Figures & data
Table 1. The composition of ME formulations based on the D-optimal mixture design and the measured characteristics.
Figure 1. Screening of oils (A), surfactants (B) and cosurfactants (C), in addition to selection of the optimum Smix ratio (D).
![Figure 1. Screening of oils (A), surfactants (B) and cosurfactants (C), in addition to selection of the optimum Smix ratio (D).](/cms/asset/9acdfef5-b781-4df3-8c4f-ade027ede41d/idrd_a_1365392_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2. Contour diagrams for the effect of formulation variables on the globule size (A), optical clarity (B), Q1 (C), Q24 (D), ER (E) and desirability (F).
![Figure 2. Contour diagrams for the effect of formulation variables on the globule size (A), optical clarity (B), Q1 (C), Q24 (D), ER (E) and desirability (F).](/cms/asset/78d553f7-8515-494b-9822-2a200a1e079b/idrd_a_1365392_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 4. Ex vivo (A) and in vivo (B) permeation profiles of optimized ME gel in comparison with the drug hydrogel and the oral drug solution.
![Figure 4. Ex vivo (A) and in vivo (B) permeation profiles of optimized ME gel in comparison with the drug hydrogel and the oral drug solution.](/cms/asset/09b45f7e-ecf6-472a-8f72-f56d6deea994/idrd_a_1365392_f0004_c.jpg)
Table 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters of the optimized ME gel formula in comparison with the drug hydrogel and oral solution (A) and SAS analysis of Cmax, AUC0–24 h and AUC0–∞ (B).