throbber
te:. ·.-
`
`O CULAR
`T HERAPEUTICS
`AND
`DRUG
`DELIVERY
`A i\tlULTI-DISCIPLliVARY APPROACH
`
`Edited by
`I nd ra K. Reddy, Ph. D.
`Associate Professor of Pharmaceutics
`College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
`Northeast Louisiana University
`
`--(cid:173)
`
`TECHNOMIC
`PUBLISHING CO.. INC
`I ,ANCASTER. BASEL
`
`Metrics EX1021, Page 1
`
`

`
`Ph2rmacy Library
`University o,f 't'i"t:ons!n - Madison
`21 3: • <> .- . ··lcr!ln Hall
`425 N. i...;112rter Street
`Madison, WI 53706-1508
`
`Ocular Therapeutics and Drug Delivery
`a TECHNOMI CY,ublicat10n
`
`Published in the Western Hemisphere by
`Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.
`851 New Holland Avenue, Box 3535
`Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604 U.S.A.
`
`Distributed in the Rest of the World by
`Technomic Publishing AG
`Missionsstrasse 44
`CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland
`
`Copyright © 1996 by Technornic Publishing Company, Inc.
`All rights reserved
`
`No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
`retrieval system. or trnnsmitted, in any form or by any means,
`electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
`without the prior written permission of the publisher.
`
`Printed in the United States of America
`m 9 s 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
`
`Main entry under title:
`Ocular Thernpeutics and Drug Delivery : A Multi-Disciplinary Approach
`
`A Technomic Publishing Company book
`Bibliography: p.
`Includes index p. 575
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 95-60709
`ISBN No. 1-56676-213-8
`
`Metrics EX1021, Page 2
`
`

`
`42
`
`OVERVIEW, BASIC PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY
`
`anilines [71]. There are some deviations from the parabolic relationship
`when drugs are of varied chemical structure and molecular weight [51] 0
`This is mainly because various compounds have different transcellular
`pathways for penetration. Low molecular weight alcohols and ionized
`forms of drugs such as pilocarpine [72], cromolyn sodium [73] and sul(cid:173)
`fonamides [74] penetrate through less co'mmon paracellular pathways.
`Enzymatic lability also influences the extent of penetration of prodrugs
`into the cornea. The penetration of aliphatic timolol esters across the cornea
`of rabbits shows enzymatic lability [70,75]. The rate of diffusion in the
`cornea increases with increase in the rate ofhydrolysis of esters of prodrugs.
`Therefore, enzymatically susceptible straight chain alkyl esters penetrate
`more easily as compared to less susceptible branched chain alkyl esters of
`same lipophilicity. That is the reason why an esterase inhibitor decreases
`the corneal penetration of 0-butyryltimolol, 1 '-methylcyclopro(cid:173)
`panolytimolol and 0-pivaloyltimolol by 30, 50 and 80% respectively [75] 0
`When prodrug of pilocarpine is administered to the tear film, it is envisioned
`that the controlling factor for corneal penetration is the formation of
`pilocarpine in the epithelium instead of its absorption into the epithelium or
`its diffusion across the stroma to the endothelium.
`
`MICELLAR SOLUBILIZATION
`
`Solubilization in surfactant solutions above the critical micelle concentra(cid:173)
`tion (CMC) offers a very good method to formulate dosage forms of poorly
`soluble drugs in water. Because of their relatively nontoxic nature, nonionic
`surfactants have been used most frequently for drug solubilization. A new
`class of nonionic surface active polymers, polyoxy-ethylene-polyoxy(cid:173)
`propylene block copolymers, are also gaining a lot of attention due to their
`nontoxic nature. Different drugs behave differently when they are solubi(cid:173)
`lized in a surfactant system. Some drugs get inactivated, whereas others
`show higher activity.
`The properties such as solubility, diffusion coefficient, and lipid-water
`partitioning coefficient of drug-penetration enhancer complexes may differ
`significantly from the properties of individual components, i.e., the proper(cid:173)
`ties of the free drug or penetration enhancer. This is mainly due to the
`formation of mixed micelles. Mixed micelles of bile salt and insulin provide
`a high juxtamembrane concentration of soluble insulin which results in high
`flow rate of insulin monomers from the nares (nostrils) into the nasal
`membranes [76]. The effects of various lipid-bile salt mixed micelles on
`intestinal absorption of streptomycin were reported using in situ closed-loop
`method in rats [77]. While mixed micelles composed of monoolein or
`unsaturated fatty acids markedly enhanced the absorption of streptomycin,
`saturated fatty acids caused only a small enhancement of absorption, and
`
`Metrics EX1021, Page 3
`
`

`
`triolein, diolein, oleyl alcohol and methyl oleate had no enhancement effect
`on the absorption [77]. The difference in the enhancing effects of
`monoolein, unsaturated fatty acids and saturated fatty acids was not at(cid:173)
`tributed to the interaction or the absorbability of lipids, but rather, to the
`alteration of the mucosal membrane permeability. No observation has been
`reported in literature relating mixed micelles of ocular drug and drug
`enhancer to the drug permeability. However, the mixed micelles of base and
`salt form of tetracaine (a local anesthetic agent) have been shown to be
`transported across mouse skin most effectively [78,79].
`
`OSMOLALITY
`
`The osmolality of the lacrimal fluid is dependent on the number of
`dissolved ions and crystalloids. Proteins make a very small contribution to
`the total osmotic pressure of tears because of their molecular weight and
`low concentration [80]. The osmolality varies from 302 mOsm·kg- • to 318
`mOsm·kg-• in normal eye [81-83]. The osmolality of tears in the night
`during sleep varies from 280 to 293 mOsm· kg- • [84]. The osmolality varies
`across the ocular surface. The osmolality in the fluid of the tear strip is less
`than the osmolality in the conjunctival sac [85]. The osmolality of tear films
`is increased in the case of ocular surface diseases like dry-eye and in contact
`lens wearers after forty years of age [83, 86].
`When hypertonic solution is applied to the eye, water flow passes from
`the aqueous layer through the cornea to the eye surface [87]; whereas, in
`the case of hypotonic solution, the permeability of the epithelium is in(cid:173)
`creased considerably and water flows into the cornea [88].
`The osmotic pressure of the mixture of tears and instilled solution depends
`upon the osmolality of the instilled solution. Ophthalmic solutions which
`produce osmolality lower than 266 mOsm · kg-• or higher than 640
`mOsm·kg-• are irritating to the eye [89 - 92]. The original osmolality is
`achieved within 1 or 2 minutes after instillation of the nonisotonic solution
`depending on the drop size [93].
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Although significant progress has been made in our understanding of
`ocular drug absorption and disposition over the last few years, ocular drug
`delivery by topical route is still considered to be primitive. This is because
`the physiological protective mechanisms of the eye in concert with the
`anatomical barrier, the cornea, prevent the free access of foreign substances
`including drugs to the inner eye.
`The surface chemical considerations are very important in the formula(cid:173)
`tion of efficient ocular dosage forms and delivery systems. Many interfacial
`
`Metrics EX1021, Page 4
`
`

`
`390
`
`FORMULATION AND DRUG DELIVERY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`liquid. Viscosity of a liquid can then be determined from the following
`expression:
`
`where 7J1, Qt , and t1 are viscosity, density; and the flow time of the solution
`and 'f/2 , Q2 , and t2 are the viscosity, density, and the flow time of the reference
`liquid.
`
`SURF ACT ANTS
`
`Surfactants may be added to an ophthalmic preparation to solubilize or
`disperse the drug effectively. Nonionic surfactants are the most commonly
`used in ophthalmic preparations because of their lower incidence of toxic
`effects. However, their interaction with other adjuvants and packaging
`components must be carefully evaluated. Surfactants have also been shown
`to improve corneal permeability. Nonionic surfactants have been shown to
`cause an appreciable increase in the penetration of fluorescein into the
`aqueous humor in man [74]. The presence of surfactants may affect the
`efficacy of preservatives used. For example, the preservative activity of
`methyl paraben is considerably reduced by the presence of polysorbate 80
`[54]. Other preservatives such as chlorobutanol, pheny 1 ethanol and benzyl
`alcohol also interact with polysorbate 80, but to a considerably lesser extent
`than the parabens. The presence of an interaction between surfactants and
`preservatives does not necessarily mean that they cannot be used together.
`However, a knowledge of the extent and nature of such an interaction, and
`sufficient testing is necessary to develop an effective formulation. For
`potential toxicity reasons, the minimum possible quantity of surfactants
`must be used in ophthalmic formulations.
`One of the most commonly used surface-active agents in ophthalmic
`formulations is benzalkonium chloride. It is the surfactant of choice because
`of its anti-microbial activity. Other surfactants used are benzethonium
`chloride, polysorbate 20, polyoxyl40 stearate, alkyl aryl poly ether alcohol,
`polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylenediol, and dioctyl sodium sulfosuc(cid:173)
`cinate .
`
`STABILIZING AGENTS
`
`If the drug molecule is susceptible to degradation by oxidation, stabilizers
`such as chelating agents or anti-oxidants are included in an ophthalmic
`formulation to improve the shelf-life of the product.
`
`Metrics EX1021, Page 5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket