K, Naik P, Nucci G, Roberts J, et al. Achieving end-to-end success in the clinic: Pfizer’s learnings on R&D productivity. Drug Discov Today. 2022;27(3):697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2021.12.010.
2. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):203–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3078.
3. Wu SS, Fernando K, Allerton C, Jansen KU, Vincent MS, Dolsten M. Reviving an R&D pipeline: a step change in the Phase II success rate. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26(2):308–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2020.10.019.
4. Trottet L. Topical pharmacokinetics for a rational and effective topical drug development process. [Website]. PhD Thesis at the University of Greenwich; 2004. https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/6324/
5. Trottet L, Maibach H. Dermal Drug Selection and Development: An Industrial Perspective. Trottet L, Maibach H, editors. Springer International Publishing; 2017. 148 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59504-7