Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ROBINSON, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by CRUZE, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by ROBINSON, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by CRUZE, C. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1991 Oxford University Press

other

Evaluation of the Primary Skin Irritation and Allergic Contact Sensitization Potential of Transdermal Triprolidine

MICHAEL K. ROBINSON*, KATHLEEN W. PARSELL*, DEBRA L. BRENEMAN{dagger} and CHARLES A. CRUZE*

*Health and Personal Care Technology Division, Procter & Gamble Company, Miami Valley Laboratories Cincinnati, Ohio 45239-8707 {dagger}Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center Cincinnati, Ohio 45221

Received September 21, 1990; accepted January 4, 1991

Evaluation of the Primary Skin Irritation and Allergic Contact Sensitization Potential of Trans-dermal Triprolidine. ROBINSON, M. K., PARSELL, K. W., BRENEMAN, D. L., AND CRUZE, C. A. (1991). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 17, 103–119. A transdermal patch for the OTC antihistamine, triprolidine (TP), might provide benefits in terms of increased efficacy and reduced sedative side effects. However, concerns over potential irritant or allergic contact sensitization (ACS) skin reactions necessitated thorough skin toxicity testing before and during initial dinical development Initial effort was expended on development of a binary vehicle delivery system comprised of TP in 0.5% oleic acid (OA) in propylene glycol (PG). Rabbit skin irritation and Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization testing indicated that this TP/OA/PG formula had both skin irritation and ACS potential. Both tests underestimated, to some degree, the skin toxicities observed in later clinical testing. In clinical tests, skin irritation was due mainly to the OA–PG vehicle, but was enhanced in the presence of high TP concentrations. Of 26 subjects enrolled in a rising dose clinical phar-macokinetics study, one subject exposed twice to TP/OA/PG presented with delayed skin reactions suggestive of ACS. Positive diagnostic patch test results for this subject and four out of five other twice-exposed study subjects suggested that the TP/OA/PG formula had a very high ACS potential. Subsequent predictive clinical patch testing was conducted with a buffered aqueous TP formula which provided in vitro skin penetration of the drug equivalent to the TP/OA/PG formula. These clinical studies demonstrated that TP itself had no significant irritation potential but still induced ACS reactions in a high proportion of test subjects. The incidence of adverse skin reactions to TP was considered to be too high relative to the degree of improved therapeutic benefit of this delivery form. On this basis, all technology development effort was discontinued, © 1991 by the Society of Toxicology


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.