4.3 Review

Ocular disposition, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of nanoparticle-formulated ophthalmic drugs

Journal

CURRENT DRUG METABOLISM
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 91-107

Publisher

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/138920007779815977

Keywords

ocular; disposition; pharmacokinetics; efficacy; toxicity; tolerance; nanoparticles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ophthalmic drugs are delivered to ocular tissues predominantly via relatively simple formulations, such as topically dosed water-soluble drug solutions and water-insoluble drug suspensions in ointments. An ideal topical drug delivery system should possess certain desirable properties, such as good corneal and conjunctival penetration, prolonged precorneal residence time, easy instillation, non-irritative and comfortable to minimize lachrymation and reflex blinking, and appropriate rheological properties. In general, ocular efficacy is closely related to ocular drug bioavailability, which may be enhanced by increasing corneal drug penetration and prolonging precomeal drug residence time. To improve ocular bioavailability of topically dosed ophthalmic drugs, a variety of ocular drug delivery systems, such as hydrogels, microparticles, nanoparticles, microemulsions, liposomes and collagen shields, have been designed and investigated. These newer systems may, to some extent, control drug release and maintain therapeutic levels in ocular tissues over a prolonged period of time. This review focuses on the in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo studies of ophthalmic drugs formulated in nanopartictes published over the past two decades. The progress and development issues relating to ocular disposition, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of the nanoparticle-formulated ophthalmic drugs are specifically addressed. Information and discussions summarized in this review are helpful for pharmaceutical scientists to develop better ophthalmic therapeutics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available