4.2 Article

Dose-Response of Intracameral Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Implant and Topical Bimatoprost in Lowering Intraocular Pressure

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2018.0095

关键词

bimatoprost; drug delivery; eye drop; intracameral; intraocular pressure; prostaglandin analog

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 mu g. 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 mu g. 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-mu g dose strengths, Bimatoprost SR produced greater IOP reductions than were achieved with topical dosing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据