4.6 Article

Conjunctival and corneal reactions in rabbits following short- and repeated exposure to preservative-free tafluprost, commercially available latanoprost and 0.02% benzalkonium chloride

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 92, 期 9, 页码 1275-1282

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.138768

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Toxicology, Faculty of Biological and Pharmacological Sciences, INSERM UMR S 592
  2. Santen Oy, Tampere, Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To compare the conjunctival and corneal reactions of commercially available solution of latanoprost (Xalatan) and preservative-free (PF) tafluprost in rabbits. Methods: The rabbits received 50 mu l of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), PF-tafluprost 0.0015%, latanoprost 0.005% or benzalkonium chloride (BAK) 0.02%; all solutions were applied at 5 min intervals for a total of 15 times. The ocular surface toxicity was investigated using slit-lamp biomicroscopy examination, flow cytometry (FCM) and on imprints for CD45 and tumour necrosis factor-receptor 1 (TNFR1) conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) and corneal in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM). Standard immunohistology also assessed inflammatory/apoptotic cells. Results: Clinical observation and IVCM images showed the highest ocular surface toxicity with latanoprost and BAK, while PF-tafluprost and PBS eyes presented almost normal corneoconjunctival aspects. FCM showed a higher expression of CD45+ and TNFR1+ in latanoprost- or BAK-instilled groups, compared with PF-tafluprost and PBS groups. Latanoprost induced fewer positive cells for inflammatory marker expressions in CIC specimens compared with BAK-alone, both of which were higher than with PF-tafluprost or PBS. Immunohistology showed the same tendency of toxic ranking. Conclusion: The authors confirm that rabbit corneoconjunctival surfaces presented a better tolerance when treated with PF-tafluprost compared with commercially available latanoprost or BAK solution.

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

4.6
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