New test method for the evaluation of the preservation efficacy of soaps at very alkaline pH made by saponification.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a test method to evaluate the preservation efficacy for a specific product, a very high-alkaline liquid soap (pH around 10) made by a saponification process. Several manufacturers have experienced contamination issues with these high-pH soaps despite passing a classic preservative efficacy challenge test or even a multi-inoculation challenge test. METHODS: Bacteria were isolated from contaminated soaps and were identified using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. High-alkaline-pH unpreserved soaps were tested using the Thor Personal Care internal multichallenge test method (TM206) with classical microorganisms and then with the bacterial strains isolated from various contaminated soaps (TM768). Preservatives were added to these soaps and assessed for their efficacy using the newly developed test. RESULTS: Four different species of bacteria (Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis, Dermacoccus sp., Halomonas sp. and Roseomonas sp.) were identified by sequencing among the contaminants of the various soaps tested. Among these, only one bacterial species, Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis, appeared to be responsible for the specific contamination of these high-alkaline soaps. Thus, one specific wild-type strain of Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis, named as strain 768, was used in a new multi-inoculation test (TM768). Unlike the single inoculation challenge test, the multi-inoculation test using the Nesterenkonia strain 768 was able to predict the sensitivity of a product towards this bacterium. Among the 27 different preservatives tested, 10 were able to protect the formula against contamination with this bacterium. CONCLUSION: This study enabled the development of a test method to evaluate the efficacy of preservation using a specific bacterium, Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis, responsible for the contamination of very alkaline soaps made by saponification and identify an appropriate preservative system.

Nebulized cyclosporine in the rat: assessment of regional lung and extrapulmonary deposition.

BACKGROUND: Nebulized cyclosporine (CsA) has been shown to limit lung allograft rejection as well as intramuscular (IM) CsA, with limited blood diffusion. The present study determined the pharmacokinetic parameters of nebulized CsA, by the assessment of regional lung deposition and extrapulmonary diffusion of CsA. METHODS: CsA was given either by IM injection (10 mg/kg) or by aerosol (at 10 and 25 mg/kg doses); 70 rats were killed at 25 and 50 min, and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, or 48 hr after CsA administration. CsA levels were measured in the whole lung, in central and peripheral parts of the lung, in whole blood, kidney, and heart. The areas under the concentration time curves (AUCs) were determined. RESULTS: In blood, kidney, and heart, CsA levels were significantly higher for IM than for aerosol administrations at 10 and 25 mg/kg doses. In the whole lung, the AUC was greater for the aerosol route at 25 mg/kg doses (588 ng x hr/mg) than for the low-dose (200 ng x hr/mg) or IM administration (200 ng x hr/mg). The central to peripheral index of CsA (ratio of AUC central/peripheral part of the lung) was not significantly different for both aerosol administrations (0.63 and 0.69, respectively) and for the IM route (0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized CsA allows better pulmonary concentration than IM administration, with equivalent central and peripheral deposition whatever the mode of administration, and results in lower levels in blood, kidney, and heart.

Nebulized cyclosporine for prevention of acute pulmonary allograft rejection in the rat: pharmacokinetic and histologic study.

BACKGROUND: With regard to limiting the systemic effects of cyclosporine A and obtaining better control of acute pulmonary allograft rejection, local immunosuppressive therapy with aerosolized cyclosporine A seems of interest. Given the in situ immunologic mechanisms of acute rejection, as well as the anatomic structure of the lung, this therapy is feasible as previously described by others. The aim of our study is to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of nebulized cyclosporine A and the best modalities of administration. METHODS: In a pharmacokinetic study, the cyclosporine A was given either by intramuscular injection (10 mg/kg) or by aerosol at 10 and 25 mg/kg doses; 70 rats were killed at 25 and 50 minutes and 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, or 48 hours after cyclosporine A administration. Cyclosporine A levels were measured in whole blood and in the lung. The areas under the concentration time curves were determined. Twenty-four lung transplantations were then performed. The rats were killed on postoperative day 9. Acute rejection was scored on a scale of 0 to 4, and cyclosporine A trough levels were measured in the lung and in the blood. RESULTS: With a jet nebulizer, the mass median aerodynamic diameter was 2.5 microns, with a standard geometric deviation of 2.3. In blood, the area under the concentration curve was greater for intramuscular (80.6 ng.hr/ml) than for aerosol administrations at 10 (15.1 ng.hr/ml) and 25 mg/kg (41.0 ng.hr/ml) doses. In the lungs, the area under the concentration curve was greater for the aerosol route at 25 mg/kg doses (588 ng.hr/mg) than for the low-dose (200 ng.hr/mg) or intramuscular administration (200 ng.hr/mg). The lung targeting index of cyclosporine A (ratio area under the concentration curve-lungs/area under the concentration curve-blood) was greater for both aerosol administrations than for the intramuscular route. In the study of the prevention of acute rejection, rats without immunosuppression (n = 6), rats receiving daily doses of cyclosporine A intramuscularly (10 mg/kg), and rats with aerosolized cyclosporine A daily (10 and 25 mg/kg/day) showed mean grades of acute rejection of, respectively, 4, 2.03 +/- 0.27, 2.33 +/- 0.52, and 2.17 +/- 0.46. The deposition of nebulized cyclosporine A was lower in transplanted than in native lung. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized cyclosporine A allows better pulmonary concentration than intramuscular administration, and results in lower systemic levels. Prevention of acute rejection is as good with aerosolized cyclosporine A as with intramuscular cyclosporine A. This first pharmacokinetic study of nebulized cyclosporine A could lead to clinical applications.