Ophthalmology science · 2025
In Vivo Comparison of Intracameral and Intravitreal Implantation of a Timolol Maleate Miniaturized Injectable Delivery System Device.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ma Chu Jian, Zhang Youning, Bernards Daniel A, Bloomer Michele, Dickson John, Rajadas Jayakumar, Vyakarnam Murty, Desai Tejal A, Bhisitkul Robert B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Miniaturized injectable delivery system (MIDS) devices engineered for zero-order release of timolol maleate are evaluated for intracameral (IC) or intravitreal (IVT) injection for ocular safety, effects on intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, and target tissue drug concentrations.
DESIGN: Preclinical study with in vitro testing of MIDS drug delivery devices together with intraocular injection of the devices in normotensive rabbit eyes.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-four New Zealand rabbits received intraocular injections of MIDS devices.
METHODS: Timolol maleate MIDS devices were injected IC or IVT into normotensive New Zealand rabbit eyes (n = 24), with weekly ophthalmic examinations and IOP measurements for 8 or 16 weeks. Eight weeks postimplantation, eyes were enucleated for quantification of tissue drug concentrations by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry and histology on whole globes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Drug release pharmacokinetics; ocular safety and biocompatibility; IOP; and blood and target tissue drug concentrations.
RESULTS: At 8 weeks, IOP in experimental eyes was lowered by 11.1 ± 2.9% (n = 5, P = 0.019) and 18.1 ± 2.6% (n = 6, P < 0.001), for IC and IVT devices, respectively. In extended studies of IVT devices, IOP was numerically lower at 16 weeks by 8.5 ± 5.1% (n = 3, P = 0.24). Intracameral versus IVT injections achieved different tissue distributions (in ng/g; except for aqueous in ng/mL): aqueous 28.5 ± 2.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2 (P < 0.001), vitreous 0.3 ± 0.1 vs. 37.2 ± 11.0 (P = 0.010), and ciliary body 14.4 ± 1.8 vs. 50.9 ± 10.8 (P = 0.011). Intraocular inflammation and drug- or device-related adverse effects were absent on examinations and histopathology. Blood drug concentration was below the quantitation limit (<0.4 ng/ml).
CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal and IC devices showed similar IOP reductions; IVT injection led to a higher drug concentration in the target ciliary body tissue, and in normotensive rabbit eyes showed general reduction of IOP over 8 weeks, indicating the potential of MIDS technology to address issues of patient adherence with glaucoma eye drops.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
DESIGN: Preclinical study with in vitro testing of MIDS drug delivery devices together with intraocular injection of the devices in normotensive rabbit eyes.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-four New Zealand rabbits received intraocular injections of MIDS devices.
METHODS: Timolol maleate MIDS devices were injected IC or IVT into normotensive New Zealand rabbit eyes (n = 24), with weekly ophthalmic examinations and IOP measurements for 8 or 16 weeks. Eight weeks postimplantation, eyes were enucleated for quantification of tissue drug concentrations by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry and histology on whole globes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Drug release pharmacokinetics; ocular safety and biocompatibility; IOP; and blood and target tissue drug concentrations.
RESULTS: At 8 weeks, IOP in experimental eyes was lowered by 11.1 ± 2.9% (n = 5, P = 0.019) and 18.1 ± 2.6% (n = 6, P < 0.001), for IC and IVT devices, respectively. In extended studies of IVT devices, IOP was numerically lower at 16 weeks by 8.5 ± 5.1% (n = 3, P = 0.24). Intracameral versus IVT injections achieved different tissue distributions (in ng/g; except for aqueous in ng/mL): aqueous 28.5 ± 2.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2 (P < 0.001), vitreous 0.3 ± 0.1 vs. 37.2 ± 11.0 (P = 0.010), and ciliary body 14.4 ± 1.8 vs. 50.9 ± 10.8 (P = 0.011). Intraocular inflammation and drug- or device-related adverse effects were absent on examinations and histopathology. Blood drug concentration was below the quantitation limit (<0.4 ng/ml).
CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal and IC devices showed similar IOP reductions; IVT injection led to a higher drug concentration in the target ciliary body tissue, and in normotensive rabbit eyes showed general reduction of IOP over 8 weeks, indicating the potential of MIDS technology to address issues of patient adherence with glaucoma eye drops.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.