4.7 Article

In vitro and in vivo ocular safety and eye surface permanence determination by direct and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of ion-sensitive hydrogels based on gellan gum and kappa-carrageenan

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.06.003

关键词

In situ gelling system; Ion-activated ophthalmic hydrogel; Polysaccharides; Gellan gum; Kappa-carrageenan; Ocular toxicity; In vivo ocular surface permanence; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Real-Time Cell Analyzer System; Het-Cam

资金

  1. Fundacion Espanola de Farmacia Hospitalaria
  2. Fundacion Mutua Madrilena

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gellan gum, kappa-carrageenan and alginates are natural polysaccharides able to interact with different cations that can be used to elaborate ion-activated in situ gelling systems for different uses. The interaction between fluid solutions of these polysaccharides and cations presents into the tear made these biopolymers very interesting to elaborate ophthalmic drug delivery systems. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of mixtures of these polymers to obtain ion-activated ophthalmic in situ gelling systems with optimal properties for ocular use. To achieve this purpose different proportion of the biopolymers were analyzed using a mixture experimental design evaluating their transparency, mechanical properties and bioadhesion in the absence and presence of simulated tear fluid. Tear induces a rapid sol-to-gel phase transition in the mixtures forming a consistent hydrogel. The solution composed by 80% of gellan gum and 20% kappa-carrageenan showed the best mechanical and mucoadhesive properties. This mixture was evaluated for rheological behavior, microstructure, cytotoxicity, acute corneal irritancy, ex-vivo and in vivo ocular toxicity and in vivo corneal contact time using Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) techniques. Result indicates that the system is safe at ophthalmic level and produces an extensive ocular permanence higher than 6 h. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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