Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: We investigated the potential effects of oleic acid (OA) and glycerol monooleate (GMO) on the skin delivery of CXB.
Methods: The influence of both OA and GMO (5.0% or 10.0%) on the in vitro skin permeability of CXB (2.0%) was evaluated using propylene glycol (PG) as a vehicle. Also the in vitro potential cytotoxicity and genotoxicity and in vivo assays (skin irritation in rabbits and topical anti-inflammatory activity by in mice) were conducted.
Results: As expected, the amount of CXB that permeated through the skin was minimal, but drug retention on the viable skin (epidermis plus dermis) was higher in association with treatment with 5.0% OA or GMO compared to the control treatment, meaning that there was a localized effect of CXB in the skin. No formulation presented cytotoxic or genotoxic potential, suggesting safety for cutaneous application. In vivo skin irritation assays indicated that no formulation was irritating to the skin becomes its use possible for a prolonged time. In vivo anti-inflammatory experiments indicated that both edema and protein extravasation were inhibited with a maximum % inhibition of 53.5.0% and 61.0% for 5.0 % GMO, respectively, and 48.0% and 35.5% for 5.0% OA, respectively. Such formulations were able to inhibit around twofold the percentage of ear edema in mice compared to a commercial product reference diclofenac commercial formula.
Conclusion: There is no topical formulation currently available that contains both CXB and 5.0% GMO or OA, suggesting them as potential adjuvants that improve the skin delivery of CXB.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03639045.2013.809731 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!