Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2019
Dose-Response of Intracameral Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Implant and Topical Bimatoprost in Lowering Intraocular Pressure.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lee Susan S, Dibas Mohammed, Almazan Alexandra, Robinson Michael R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the dose-response profiles of bimatoprost sustained-release implant (Bimatoprost SR) and topical bimatoprost in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in normotensive beagle dogs.
METHODS: In 1 study, topical bimatoprost 0.001%, 0.01%, or 0.1% was administered twice daily in the study eye for 5 days. IOP was measured at baseline and up to hour 6 each day. Other studies evaluated the IOP response to a single administration of Bimatoprost SR at dose strengths ranging from 8 to 120 μg. IOP was measured before implant administration and during 3 months of follow-up; IOP in response to topical bimatoprost 0.03% was measured prestudy as an internal control.
RESULTS: Mean percentage decrease in IOP from baseline at hour 6 (peak effect) across study days was 15.7%, 36.1%, and 24.8% (2.8, 7.0, and 4.0 mmHg) in animals treated with topical bimatoprost 0.001%, 0.01%, and 0.1%, respectively. After Bimatoprost SR administration, mean percentage decrease in IOP from baseline across 3 months consistently increased with increasing dose strength and was 38.7% (7.2 mmHg) with Bimatoprost SR 120 μg. Mean percentage IOP decrease with topical bimatoprost 0.03% was 27.6% (5.9 mmHg).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost demonstrated a U-shaped dose-response curve; increasing the bimatoprost concentration to 0.1% resulted in reduced IOP-lowering efficacy. In contrast, the dose-response curve for Bimatoprost SR showed consistently greater IOP lowering as the dose strength increased, with the dose strength producing maximum IOP lowering not yet determined. At 60- and 120-μg dose strengths, Bimatoprost SR produced greater IOP reductions than were achieved with topical dosing.
METHODS: In 1 study, topical bimatoprost 0.001%, 0.01%, or 0.1% was administered twice daily in the study eye for 5 days. IOP was measured at baseline and up to hour 6 each day. Other studies evaluated the IOP response to a single administration of Bimatoprost SR at dose strengths ranging from 8 to 120 μg. IOP was measured before implant administration and during 3 months of follow-up; IOP in response to topical bimatoprost 0.03% was measured prestudy as an internal control.
RESULTS: Mean percentage decrease in IOP from baseline at hour 6 (peak effect) across study days was 15.7%, 36.1%, and 24.8% (2.8, 7.0, and 4.0 mmHg) in animals treated with topical bimatoprost 0.001%, 0.01%, and 0.1%, respectively. After Bimatoprost SR administration, mean percentage decrease in IOP from baseline across 3 months consistently increased with increasing dose strength and was 38.7% (7.2 mmHg) with Bimatoprost SR 120 μg. Mean percentage IOP decrease with topical bimatoprost 0.03% was 27.6% (5.9 mmHg).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost demonstrated a U-shaped dose-response curve; increasing the bimatoprost concentration to 0.1% resulted in reduced IOP-lowering efficacy. In contrast, the dose-response curve for Bimatoprost SR showed consistently greater IOP lowering as the dose strength increased, with the dose strength producing maximum IOP lowering not yet determined. At 60- and 120-μg dose strengths, Bimatoprost SR produced greater IOP reductions than were achieved with topical dosing.