Skin penetration of active molecules for treatment of diverse diseases is a major field of research owing to the advantages associated with the skin like easy accessibility, reduced systemic‐derived side effects, and increased therapeutic efficacy. Despite these advantages, dermal drug delivery is generally challenging due to the low skin permeability of therapeutics. Although various methods have been developed to improve skin penetration and permeation of therapeutics, they are usually aggressive and could lead to irreversible damage to the stratum corneum. Nanosized carrier systems represent an alternative approach for current technologies, with minimal damage to the natural barrier function of skin. In this Review, the use of nanoparticles to deliver drug molecules, genetic material, and vaccines into the skin is discussed. In addition, nanotoxicology studies and the recent clinical development of nanoparticles are highlighted to shed light on their potential to undergo market translation.
Skin penetration of active molecules for treatment of diverse diseases is a major field of research owing to the advantages associated with the skin like easy accessibility, reduced systemic‐derived side effects, and increased therapeutic efficacy. Despite these advantages, dermal drug delivery is generally challenging due to the low skin permeability of therapeutics. Although various methods have been developed to improve skin penetration and permeation of therapeutics, they are usually aggressive and could lead to irreversible damage to the stratum corneum. Nanosized carrier systems represent an alternative approach for current technologies, with minimal damage to the natural barrier function of skin. In this Review, the use of nanoparticles to deliver drug molecules, genetic material, and vaccines into the skin is discussed. In addition, nanotoxicology studies and the recent clinical development of nanoparticles are highlighted to shed light on their potential to undergo market translation.
Purpose: To compare the effect on corneal healing of two novel hydrogels releasing proteins obtained from amniotic membrane (AM). Methods: Forty‐four New Zealand White rabbits underwent corneal wounding with NAOH 1 M and received different treatments: Control (group 1), AM transplantation (group 2), model A hydrogel (group 3) and model B hydrogel (group 4). The progression of wound healing was recorded with photographs and assessed by measuring the remaining epithelial defect over time. Histology was performed to examine acute and chronic changes. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in epithelial defect areas (mm2) at days 0, 7, 14, 21 and 28. The percentage of wound closure (%) showed statistically significant differences on day 7 between Group 1 and Group 4 (p = 0.03). The percentage of completely healed corneas showed no statistically significant differences between the control and treated groups on days 14, 21 and 28, but on day 7, there were differences between Group 4 and Control (p = 0.02). On days 14 and 21 the rate of completely healed corneas was higher in Group 3 and Group 4 (55% on day 14 and 30% on day 21) compared to Group 1 (44.4% on day 14 and 11.1% on day 21). Conclusions: The novel biodegradable hydrogels with AM proteins could promote corneal re‐epithelialization. The chosen animal model showed a high rate of wound reopening once closed. Group 4 hydrogels showed low adhesiveness so the implant movement and the fragile regenerated epithelium could justify the higher de‐epithelized areas on day 7. The results show a higher number of wounds with complete epithelialization and a smaller epithelial defect area (mm2) in the treated groups compared to control, even after removal of the AM proteins, which might indicate that proteins secreted in the early stages of epithelialization could enhance corneal wound closure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.