Aqueous humor penetration of ketorolac formulated in DuraSite or DuraSite 2 delivery systems compared to Acular LS in rabbits.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ocular penetration of ISV-304 (ketorolac tromethamine) formulated in DuraSite(®) or DuraSite(®) 2 compared to Acular LS(®) (0.4% ketorolac ophthalmic solution) in rabbits. METHODS: The left eye of rabbits received a single topical instillation of either ISV-304 (0.2% and 0.4% ketorolac) in DuraSite, ISV-304 (0.2% and 0.4% ketorolac) in DuraSite 2, or Acular LS. At predetermined time points, aqueous humor (AH) levels of ketorolac were measured by HPLC-MS/MS, and Cmax, Tmax, and AUC0.25-24h were determined. RESULTS: The highest mean concentration of ketorolac was achieved in ISV-304 (0.4%) formulated in DuraSite 2 with a Cmax value of 1889 ± 884 ng/mL, compared to Cmax values for ISV-304 (0.4%) formulated in DuraSite (1212 ± 435 ng/mL) or Acular LS (275 ± 83 ng/mL). ISV-304 (0.2%) formulations also achieved higher AH Cmax values (801 ± 205 ng/mL and 1077 ± 415 ng/mL) compared to Acular LS. There was a significant increase in drug exposure in the ISV-304 (0.4%) formulated in DuraSite 2 or DuraSite formulations with AUC0.25-24h values 6836 ng/mL*h and 5684 ng/mL*h, respectively, compared to Acular LS with an AUC0.25-24h value of 1424 ng/mL*h. ISV-304 (0.2%) formulations also had high AUC0.25-24h values (3241 ng/mL*h and 4490 ng/mL*h), which were a 2.3-3.2-fold increase over the Acular LS AUC0.25-24h value. CONCLUSIONS: DuraSite and DuraSite 2 delivery systems markedly improved the ketorolac ocular pharmacokinetic parameters in rabbits. DuraSite formulations may lessen the side effects associated with topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use by maintaining efficacy with a reduced dosing regimen and reduced active ingredient.

Ocular pharmacokinetics of bimatoprost formulated in DuraSite compared to bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution in pigmented rabbit eyes.

PURPOSE: To compare the aqueous humor (AH) and iris-ciliary body (ICB) concentration of bimatoprost in rabbit eyes treated with ISV-215 (0.03% bimatoprost formulated in DuraSite) with the marketed product bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution. METHODS: The left eye of rabbits received a single topical instillation of either ISV-215 (n = 32 eyes) or bimatoprost 0.03% (n = 32 eyes). At predetermined time points, levels of bimatoprost and bimatoprost acid in the AH and the ICB were quantified by HPLC-MS/MS. RESULTS: Both bimatoprost and bimatoprost acid were detected in the AH and the ICB within 15 minutes of dosing. Bimatoprost acid concentrations in both compartments were markedly higher than bimatoprost. There was a statistically significant (P < 0.01) increase in the concentration of the prodrug in the AH and its acid form in the ICB in animals treated with ISV-215 compared to bimatoprost 0.03%. In the ISV-215-treated rabbit eyes, the highest concentrations of bimatoprost and bimatoprost acid were in the ICB and AH, respectively, while in the bimatoprost 0.03%-treated eyes, no differences in the drug content of the selected ocular tissues were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost 0.03% formulated in DuraSite has superior ocular distribution and area under the curve compared to bimatoprost 0.03% in rabbit eyes. This improvement in the pharmacokinetic parameters of ISV-215 may provide us with a better platform to optimize a bimatoprost formulation that offers the same degree of efficacy in lowering intraocular pressure and improved therapeutic index in glaucomatous patients by lessening the ocular side effects associated with long-term use of topical prostaglandin F2α analogs.

Pharmacokinetic comparisons of bromfenac in DuraSite and Xibrom.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the ocular pharmacokinetics of experimental solutions of bromfenac in DuraSite(®) to Xibrom™ (bromfenac ophthalmic solution) 0.09%. METHODS: The bromfenac content was measured in the aqueous humor of 84 Dutch Belted rabbits after a single dose of either 0.045% or 0.09% bromfenac in DuraSite in the left eye and the commercial preparation in the right eye. The drug content in the aqueous humor was measured at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after instillation. In a separate multi-dose study, rabbits received one drop of the 0.09% experimental or commercial preparation, 3 times daily for 14 days. For both experiments the drug content in ocular tissues was analyzed using liquid chromatography atmospheric pressure ionization tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: In single-dose experiments, the concentration of bromfenac in the aqueous humor was higher with the experimental preparations than with the commercial solution. The area under the concentration-time curve of 0.045% and 0.09% bromfenac in DuraSite was ∼2 and 4-fold higher than that of commercial bromfenac ophthalmic solution, 0.09%. After multi-dose experiments, ocular tissue concentrations of bromfenac were ∼3 times higher for the experimental than for the commercial formulation. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that the DuraSite topical drug delivery system can deliver bromfenac to various ocular tissues and attain considerably higher concentrations than the commercially available eye drop formulation. The higher aqueous concentration sustained with these experimental formulations could broaden the utility of bromfenac and/or reduce the currently approved dosing frequency of this drug.

Development of a topical polymeric mucoadhesive ocular delivery system for azithromycin.

PURPOSE: Azithromycin is an azalide class of antibiotic with pharmacodynamics that have made it a valuable agent in the treatment of soft tissue infections. In ophthalmology, oral administration of azithromycin has been proven effective for the treatment of trachoma. However, topical formulations of azithromycin to treat ocular surface infections have been challenging to develop because of the drug's hydrophobicity and instability in aqueous solutions at pH levels that are comfortable in the eye. The design of a polycarbophil polymer-based delivery system for a topical formulation of azithromycin was evaluated for its ability to provide drug stability, comfort, and increased retention of the formulation in the eye. METHODS: Formulations of 0.5% and 1.0% azithromycin were created in polycarbophil, a lightly cross-linked polyacrylic acid polymer that was adjusted to a viscosity, pH, and osmolality that are suitable for dispensing in the eye. RESULTS: The polycarbophil-based ophthalmic delivery system, DuraSite (InSite Vision, Alameda, CA), helps solubilize azithromycin and retard its degradation in aqueous solution. The formulation was stable at room temperature as well as 5 degrees C. Upon administration of a single drop of 1% azithromycin in DuraSite ophthalmic solution in rabbits' eyes, tear concentrations of azithromycin ranged from 87 to 288 microg/g and high concentrations were sustained for over a 24-h period. CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin can be developed as an eyedrop in an aqueous ocular delivery system for the treatment of ocular surface infections. The ocular delivery system, DuraSite solubilizes azithromycin at a high concentration in an aqueous solution and protects it from degradation during manufacture and storage. The development of azithromycin in this delivery system enhances the antibiotic's usefulness in ophthalmology for the topical treatment of ocular surface bacterial infections and lid margin diseases.

Clinical cure of bacterial conjunctivitis with azithromycin 1%: vehicle-controlled, double-masked clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of azithromycin 1% ophthalmic solution in DuraSite (InSite Vision, Inc, Alameda, California, USA) on bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, double-masked multicenter clinical study. METHODS: Eligible male or female participants with a clinical diagnosis of acute bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to either 1% azithromycin in DuraSite or vehicle for five days. Infected eyes were dosed twice daily on days 1 and 2 and once daily on days 3 through 5. Conjunctival cultures were obtained at baseline, visit 2 (day 3 or 4), and visit 3 (day 6 or 7). The primary end point was clinical resolution of signs and symptoms (rating of zero on ocular discharge, bulbar and palpebral injection) at visit 3. Efficacy measures were clinical resolution and bacterial eradication as evaluated in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed by adverse events, slit-lamp findings, and ophthalmoscopy. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine participants (n = 130, 1% azithromycin in DuraSite; n = 149, vehicle), age one to 96 years, were evaluated for efficacy. Clinical resolution with azithromycin ophthalmic solution was statistically significant compared with that of vehicle (P = .030) at visit 3. Bacterial eradication rates with azithromycin ophthalmic solution reached 88.5% at visit 3 (P < .001) and included some pathogens resistant to azithromycin in vitro. Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin 1% ophthalmic solution in DuraSite showed statistically significant differences in clinical resolution and bacterial eradication rates when compared with vehicle. Because it was well tolerated in this population, it may be a viable treatment option for children and adults with bacterial conjunctivitis.