Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5919_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Biomaterials in Drug Delivery: Design and Applications 179
challenges relates to improving the ease of clinical usage. Designing
physical gelators which gel at lower polymer concentrations and at
more precise gelation temperatures would reduce the risk of premature gelation inside the needle upon injection. Similarly, for
covalently cross-linked hydrogels, the further development of strategies to release cross-linker in a triggered manner inside the body
would minimize the risk of syringe clogging, improve the locali
zation of cross-linker release to minimize in vivo toxicity, and enable
mixing of the chemically reactive gel precursors in a single
syringe,
eliminating the need for double-barreled syringes. Improvements
in this domain could also be achieved by developing better applicator systems for the hydrogels. The application of new physicochemical strategies (or combinations of existing cross-linking
techniques) to simultaneously control not only the gelation proc
ess
but also the interactions between the gel and the native tissues
would further expand the utility of injectable hydrogels for both
dr
ug delivery and tissue engineering-based applications. There is a
need for continued improvement in the delivery of not only hydrophobic molecules, but also the delivery of more sensitive molecules
such as proteins, antibodies, or nucleic acids which can readily be
deactivated or unfolded by interactions with the hydrogel delivery
vehicle. Progress on any or all of these challenges would greatly
expand the potential of hydrogel-based drug delivery to successfully deliver the next generation of designed drugs at the
desired
rate and location in the body.
References
1. Ratner BD, Zhang G (2020) A history of
biomaterials. In: Ratner BD, Hoffman AS,
Schoen FJ, Lemons JE (eds) Biomaterials science. An introduction to materials in medicine, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press,
London
2. Ali F (2019) History of dental implants, in
memoriam: Dr. Per-Ingvar Branemark, the
man who made people smile. Int J Adv Res
Ideas Innov Technol 5:123–124
3. Barker CF, Markmann JF (2013) Historical
overview of transplantation. Cold Spring
Harb Perspect Med 3:a014977.
org/10.1101/cshperspect.a014977.9
4. Marin E, Boschetto F, Pezzotti G (2020)
Biomaterials and biocompatibility: an historical overview. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 108:
1617–1633.
a.36930
5. Cohen J (1967) Biomaterials in orthopedic
surgery. Am J Surg 114:31–41.
org/10.1016/0002-9610(67)90037-2
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.
https://doi.
https://doi.
6. Society for Biomaterials (SFB). Available
online:
on 15 June 2021
7. Park JB (1984) Introduction. In: Biomaterials
science and engineering. Springer, Boston,
MA. ISBN 978-1-4612-9710-9
8. Bergmann CP (2013) Stumpf aisha
biomaterials. In: Dental ceramics. Springer,
Berlin, Germany, pp 9–13. ISBN 978-3642-38224-6
9. Williams DF, David F (1986) European Society for Biomaterials Definitions in
biomaterials. In: Proceedings of the Consensus Conference of the European Society for
Biomaterials, Chester, UK, vol 4. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Chester, UK
10. (1991) The
ials 9th European Conference on Biomaterials
Chester, UK 9–11th September, 1991 in conjunction with 2nd Consensus Conference on
Definitions in Biomaterials 7–8th September,
1991 and IUPAC working party on blood
https://biomaterials.org/. Accessed
European Society for Biomater-
180 Naveen Kumar
compatibility. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 2:
62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00701689
11. Kadam AG, Pawar SA, Abhang SA (2017) A
review on finite element analysis of different
biomaterials used in orthopedic implantation.
Int Res J Eng Technol 4:2192–2195
12. Vesque JL, Hermawan H, Dube D, Mantovani D (2008) Design of a pseudophysiological test bench specific to the development of biodegradable metallic biomater
ials. Acta Biomater 4:284–295
13. ISO 10993-1:2009 Biological evaluation of
medical devices—Part 1
14. Chen Z, Wu J, Wang Y, Shao C, Chi J, Li Z,
Wang X, Zhao Y (2019) Photocontrolled
healable structural color hydrogels. Small
15(37):1903104
15. Luo Y, Wei X, Huang P (2019) 3D bioprinting of hydrogel-based biomimetic microenvironments. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl
Biomater 107(5):1695–1705
16. Yun YH, Lee BK, Park K (2015) Controlled
drug delivery: historical perspective for the
next generation. J Control Release 219:2–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.
10.005
17. Tappa K, Jammalamadaka U (2018) Novel
biomaterials used in medical 3D printing
techniques. J Funct Biomater 9(1)
18. Cai AY, Zhu YJ, Qi C (2020) Biodegradable
inorganic nanostructured biomaterials for
drug delivery. Adv Mater Interfaces 7(20):
2000819
19. Li Z, Mei S, Dong Y, She F, Li Y, Li P, Kong L
(2020) Functional nanofibrous biomaterials
of tailored structures for drug delivery—a critical review. Pharmaceutics 12(6):522
20. Lim TC, Spector M (2017) Biomaterials for
enhancing CNS repair. Transl Stroke Res
8(1):57–64
21. Xing H, Lee H, Luo L, Kyriakides TR (2020)
Extracellular matrix-derived biomaterials in
engineering cell function. Biotechnol Adv
42:107421
22. Corti M, Calleri E, Perteghella S, Ferrara A,
Tamma R, Milanese C, Mandracchia D,
Brusotti G, Torre ML, Ribatti D, Auricchio
F (2019) Polyacrylate/polyacrylate-PEG biomaterials obtained by high internal phase
emulsions (HIPEs) with tailorable drug
release and effective mechanical and biological
properties. Mater Sci Eng C 105:110060
23. Kim HS, Yun YH, Shim WG, Yoon SD (2020)
Preparation of atenolol imprinted polysaccharide based biomaterials for a transdermal drug
delivery system. J Drug Delivery Sci Technol
59:101893
24. Bhagwat R, Vaidhya IS (2013) Novel drug
delivery systems: an overview. Int J Pharm
Sci Res 4(3):970–982
25. Schneider C, Langer R, Loveday D, Hair D
(2017) Applications of ethylene vinyl acetate
copolymers (EVA) in drug delivery systems. J
Control Release 262:284–295.
org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.08.004
26. Park K (2014) Controlled drug delivery sys-
-
tems: past forward and future back. J Control
Release 190:3–8.
j.jconrel.2014.03.054
27. Bertrand N, Wu J, Xu X, Kamaly N, Farokhzad OC (2014) Cancer nanotechnology: the
impact of passive and active targeting in the
era of modern cancer biology. Adv Drug Deliv
Rev 66:2–25.
addr.2013.11.009
28. Kamaly N, Xiao Z, Valencia PM, RadovicMoreno AF, Farokhzad OC (2012) Targeted
polymeric therapeutic nanoparticles: design,
development and clinical translation. Chem
Soc Rev 41(7):2971–3010.
10.1039/c2cs15344k
29. Leja K, Lewandowicz G (2010) Polymer biodegradation and biodegradable polymers
review. Pol J Environ Stud 19(2):255–266
30. Vroman I, Tighzert L (2009) Biodegradable
polymers. Materials 2(2):307–344.
doi.org/10.3390/ma2020307
31. Castner DG, Ratner BD (2002) Biomedical
surface science: foundations to frontiers. Surf
Sci 500(1–3):28–60.
1016/S0039-6028(01)01587-4
32. Tathe A, Ghodke M, Nikalje AP (2010) A
brief review: biomaterials and their application. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2(4):19–23
33. Middleton JC, Tipton AJ (2000) Synthetic
biodegradable polymers as orthopedic
devices. Biomaterials 21(23):2335–2346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)
00101-0
34. Leong KW, Langer R (1988) Polymeric controlled drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev
1(3):199–233.
0169-409X(88)90019-1
35. Langer RS, Peppas NA (1981) Present and
future applications of biomaterials in controlled drug delivery systems. Biomaterials 2:
201
36. Traverso G, Langer R (2015) Recent advances
in mesoporous silica nanoparticle-based targeted drug-delivery systems for cancer therapy. Sci Transl Med 7:289ed286
37. Langer R
Nature 392:5
(1998) Drug delivery and targeting.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.
—a
https://
Biomaterials in Drug Delivery: Design and Applications 181
Cheng Z, Al Zaki A, Hui JZ, Muzykantov VR,
38.
T
sourkas A (2012) Multifunctional nanoparticles: cost versus benefit of adding targeting
and imaging capabilities. Science 338:903
39. Mitchell MJ, Jain RK, Langer R (2017) Engineering
and physical sciences in oncology:
challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer
17:659
40. Langer R, Folkman J (1976) Polymers for the
sustained
release of proteins and other macro-
molecules. Nature 263:797
41. Folkman J (1990) How the field of
controlled-release technology
began, and its
central role in the development of angiogenesis research. Biomaterials 11:615
42. Dziuk PJ, Cook B (1966) Passage of steroids
through
silicone rubber. Endocrinology 78:
208
43. Folkman J, Long DM Jr, Rosenbaum R
(1966)
Silicone rubber: a new diffusion property useful for general anesthesia. Science 154:
148
44. Folkman J, Reiling W, Williams G (1969)
Chronic
analgesia by silicon rubber diffusion.
Surgery 66:194
45. Bass PP, Purdon RA, Wiley JN (1965) Prolonged
administration of atropine or histamine in a silicone rubber implant. Nature
208:591
46. Diaz S, Pavez M, Miranda P, Robertson DN,
Sivin
I, Croxatto HB (1982) A five-year clinical trial of levonorgestrel silastic implants
(Norplant
™
). Contraception 25:447
47. Theeuwes F (1975) Elementary osmotic
J Pharm Sci 64:64
pump.
48. Wichterle OL, Lim D (1960) Hydrophilic
gels
for biological use. Nature 185:117
49. Kramer PA (1974) Letter: albumin micro-
spheres
as vehicles for achieving specificity in
drug delivery. J Pharm Sci 63:1646
50. Higuchi T (1961) Rate of release of medica-
from ointment bases containing drugs
ments
in suspension, vol 50. J. Pharm, Sci, p 874
51. Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A (2017)
Advances
in engineering hydrogels. Science
356:3627
52. Peppas NAH, Hilt JZ, Khademhosseini A,
Langer
R (2006) Hydrogels in biology and
medicine: from molecular principles to bionanotechnology. Adv Mater 18:1345
53. Gref R, Minamitake Y, Peracchia MT,
rubetskoy V, Torchilin V, Langer R (1994)
T
Biodegradable long-circulating polymeric
nanospheres. Science 263:1600
54. Hoare TRK, Kohane DS (2008) Hydrogels in
dr
ug delivery: progress and challenges.
Polymer:49, 1993
55. Langer RP, Peppas NA (2003) Advances in
biomaterials,
drug delivery, and bionanotech-
nology. AICHE J 49:2990
56. Langer R (1990) New methods of drug deliver
y. Science 249(4976):1527–1533. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.2218494
57. Iwamoto T (2013) Clinical application of
ug delivery systems in cancer chemother-
dr
apy: review of the efficacy and side effects of
approved drugs. Biol Pharm Bull 36(5):
715–718. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.
b12-01102
58. Lu Y, Aimetti AA, Langer R, Gu Z (2016)
Bioresponsive
materials. Nat Rev Mater 2(1):
16075. https://doi.org/10.1038/
natrevmats.2016.75
59. Lee TT, Garcı´a
JR, Paez JI, Singh A, Phelps
EA, Weis S et al (2015) Light-triggered
in vivo activation of adhesive peptides regulates cell adhesion, inflammation and vascularization of biomaterials. Nat Mater 14(3):
352– 360. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nmat4157
60. Meng F, Hennink WE, Zhong Z (2009)
Reduction-sensitive
polymers and bioconjugates for biomedical applications. Biomaterials 30(12):2180–2198. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.026
61. Wu G, Fang YZ, Yang S, Lupton JR, Turner
ND
(2004) Glutathione metabolism and its
implications for health. J Nutr 134:489
62. Zhao M, Biswas A, Hu B, Joo KI, Wang P,
Z, Tang Y (2011) Redox-resposive nano-
Gu
capsules for intracellular protein delivery. Biomaterials 32:5223
63. Shim MS, Xia Y (2013) A reactive oxygen
species
(ROS)-responsive polymer for safe,
efficient, and targeted gene delivery in cancer
cells. Angew Chem 52:6926
64. Broaders KE, Grandhe S, Frechet JM (2011)
biocompatible oxidation-triggered carrier
A
polymer with potential in therapeutics. J Am
Chem Soc 133:756
65. Cao W, Wang L, Xu H (2015) Selenium/
tellurium
containing polymer materials in
nanobiotechnology. Nano Today 10(6):
717–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nantod.2015.11.004
66. Sun W,
Jiang T, Lu Y, Reiff M, Mo R, Gu Z
(2014) Cocoon-like self-degradable DNA
nanoclew for anticancer drug delivery. J Am
Chem Soc 136(42):14722–14725. https://
doi.org/10.1021/ja5088024
182 Naveen Kumar
Wang S, Wang H, Liu Z, Wang L, Wang X, Su
67.
et al (2014) Smart pH- and reduction-dual-
L
responsive folate-PEGcoated polymeric lipid
vesicles for tumor-triggered targeted drug
delivery. Nanoscale 6(13):7635–7642.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c4nr00843
68. Schmaljohann D (2006) Thermo- and
pH-responsive
Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1655
69. Lee H, Son SH, Sharma R, Won YY (2011) A
discussion
behaviors of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl
methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) and poly(ethylenimine-ran-2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) (P(EI-rEOz)). J Phys Chem B 115:844
70. Chen LQ, Pagel MD (2015) Evaluating pH
the extracellular tumor microenvironment
in
using CEST MRI and other imaging methods. Adv Radiol 2015:206405
71. Yang SC, Chen D, Li N, Mei X, Qi X, Li H,
Xu
Q, Lu J (2012) A facile preparation of
targetable pH-sensitive polymeric nanocarriers with encapsulated magnetic nanoparticles for controlled drug release. J Mater
Chem 22:25354
72. Fu QX, Xu J, Ladewig K, Henderson TMA,
Qiao
GG (2015) Degradable cross-linked
polymer vesicles for the efficient delivery of
platinum drugs. Polym Chem 6:35
73. Ulery BD, Nair LS, Laurencin CT (2011)
Biomedical
polymers. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 49(12):
832–864. https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.
22259
74. Attenello FJ, Mukherjee D, Datoo G, McGirt
MJ,
Bohan E, Weingart JD, Olivi A,
Quinones-Hinojosa A, Brem H (2008) Use
of Gliadel (BCNU) wafer in the surgical treatment of malignant glioma: a 10-year institutional experience. Ann Surg Oncol 15:2887
75. Gajanayake T, Olariu R, Lecle`re
Dhayani A, Yang Z, Bongoni AK et al
(2014) A single localized dose of enzymeresponsive hydrogel improves long-term survival of a vascularized composite allograft.
Sci Transl Med 6(249):249ra110. https://
doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3008778
76. Wiltsey C, Christiani T, Williams J,
Scaramazza
(2015) Thermogelling bioadhesive scaffolds
for intervertebral disk tissue engineering: preliminary in vitro comparison of aldehydebased versus alginate microparticle-mediated
adhesion. Acta Biomater 16(1):71–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.
01.025
polymers in drug delivery.
of the pH-dependent protonation
applications of biodegradable
FM,
J, Van Sciver CV, Toomer K et al
77. Chen CY, Kim TH, Wu WC, Huang CM,
W
ei H, Mount CW et al (2013)
PH-dependent, thermosensitive polymeric
nanocarriers for drug delivery to solid tumors.
Biomaterials 34(18):4501–4509. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.
02.049
78. Hsieh DST, Langer R, Folkman J (1981)
Magnetic
lecules from polymers. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 78(3 I):1863–1867.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.3.1863
79. Mir M, Ishtiaq S, Rabia S, Khatoon M, Zeb A,
Khan
in vivo imaging system to controlled drug
delivery. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):500.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-0172249-8
80. Anselmo AC, Mitragotri S (2016) Nanoparticles
81. Marturano V, Cerruti P, Giamberini M,
Tylkowski
responsive polymer micro-and nano-capsules.
Polymers (Basel) 9(1):1–19. https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym9010008
82. Ercole FD, Davis TP, Evans RA (2010)
Photo-responsive
photochromic polymers, light-triggered selfassembly, surface modification, fluorescence
modulation and beyond. Polym Chem 9:1
83. Pearson S, Vitucci D, Khine YY, Dag A, Lu H,
Save
azobenzene-based glycopolymer micelles for
targeted drug delivery to melanoma cells. Eur
Polym J 69:616–627. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eurpolymj.2015.04.001
84. Yu J, Zhang Y, Ye Y, DiSanto R, Sun W, Ranson
loaded with hypoxiasensitive vesicles provide
fast glucose-responsive insulin delivery. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 112(27):8260–8265.
h t t p s : / /doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1505405112
85. Campbell KT, Hadley DJ, Kukis DL, Silva EA
(2017)
and sustained release of VEGF-C and VEGFD for lymphangiogenic therapeutic applications. PLoS One 12:e0181484
86. Holzapfel B
Gbureck U, Rackwitz L, No¨th U, Jakob F,
Rudert M, Groll J, Hutmacher DW (2013)
How smart do biomaterials need to be? A
translational science and clinical point of
view. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65:581–603.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.
07.009
modulation of release of macromo-
GM et al (2017) Nanotechnology: from
in the clinic. Bioeng Transl Med 1:10
B, Ambrogi V (2017) Light-
systems and biomaterials:
M et al (2015) Lightresponsive
D et al (2015) Microneedlearray patches
Alginate hydrogels allow for bioactive
M, Reichert JC, Schantz J-T,
Biomaterials in Drug Delivery: Design and Applications 183
87. Kowalski PS, Bhattacharya C, Afewerki S,
Langer RS (2018) Smart biomaterials: recent
advances and future directions. ACS Biomater
Sci Eng 4:3809–3817.
https://doi.org/10.
1021/acsbiomaterials.8b00889
88. Tibbitt
MW, Langer R (2017) Living biomaterials. Accounts Chem Res 50:508–513.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.
6b00499
89. Kasin´ski A, Zielin´ska-Pisklak M, Oledzka E,
Sobczak M (2020) Smart hydrogels—synthetic stimuli-responsive antitumor drug
release systems. Int J Nanomedicine 15:
4541–4572.
https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.
s248987
90. Mantha S, Pillai S, Khayambashi P,
Upadhyay A, Zhang Y, Tao O, Pham H,
Tran SD (2019) Smart hydrogels in tissue
engineering and regenerative medicine. Materials 12:3323.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma12203323
91. Zhang Y, Huang Y (2021) Rational design of
smart hydrogels for biomedical applications.
Front Chem 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/
fchem.2020.615665
92. Parhi R (2017) Cross-linked hydrogel for
pharmaceutical applications: a review. Adv
Pharm Bull 7:515–530.
https://doi.org/10.
15171/apb.2017.064
93. Zhao X (2013) Multi-scale multi-mechanism
design of tough hydrogels: building dissipation into stretchy networks. Soft Matter 10:
672– 687.
https://doi.org/10.1039/
c3sm52272e
94. Buwalda SJ, Vermonden T, Hennink WE
(2017) Hydrogels for therapeutic delivery:
current developments and future directions.
Biomacromolecules 18:316–330.
https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.6b01604
95. Zheng Y, Liu J, Lu X, Li Y (2020) Shape
memory biomaterials and their clinical
applications. In: Narayan R (ed) Biomedical
materials. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp
195–255. ISBN 978-3-030-49205-2
96. Mirfakhrai T, Madden JD, Baughman RH
(2007) Polymer artificial muscles. Mater
Today 10:30–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1369-7021(07)70048-2
97. Nemat-Nasser S, Thomas C (2001) Ionomeric polymer-metal composites. In: Electroactive polymer (EAP) actuators as artificial
muscles: reality, potential and challenges.
SPIE, Bellingham, WA, pp 171–230
98. Li J, Xin M, Ma Z, Shi Y, Pan L (2021)
Nanomaterials and their applications on
bio-inspired wearable electronics. Nanotechnology 32:472002.
https://doi.org/10.
1088/1361-6528/abe6c7
99. Brennan M, Layrolle P, Mooney DJ (2020)
Biomaterials functionalized with MSC
secreted extracellular vesicles and soluble factors for tissue regeneration. Adv Funct Mater
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
30.
201909125
100. Yuan
Q, Zhang Y, Chen Q (2019) Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-derived extracellular
vesicles: potential therapeutics as MSC trophic mediators in regenerative medicine.
Anat Rec Adv Integr Anat Evol Biol 303:
1735–1742.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.
24186
Chapter 9
Transdermal Drug Delivery: Technology and Applications
Pabbathi Shivakumar, Ramya Boinepally, and Matukumalli Usha Rani
Abstract
Transdermal drug delivery systems offer a noninvasive alternative to oral and parenteral administration
routes, providing controlled release and enhanced bioavailability. This chapter investigates the anatomical
structure and barrier properties of the skin, elucidates dr ug permeation mechanisms, and explores formulation strategies for optimizing transdermal delivery. Various technologies are analyzed, including passive
systems (patches, gels), active systems (iontophoresis, microneedles), and nanocarrier-based approaches.
The chapter delineates evaluation methods, regulatory considerations, and quality control standards.
Applications across diverse therapeutic areas, such as cardiovascular diseases, pain management, and
hormone therapy, are explored. Key challenges, including overcoming the skin barrier and expanding the
range of deliverable drugs, are addressed. Future perspectives highlight the development of intelligent,
responsive systems and integration with complementary technologies. In conclusion, transdermal drug
delivery demonstrates significant potential for enhancing patient outcomes and revolutionizing drug
administration methodologies.
Key words Skin permeation, Microneedles, Transdermal patches, Penetration enhancers,
Nanocarriers
1 Introduction
Transdermal drug delivery has become a viable option in recent
years, alongside oral and parenteral routes of administration. This
method is more useful in the area of pharmaceutics and therapeutics
because it involves the delivery of drugs through the skin to avoid
the gastrointestinal tract and first-pass metabolism to improve bioavailability and to reduce side effects [
surface area and is the best target for drug administration because
it allows for drug administration and controlled release of the drug
for a prolonged period of time [
transdermal drug delivery systems (TDDS) is based on knowledge
of the skin structure and its barrier properties, which are processes
of overcoming this biological barrier for drug delivery. The stratum
185
1]. The skin has a large
2]. The practical application of
186 Pabbathi Shivakumar et al.
corneum, which is the outermost layer of the epidermis, is the main
barrier for drug diffusion.
Transdermal drug delivery is an adopted method of giving the
patient drugs through the skin onto their systemic circulation. In
this case, the skin barrier is created by the use of patches, gels, or
any other local drug formulation to convey the drugs to the blood.
Transdermal drug delivery is based on controlled, sustained passive
diffusion through various layers of the skin.
1.1 Historical Evolution
Over the past few decades, transdermal drug delivery systems have
undergone substantial advancements. The first transdermal patch
designed for motion sickness using scopolamine emerged in the
1970s. A major breakthrough occurred in the 1980s with the
introduction of nicotine patches to aid smoking cessation
3]. The 1990s saw an expansion of transdermal delivery applica-
[
tions encompassing hormonal therapy and pain management. Since
the 2000s, research efforts have concentrated on creating cuttingedge technologies, such as microneedles and iontophoresis, to
improve the efficacy of drug absorption through the skin.
1.2 Benefits and
Constraints
Transdermal drug administration presents numerous advantages
over conventional drug delivery methods. It bypasses hepatic
first-pass metabolism, enables controlled and continuous drug
release, and improves patient adherence owing to its noninvasive
nature [
4]. Furthermore, this technique allows for easy discontinu-
ation of treatment when needed and decreases dosing frequency.
Nevertheless, transdermal drug delivery has limitations. It is
confined to medications with particular physicochemical characteristics that allow effective skin barrier penetration. Moreover, some
patients may experience skin irritation or allergic responses [
2 Skin Anatomy and Physiology
5].
2.1 Cutaneous Layer Organization
The skin is composed of three main layers: the epidermis, dermis,
and hypodermis. The outermost layer of the epidermis is a stratified
squamous epithelium comprising several sublayers including the
stratum corneum, stratum lucidum, stratum granulosum, stratum
spinosum, and stratum basale. The topmost sublayer, the stratum
corneum, is crucial for barrier function [
6]. Beneath the epidermis
lies the dermis, which consists of connective tissues including blood
vessels, nerve endings, hair follicles, and glands. These components
provide structural support and nourishment to the skin. The hypodermis, also known as the subcutaneous layer, is primarily composed of adipose tissue and serves as an insulator for energy storage.
Transdermal Drug Delivery: Technology and Applications 187
2.2 Cutaneous Barrier Function
2.3 Factors
Influencing Drug
Permeation
The barrier function of the skin is predominantly attributed to the
stratum corneum, which consists of corneocytes embedded in a
lipid matrix. This structure is frequently described using a “brick
and mortar” model, wherein corneocytes represent the bricks and
intercellular lipids form the mortar [
7]. The barrier function pro-
tects against water loss, microbial invasion, and penetration of
harmful substances [8]. The lipid matrix, which is composed of
ceramides, cholesterol, and free fatty acids, plays a crucial role in
maintaining skin hydration and regulating permeability [9]. Furthermore, the acidic pH of the skin, typically ranging from
4.5 to 6.5, contributes to its antimicrobial properties and aids in
maintaining the integrity of the stratum corneum [
10].
Drug permeation through the skin is a complex process influenced
by multiple factors categorized into three main groups: physicochemical properties of the drug, formulation factors, and biological
factors. The physicochemical properties of a drug are critical in
determining its ability to penetrate the skin bar rier. Molecules
with molecular weights of less than 500 Da and moderate lipophilicity (log P between 1 and 3) generally exhibit superior skin
permeation [
11]. The drug’s ionization state also affects its perme-
ation, with unionized molecules demonstrating greater penetration
than ionized molecules. These properties collectively deter mine the
capacity of the drug to overcome the skin’s natural barrier function
and reach the underlying tissues or systemic circulation.
ulation a
Form
nd biological factors exert a significant influence
on drug permeation through the skin. The selection of the vehicle,
drug concentration, and incorporation of penetration enhancers in
the formulation substantially affect the rate and extent of drug
permeation. Vehicle selection is critical because different vehicles
can enhance drug solubility or alter skin barrier properties. For
instance, lipophilic vehicles, such as mineral oil, can increase the
partitioning of lipophilic drugs into the stratum corneum, whereas
hydrophilic vehicles, such as propylene glycol, can enhance the
solubility of hydrophilic drugs. Drug concentration also plays a
crucial role, as higher concentrations generally lead to increased
permeation owing to a greater concentration gradient. However,
this relationship is not always linear, because saturation effects may
occur at very high concentrations.
Penetration enhancers
are compounds that can disrupt the
structure of the stratum corneum and facilitate drug passage. For
example, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) can increase the fluidity of
intercellular lipids, whereas urea can increase skin hydration and
keratolytic effects. Biological factors also play a critical role in drug
permeation. Skin hydration can enhance permeation by improving
drug solubility in the stratum corneum. Occlusive dressings or
humectants, such as glycerin, can increase skin hydration and
potentially enhance drug absorption. Elevated skin temperatures
188 Pabbathi Shivakumar et al.
Table 1
Common permeation enhancers used in transdermal formulations
Category Examples Mechanism of action
Alcohols Ethanol, propylene glycol Increase drug solubility, extract lipids
Fatty acids Oleic acid, linoleic acid Disrupt lipid packing in stratum corneum
Terpenes Menthol, limonene Increase lipid fluidity
Surfactants Sodium lauryl sulfate Solubilize lipids, denature keratin
Urea Urea, dimethyl urea Increase hydration of stratum corneum
can increase molecular kinetic energy and blood flow, potentially
enhancing drug absorption [
12]. This effect is often utilized in
transdermal drug delivery systems that incorporate heat-generating
components.
Increased local blood flow can enhance drug absorption by
maintaining a concentration gradient across the skin. Vasodilators
or physical methods, such as massage, can increase local blood flow.
The integrity of the skin barrier significantly affects drug permeation. Compromised skin, such as in cases of eczema or psoriasis,
may allow for increased drug penetration compared to intact skin
[
13]. The anatomical site is also important because skin thickness
and appendage density vary across different body regions, thereby
affecting drug permeation. For instance, the skin on the face and
genitals is generally more permeable than that on the palms or
soles. Age can also influence skin per meability, with infant skin
often being more permeable than adult skin, whereas elderly skin
may have reduced barrier function.
These factors interact in complex ways, and their combined
effects must be considered when designing transdermal drug delivery systems (Table 1). For example, a formulation may combine a
suitable vehicle (e.g., ethanol) with a penetration enhancer (e.g.,
menthol) and be applied to a highly permeable anatomical site
(e.g., behind the ear) to maximize drug permeation. Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing effective transdermal
drug delivery systems.
3 Mechanisms of Transdermal Drug Delivery
Transdermal drug delivery systems utilize various mechanisms to
facilitate the transport of therapeutic agents across the skin barrier,
providing a noninvasive and convenient method for drug administration. These systems have garnered significant attention owing to
their potential to overcome the limitations associated with oral and
parenteral routes of drug delivery. The mechanisms underlying