4.5 Article

A Rapid Extraction Method to Quantify Drug Uptake in Contact Lenses

Journal

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.7.2.11

Keywords

contact lens; drug delivery; drug uptake; natamycin; moxifloxacin; ketotifen fumarate; timolol maleate

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To develop a simple extraction procedure to quantify the uptake of four topical ocular pharmaceutical drugs into contact lenses (CLs). Methods: Four silicone hydrogel (SH) CLs (balafilcon A, senofilcon A, lotrafilcon B, comfilcon B) and four conventional hydrogel (CH) CLs (nesofilcon A, hilafilcon B, nelfilcon A, etafilcon A) were evaluated. The drugs studied were natamycin, moxifloxacin, timolol maleate, and ketotifen fumarate. For drug incubation, three CLs of each type were placed in 1 mL of 1 mg/mL drug-loading solution for 24 hours. The lenses were then extracted in 2 mL methanol for 2 hours. This process was repeated to obtain a total of three extraction cycles. Detection of natamycin, moxifloxacin, ketotifen fumarate, and timolol maleate were measured by absorbance at 305, 287, 297, and 295 nm, respectively. Results: The majority of the drugs were extracted after the first extraction cycle (P < 0.001). For moxifloxacin and timolol, CH CLs had higher drug uptake than SH CLs (P < 0.05). There were no differences in drug uptake between CH CLs and SH CLs for natamycin and ketotifen (P > 0.05). Conclusions: This study provides a simple approach to determine drug uptake into CLs. This method can also be modified, such as changing the extraction time, extraction cycles, or extraction solvent to better suit other drugs and CL combinations. Translational Relevance: There is considerable interest in using CLs for ocular drug delivery. Accurately quantifying drug uptake on CLs has been a challenge. Hence, this study provides a simple method to quantify drug uptake in CLs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available