Protective Mechanisms of Liquid Formulations for Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease in a Human Reconstructed Oesophageal Epithelium Model.

Lucifer yellow assay caffeine permeation epithelial permeability epithelial protection film-forming properties gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Journal

Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)
ISSN: 1179-1470
Titre abrégé: Med Devices (Auckl)
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101566041

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 03 03 2022
accepted: 27 04 2022
entrez: 25 5 2022
pubmed: 26 5 2022
medline: 26 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

A novel experimental design based on a human-reconstructed oesophageal epithelium (HO2E) model has been applied to quantitively assess the properties of a set of liquid formulations, Device A (Gerdoff The formulations were applied to a prewetted HO2E model for 15 min. Then, a 0.5% caffeine solution was applied, and its penetration kinetics was assessed at 1 h and 2 h in acidic environments (pH= 3.3) to mirror exposure of the oesophageal mucosa to acidic reflux in GORD patients. Caffeine permeated into the basolateral compartment (evaluated by HPLC-UV) and Lucifer yellow (LY) permeability were quantified 15 min after application of the caffeine in acidic environments. At the 15 min timepoint, Device A reduced caffeine permeation by 77.2% and LY flux by 30.4% compared to the untreated control and with a faster mode of action than that of the other liquid formulations. Transepithelial caffeine flux was reduced, albeit with different timing and efficiency, by all three compounds up to the end of the 2 hour experiment. At 1 h, Device A reduced the caffeine flux by 79.2%; Device B, by 67.2%; and Device C, by 37%. These results confirm the ability of the medical devices tested to interact with the oesophageal epithelium and create a temporary physical protective film for up to 2 hours after their application. The results underline differences in the mechanism of action of the three medical devices, with Device A performing faster than the other formulations. The overall results support the relevance of the reconstructed mucosal model to investigate oesophageal epithelium-product interactions and precisely differentiate liquid formulation performance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35610977
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S363616
pii: 363616
pmc: PMC9124487
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

143-152

Informations de copyright

© 2022 Ceriotti et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

ESC acts as a scientific advisor to SOFAR S.p.A. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in this work.

Références

Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2013 Jul 1;305(1):G58-65
pubmed: 23639809
Dig Dis. 2004;22(2):148-60
pubmed: 15383756
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2021 Sep 08;14:361-373
pubmed: 34526798
Mycotoxin Res. 2019 May;35(2):187-196
pubmed: 30710317
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Nov;90:42-50
pubmed: 28822878
Altern Med Rev. 2011 Jun;16(2):116-33
pubmed: 21649454
Biomed Pharmacother. 2020 Nov;131:110752
pubmed: 33152918
BMC Gastroenterol. 2012 Sep 20;12:128
pubmed: 22994974
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jul 15;22(2):79-94
pubmed: 16011666
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23(2):105-12
pubmed: 20016252
Med Devices (Auckl). 2020 Mar 04;13:57-66
pubmed: 32210642
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;48(10):1118-26
pubmed: 24047393
J Anat. 2019 Apr;234(4):438-455
pubmed: 30740672
Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2017 Sep;63(3):175-183
pubmed: 28215067
Gut. 2009 Feb;58(2):295-309
pubmed: 19136523
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2012;5:103-7
pubmed: 22767997
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2008 Dec;37(4):879-99, ix
pubmed: 19028323
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Aug;2(8):656-64
pubmed: 15290657
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 2;10(1):5814
pubmed: 32242117
J Vis Exp. 2019 Aug 19;(150):
pubmed: 31475964
J Gastroenterol. 2005 Aug;40(8):781-90
pubmed: 16143882
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar 21;11:119-134
pubmed: 29606884
Turk J Gastroenterol. 2020 Jun;31(6):466-473
pubmed: 32721918
Pharmaceutics. 2020 Feb 11;12(2):
pubmed: 32053877
J Histochem Cytochem. 1993 Jun;41(6):909-14
pubmed: 8315281
Med Clin North Am. 1996 Mar;80(2):411-29
pubmed: 8614179
Toxicol In Vitro. 2017 Feb;38:101-107
pubmed: 27751951
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013 Dec;17(24):3272-8
pubmed: 24379055
Gut. 2014 Jul;63(7):1185-93
pubmed: 24607936
Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017 Dec;37:93-99
pubmed: 29112883

Auteurs

Laura Ceriotti (L)

In vitro Innovation Center, VitroScreen srl, Milan, Italy.

Paolo Buratti (P)

In vitro Innovation Center, VitroScreen srl, Milan, Italy.

Enrico Stefano Corazziari (ES)

Department of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano (Milan), Italy.

Marisa Meloni (M)

In vitro Innovation Center, VitroScreen srl, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH