Advanced drug delivery and targeting technologies for the ocular diseases

BioImpacts

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 49-67

  Barar, Jaleh ^a   Aghanejad, Ayuob ^a   Fathi, Marziyeh ^a   Omidi, Yadollah ^a  

^a TABRIZ UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Eye diseases; Intraocular drug delivery; Ocular barriers; Ocular drug targeting; Ocular pharmacotherapy; Ophthalmic implants; Ophthalmology; Targeted therapy

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE A2A RECEPTOR AGONIST; AFLIBERCEPT; AZITHROMYCIN; BESIFLOXACIN; BETAXOLOL; BEVACIZUMAB; BROMFENAC; CYCLOSPORIN; CYCLOSPORIN A; DEXAMETHASONE; DEXAMETHASONE PLUS TOBRAMYCIN; DIQUAFOSOL; EPINASTINE; GANCICLOVIR; GATIFLOXACIN; HUMAN IMMUNOGLOBULIN; KETOROLAC TROMETAMOL; KETOTIFEN; LATANOPROST; LOMERIZINE; PEGAPTANIB; PROSTAGLANDIN; RANIBIZUMAB; RIVOGLITAZONE; TAFLUPROST; TASIMELTEON; TETRACYCLINE; TIMOLOL MALEATE; UNINDEXED DRUG; VALGANCICLOVIR;

AGE RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION; ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; ANTERIOR EYE SEGMENT; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL CONJUNCTIVITIS; BLEPHARITIS; BLEPHAROCONJUNCTIVITIS; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; BLOOD EYE BARRIER; CATARACT; CONJUNCTIVA DISEASE; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED DRUG RELEASE; CORNEA; CORNEA DISEASE; CORNEA NEOVASCULARIZATION; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS RETINITIS; DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA; DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG IMPLANT; DRY EYE; ENCAPSULATION; EYE DISEASE; EYE INFLAMMATION; EYE PAIN; GLAUCOMA; HERPES SIMPLEX KERATITIS; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; INTRAOCULAR DRUG ADMINISTRATION; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT; KERATOCONJUNCTIVITIS; LACRIMATION; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NANOMEDICINE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); POSTERIOR EYE SEGMENT; SLEEP DISORDER; TEAR FILM;

EID: 84977080654     PISSN: 22285652     EISSN: 22285660     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15171/bi.2016.07     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Cholkar K, Patel SP, Vadlapudi AD, Mitra AK. Novel strategies for anterior segment ocular drug delivery. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2013; 29: 106-23. doi:10.1089/jop.2012.0200
2. Barar J, Asadi M, Mortazavi-Tabatabaei SA, Omidi Y. Ocular drug delivery: impact of in vitro cell culture models. Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2009; 4: 238-52.
3. Willoughby CE, Ponzin D, Ferrari S, Lobo A, Landau K, Omidi Y. Anatomy and physiology of the human eye: effects of mucopolysaccharidoses disease on structure and function-a review. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology 2010; 38: 2-11.
4. Kompella UB, Kadam RS, Lee VH. Recent advances in ophthalmic drug delivery. Ther Deliv 2010; 1: 435-56. doi:10.4155/TDE.10.40
5. Boddu SH, Gunda S, Earla R, Mitra AK. Ocular microdialysis: a continuous sampling technique to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the eye. Bioanalysis 2010; 2: 487-507. doi:10.4155/bio.10.2
6. Tojo K. A pharmacokinetic model for ocular drug delivery. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo) 2004; 52: 1290-4.
7. Jones RF, Maurice DM. New methods of measuring the rate of aqueous flow in man with fluorescein. Exp Eye Res 1966; 5: 208-20. doi:10.1016/S0014-4835(66)80009-X
8. Maurice DM. Ocular Pharmacokinetics. In: Sears ML, editor. Pharmacology of the Eye. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1984.
9. Barar J, Javadzadeh AR, Omidi Y. Ocular novel drug delivery: impacts of membranes and barriers. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2008; 5: 567-81. doi:10.1517/17425247.5.5.567
10. Omidi Y, Gumbleton M. Biological Membranes and Barriers. In: Mahato RI, editor. Biomaterials for Delivery and Targeting of Proteins Nucleic Acids. New York: CRC Press; 2005. p. 232-74.
11. Barar J, Gumbleton M, Asadi M, Omidi Y. Barrier functionality and transport machineries of human ECV304 cells. Med Sci Monit 2010; 16: BR52-60.
12. Omidi Y, Campbell L, Barar J, Connell D, Akhtar S, Gumbleton M. Evaluation of the immortalised mouse brain capillary endothelial cell line, b.End3, as an in vitro blood-brain barrier model for drug uptake and transport studies. Brain Res 2003; 990: 95-112.
13. Smith M, Omidi Y, Gumbleton M. Primary porcine brain microvascular endothelial cells: biochemical and functional characterisation as a model for drug transport and targeting. J Drug Target 2007; 15: 253-68. doi:10.1080/10611860701288539
14. Omidi Y, Barar J, Ahmadian S, Heidari HR, Gumbleton M. Characterization and astrocytic modulation of system L transporters in brain microvasculature endothelial cells. Cell Biochem Funct 2008; 26: 381-91. doi:10.1002/cbf.1455
15. Omidi Y, Barar J. Impacts of blood-brain barrier in drug delivery and targeting of brain tumors. Bioimpacts 2012; 2: 5-22. doi:10.5681/bi.2012.002
16. Antonetti D. Eye vessels saved by rescuing their pericyte partners. Nat Med 2009; 15: 1248-9. doi:10.1038/nm1109-1248
17. Ng EW, Shima DT, Calias P, Cunningham ET, Jr., Guyer DR, Adamis AP. Pegaptanib, a targeted anti-VEGF aptamer for ocular vascular disease. Nature reviews Drug discovery 2006; 5: 123-32. doi:10.1038/nrd1955
18. Spitzer MS, Yoeruek E, Sierra A, Wallenfels-Thilo B, Schraermeyer U, Spitzer B, et al. Comparative antiproliferative and cytotoxic profile of bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) on different ocular cells. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007; 245: 1837-42. doi:10.1007/s00417-007- 0568-7
19. Ni Z, Hui P. Emerging pharmacologic therapies for wet agerelated macular degeneration. Ophthalmologica 2009; 223: 401-10. doi:10.1159/000228926
20. Algvere PV, Kvanta A, Seregard S. Shall we use Avastin or Lucentis for ocular neovascularization? Acta Ophthalmol 2008; 86: 352-5. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.01317.x
21. Si EC, Cheung PS, Bowman L, Hosseini K. Ocular pharmacokinetics of AzaSite Xtra-2% azithromycin formulated in a DuraSite delivery system. Curr Eye Res 2009; 34: 485-91.
22. Opitz DL, Harthan JS. Review of Azithromycin Ophthalmic 1% Solution (AzaSite((R))) for the Treatment of Ocular Infections. Ophthalmol Eye Dis 2012; 4: 1-14. doi:10.4137/OED.S7791
23. Hosseini K, Hutcheson J, Lindstrom RL. A Phase III clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of combined azithromycin and dexamethasone in the treatment of blepharoconjunctivitis. Clin Ophthalmol 2013; 7: 2225-34. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S52474
24. Harris E. Industry Update: The latest developments in therapeutic delivery. Ther Del 2013; 4: 659-65.
25. Hosseini K, Hutcheson J, Bowman L. Aqueous humor concentration of Bromfenac 0.09%(Bromday) compared with Bromfenac in DuraSite 0.075%(Bromsite) in cataract patients undergoing phacoemulsification after 3 days dosing. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2013; 54: 5061-.
26. Ohno Y, Iga T, Yamada Y, Nagahara M, Araie M, Takayanagi R. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of systemic effect of topically applied timolol maleate ophthalmic gelling vehicle (Rysmon TG). Curr Eye Res 2005; 30: 319-28. doi:10.1080/02713680590923294
27. Kawase K, Lin W, Aoyama Y, Yamamoto T, Shimazawa M, Hara H. Effects of timolol-related ophthalmic solutions on cultured human conjunctival cells. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2010; 54: 615-21. doi:10.1007/ s10384-010-0881-2
28. Trope GE, Liu GS, Basu PK. Toxic effects of topically administered Betagan, Betoptic, and Timoptic on regenerating corneal epithelium. J Ocul Pharmacol 1988; 4: 359-66.
29. Fry LL. Comparison of the postoperative intraocular pressure with Betagan, Betoptic, Timoptic, Iopidine, Diamox, Pilopine Gel, and Miostat. J Cataract Refract Surg 1992; 18: 14-9.
30. Yarangumeli A, Kural G. Are there any benefits of Betoptic S (betaxolol HCl ophthalmic suspension) over other beta-blockers in the treatment of glaucoma? Expert Opin Pharmacother 2004; 5: 1071-81. doi:10.1517/14656566.5.5.1071
31. Izumi N, Nagaoka T, Sato E, Mori F, Yoshida A. DE-085 Increases Retinal Blood Flow. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2004; 45: 2340-.
32. Daull P, Buggage R, Lambert G, Faure MO, Serle J, Wang RF, et al. A comparative study of a preservative-free latanoprost cationic emulsion (Catioprost) and a BAK-preserved latanoprost solution in animal models. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2012; 28: 515-23. doi:10.1089/jop.2011.0245
33. Scoper SV, Kabat AG, Owen GR, Stroman DW, Kabra BP, Faulkner R, et al. Ocular distribution, bactericidal activity and settling characteristics of TobraDex ST ophthalmic suspension compared with TobraDex ophthalmic suspension. Adv Ther 2008; 25: 77-88. doi:10.1007/s12325-008-0019-9
34. Potter WS, Nelson LB, Raber IM. Corneal graft rejection in a child and inadvertent substitution of Tobrex for TobraDex. Ophthalmic Surg 1990; 21: 671-2.
35. Kinnunen K, Kauppinen A, Piippo N, Koistinen A, Toropainen E, Kaarniranta K. Cationorm shows good tolerability on human HCE-2 corneal epithelial cell cultures. Exp Eye Res 2014; 120: 82-9. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2014.01.006
36. Pinheiro R, Panfil C, Schrage N, Dutescu RM. Comparison of the lubricant eyedrops Optive(R), Vismed Multi(R), and Cationorm(R) on the corneal healing process in an ex vivo model. Eur J Ophthalmol 2015; 25: 379-84. doi:10.5301/ejo.5000593
37. Souza JG, Dias K, Pereira TA, Bernardi DS, Lopez RF. Topical delivery of ocular therapeutics: carrier systems and physical methods. J Pharm Pharmacol 2014; 66: 507-30.
38. Buggage RR, Amrane M, Ismail D, Deniaud M, Lemp MA, Baudouin C. The Effect of Cyclokat(preservative-free cyclosporine 0.1% cationic emulsion) on Dry Eye Disease Signs and Symptoms in Sjogren and non-Sjogren Patients with Moderate to Severe DED in a Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2012; 53: 576.
39. Colligris B, Crooke A, Huete-Toral F, Pintor J. An update on dry eye disease molecular treatment: advances in drug pipelines. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2014; 15: 1371-90.
40. Tieppo A, White CJ, Paine AC, Voyles ML, McBride MK, Byrne ME. Sustained in vivo release from imprinted therapeutic contact lenses. J Control Release 2012; 157: 391-7. doi:10.1016/j. jconrel.2011.09.087
41. Cheng YH, Hung KH, Tsai TH, Lee CJ, Ku RY, Chiu AW, et al. Sustained delivery of latanoprost by thermosensitive chitosangelatin- based hydrogel for controlling ocular hypertension. Acta Biomater 2014; 10: 4360-6. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2014.05.031
42. Bock F, Matthaei M, Reinhard T, Bohringer D, Christoph J, Ganslandt T, et al. High-dose subconjunctival cyclosporine a implants do not affect corneal neovascularization after high-risk keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2014; 121: 1677-82. doi:10.1016/j. ophtha.2014.03.016
43. Dartt DA, Hodges RR, Zoukhri D. Tear and Their Secretion. In: Fischbarg J, editor. The Biology of Eye. New York: Academic Press; 2006 p. 21-82.
44. Leeming JP. Treatment of ocular infections with topical antibacterials. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 351-60.
45. Urtti A. Delivery of antiglaucoma drugs: ocular vs systemic absorption. J Ocul Pharmacol 1994; 10: 349-57.
46. Hamalainen KM, Kananen K, Auriola S, Kontturi K, Urtti A. Characterization of paracellular and aqueous penetration routes in cornea, conjunctiva, and sclera. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 627-34.
47. Souto EB, Doktorovova S, Gonzalez-Mira E, Egea MA, Garcia ML. Feasibility of lipid nanoparticles for ocular delivery of anti-inflammatory drugs. Curr Eye Res 2010; 35: 537-52. doi:10.3109/02713681003760168
48. Badawi AA, El-Laithy HM, El Qidra RK, El Mofty H, El dally M. Chitosan based nanocarriers for indomethacin ocular delivery. Arch Pharm Res 2008; 31: 1040-9. doi:10.1007/s12272-001-1266-6
49. Ammar HO, Salama HA, Ghorab M, Mahmoud AA. Development of dorzolamide hydrochloride in situ gel nanoemulsion for ocular delivery. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy 2010; 36: 1330-9. doi:10.3109/03639041003801885
50. Akhter S, Talegaonkar S, Khan ZI, Jain GK, Khar RK, Ahmad FJ. Assessment of ocular pharmacokinetics and safety of Ganciclovir loaded nanoformulations. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2011; 7: 144-5.
51. Adibkia K, Siahi Shadbad MR, Nokhodchi A, Javadzedeh A, Barzegar-Jalali M, Barar J, et al. Piroxicam nanoparticles for ocular delivery: physicochemical characterization and implementation in endotoxin-induced uveitis. J Drug Target 2007; 15: 407-16. doi:10.1080/10611860701453125
52. Adibkia K, Omidi Y, Siahi MR, Javadzadeh AR, Barzegar-Jalali M, Barar J, et al. Inhibition of endotoxin-induced uveitis by methylprednisolone acetate nanosuspension in rabbits. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2007; 23: 421-32. doi:10.1089/jop.2007.0039
53. Barzegar-Jalali M, Adibkia K, Valizadeh H, Shadbad MR, Nokhodchi A, Omidi Y, et al. Kinetic analysis of drug release from nanoparticles. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2008; 11: 167-77.
54. Fullard RJ, Tucker D. Tear protein composition and the effects of stimulus. Adv Exp Med Biol 1994; 350: 309-14.
55. Cao Y, Zhang C, Shen W, Cheng Z, Yu LL, Ping Q. Poly(Nisopropylacrylamide)- chitosan as thermosensitive in situ gelforming system for ocular drug delivery. J Control Release 2007; 120: 186-94.
56. Patel SP, Vaishya R, Yang X, Pal D, Mitra AK. Novel thermosensitive pentablock copolymers for sustained delivery of proteins in the treatment of posterior segment diseases. Protein Pept Lett 2014; 21: 1185-200.
57. Hosny KM. Preparation and evaluation of thermosensitive liposomal hydrogel for enhanced transcorneal permeation of ofloxacin. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech 2009; 10: 1336-42. doi:10.1208/ s12249-009-9335-x
58. Bochot A, Fattal E, Gulik A, Couarraze G, Couvreur P. Liposomes dispersed within a thermosensitive gel: a new dosage form for ocular delivery of oligonucleotides. Pharm Res 1998; 15: 1364-9.
59. Schenker HI, Silver LH. Long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% compared with Timoptic XE 0.5% in a 12-month study. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130: 145-50.
60. Yoncheva K, Vandervoort J, Ludwig A. Development of mucoadhesive poly(lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles for ocular application. Pharm Dev Technol 2011; 16: 29-35. doi:10.3109/10837450903479954
61. Abdelbary G. Ocular ciprofloxacin hydrochloride mucoadhesive chitosan-coated liposomes. Pharm Dev Technol 2011; 16: 44-56. doi:10.3109/10837450903479988
62. Mehanna MM, Elmaradny HA, Samaha MW. Mucoadhesive liposomes as ocular delivery system: physical, microbiological, and in vivo assessment. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2009. doi:10.3109/03639040903099751
63. Choy YB, Park JH, McCarey BE, Edelhauser HF, Prausnitz MR. Mucoadhesive microdiscs engineered for ophthalmic drug delivery: effect of particle geometry and formulation on preocular residence time. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 4808-15.
64. Ludwig A. The use of mucoadhesive polymers in ocular drug delivery. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2005; 57: 1595-639.
65. Aggarwal D, Kaur IP. Improved pharmacodynamics of timolol maleate from a mucoadhesive niosomal ophthalmic drug delivery system. Int J Pharm 2005; 290: 155-9. doi:10.1016/j. ijpharm.2004.10.026
66. Agrawal AK, Das M, Jain S. In situ gel systems as 'smart' carriers for sustained ocular drug delivery. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 2012; 9: 383-402. doi:10.1517/17425247.2012.665367
67. Gupta S, Vyas SP. Carbopol/chitosan based pH triggered in situ gelling system for ocular delivery of timolol maleate. Sci Pharm 2010; 78: 959-76. doi:10.3797/scipharm.1001-06
68. Mansour M, Mansour S, Mortada ND, Abd Elhady SS. Ocular poloxamer-based ciprofloxacin hydrochloride in situ forming gels. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2008; 34: 744-52. doi:10.1080/03639040801926030
69. Gupta H, Jain S, Mathur R, Mishra P, Mishra AK, Velpandian T. Sustained ocular drug delivery from a temperature and pH triggered novel in situ gel system. Drug Deliv 2007; 14: 507-15. doi:10.1080/10717540701606426
70. Peng Y, Ang M, Foo S, Lee WS, Ma Z, Venkatraman SS, et al. Biocompatibility and biodegradation studies of subconjunctival implants in rabbit eyes. PLoS One 2011; 6: e22507. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0022507
71. Lee SS, Hughes P, Ross AD, Robinson MR. Biodegradable implants for sustained drug release in the eye. Pharm Res 2010; 27: 2043-53. doi:10.1007/s11095-010-0159-x
72. Paula JS, Ribeiro VR, Chahud F, Cannellini R, Monteiro TC, Gomes EC, et al. Bevacizumab-loaded polyurethane subconjunctival implants: effects on experimental glaucoma filtration surgery. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2013; 29: 566-73. doi:10.1089/jop.2012.0136
73. Bill A. The blood-aqueous barrier. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1986; 105 (Pt 2): 149-55.
74. Schlingemann RO, Hofman P, Klooster J, Blaauwgeers HG, van der GR, Vrensen GF. Ciliary muscle capillaries have blood-tissue barrier characteristics. Exp Eye Res 1998; 66: 747-54.
75. Mannermaa E, Vellonen KS, Urtti A. Drug transport in corneal epithelium and blood-retina barrier: emerging role of transporters in ocular pharmacokinetics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2006; 58: 1136-63. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2006.07.024
76. Mitra AK, Anand BS, Duvvuri S. Drug Delivery to the Eye. In: Fischbarg J, editor. The Biology of Eye. New York: Academic Press; 2006 p. 307-51.
77. Prause JU. Treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca with Lacrisert. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 1986; 61: 261-3.
78. McDonald M, D'Aversa G, Perry HD, Wittpenn JR, Donnenfeld ED, Nelinson DS. Hydroxypropyl cellulose ophthalmic inserts (lacrisert) reduce the signs and symptoms of dry eye syndrome and improve patient quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2009; 107: 214-21.
79. Luchs JI, Nelinson DS, Macy JI, Group LACS. Efficacy of hydroxypropyl cellulose ophthalmic inserts (LACRISERT) in subsets of patients with dry eye syndrome: findings from a patient registry. Cornea 2010; 29: 1417-27. doi:10.1097/ ICO.0b013e3181e3f05b
80. Mealy JE, Fedorchak MV, Little SR. In vitro characterization of a controlled-release ocular insert for delivery of brimonidine tartrate. Acta Biomater 2014; 10: 87-93. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.09.024
81. Kumari A, Sharma PK, Garg VK, Garg G. Ocular inserts - Advancement in therapy of eye diseases. J Adv Pharm Technol Res 2010; 1: 291-6. doi:10.4103/0110-5558.72419
82. Riau AK, Mondal D, Aung TT, Murugan E, Chen L, Lwin NC, et al. Collagen-Based Artificial Corneal Scaffold with Anti-Infective Capability for Prevention of Perioperative Bacterial Infections. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2015; 1: 1324-34.
83. Yellepeddi VK, Sheshala R, McMillan H, Gujral C, Jones D, Raghu Raj Singh T. Punctal plug: a medical device to treat dry eye syndrome and for sustained drug delivery to the eye. Drug Discov Today 2015; 20: 884-9. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2015.01.013
84. Kojima T, Matsumoto Y, Ibrahim OM, Wakamatsu TH, Dogru M, Tsubota K. Evaluation of a thermosensitive atelocollagen punctal plug treatment for dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 157: 311-7 e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.10.019
85. Yokoi N, Okada K, Sugita J, Kinoshita S. Acute conjunctivitis associated with biofilm formation on a punctal plug. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2000; 44: 559-60.
86. Rumelt S, Remulla H, Rubin PA. Silicone punctal plug migration resulting in dacryocystitis and canaliculitis. Cornea 1997; 16: 377- 9.
87. Colin J. European clinical evaluation: use of Intacs for the treatment of keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 747-55. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.064
88. Kymionis GD, Siganos CS, Tsiklis NS, Anastasakis A, Yoo SH, Pallikaris AI, et al. Long-term follow-up of Intacs in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 236-44. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.10.041
89. Rabinowitz YS. INTACS for Keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2010; 50: 63-76. doi:10.1097/IIO.0b013e3181e21b76
90. Engle AT, Laurent JM, Schallhorn SC, Toman SD, Newacheck JS, Tanzer DJ, et al. Masked comparison of silicone hydrogel lotrafilcon A and etafilcon A extended-wear bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 681-6. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.022
91. Edwards JD, Bower KS, Sediq DA, Burka JM, Stutzman RD, Vanroekel CR, et al. Effects of lotrafilcon A and omafilcon A bandage contact lenses on visual outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 1288-94. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.04.024
92. Long B, Schweizer H, Bleshoy H, Zeri F. Expanding your use of silicone hydrogel contact lenses: using lotrafilcon A for daily wear. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35: 59-64. doi:10.1097/ ICL.0b013e318196ade7
93. Mohammadpour M, Amouzegar A, Hashemi H, Jabbarvand M, Kordbacheh H, Rahimi F, et al. Comparison of Lotrafilcon B and Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing pain and discomfort after photorefractive keratectomy: A contralateral eye study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015; 38: 211-4. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2015.01.014
94. Sarac O, Gurdal C, Bostanci-Ceran B, Can I. Comparison of tear osmolarity and ocular comfort between daily disposable contact lenses: hilafilcon B hydrogel versus narafilcon A silicone hydrogel. Int Ophthalmol 2012; 32: 229-33. doi:10.1007/s10792-012-9556-y
95. Cai X, Conley S, Naash M. Nanoparticle applications in ocular gene therapy. Vision Res 2008; 48: 319-24. doi:10.1016/j. visres.2007.07.012
96. Vandervoort J, Ludwig A. Ocular drug delivery: nanomedicine applications. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2007; 2: 11-21. doi:10.2217/17435889.2.1.11
97. Nakhlband A, Barar J. Impacts of nanomedicines in ocular pharmacotherapy. Bioimpacts 2011; 1: 7-22. doi:10.5681/ bi.2011.003
98. Omidi Y, Barar J, Hamzeiy H. Nanomedicines Impacts in Ocular Delivery and Targeting. Nanotechnology in Health Care 2012; 43.
99. Vaishya RD, Khurana V, Patel S, Mitra AK. Controlled ocular drug delivery with nanomicelles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2014; 6: 422-37. doi:10.1002/wnan.1272
100. Prow TW. Toxicity of nanomaterials to the eye. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2010; 2: 317-33. doi:10.1002/ wnan.65
101. Wadhwa S, Paliwal R, Paliwal SR, Vyas SP. Nanocarriers in ocular drug delivery: an update review. Curr Pharm Des 2009; 15: 2724- 50.
102. Sahoo SK, Dilnawaz F, Krishnakumar S. Nanotechnology in ocular drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 144-51. doi:10.1016/j. drudis.2007.10.021
103. Kothuri MK, Pinnamaneni S, Das NG, Das SK. Microparticles and Nanoparticles in Ocular Drug Delivery. In: Mitra AK, editor. Ophthalmic Drug Delivery Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2003 p. 437-66.
104. Visor GC. Drug design strategies for ocular therapeutics. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 1994; 14: 269-79.
105. Barar J, Omidi Y. Nanoparticles for Ocular Drug Delivery. Nanomedicine in Drug Delivery 2013; 287.
106. Zhang L, Li Y, Zhang C, Wang Y, Song C. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance study of intravitreal injection of dexamethasone-loaded nanoparticles in rabbits. Int J Nanomedicine 2009; 4: 175-83.
107. Jo DH, Kim JH, Yu YS, Lee TG, Kim JH. Antiangiogenic effect of silicate nanoparticle on retinal neovascularization induced by vascular endothelial growth factor. Nanomedicine 2012; 8: 784-91. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2011.09.003
108. Panda JJ, Yandrapu S, Kadam RS, Chauhan VS, Kompella UB. Self-assembled phenylalanine-alpha,beta-dehydrophenylalanine nanotubes for sustained intravitreal delivery of a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor. J Control Release 2013; 172: 1151-60. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.09.016
109. Huu VA, Luo J, Zhu J, Zhu J, Patel S, Boone A, et al. Lightresponsive nanoparticle depot to control release of a small molecule angiogenesis inhibitor in the posterior segment of the eye. J Control Release 2015; 200: 71-7. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.01.001
110. Hamidi M, Azadi A, Rafiei P. Hydrogel nanoparticles in drug delivery. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2008; 60: 1638-49.
111. Ahmed EM. Hydrogel: preparation, characterization, and applications. J Adv Res. 2015; 6: 105-21. doi: 10.1016/j. jare.2013.07.006
112. Hennink W, Van Nostrum CF. Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2012; 64: 223- 36.
113. Joglekar M, Trewyn BG. Polymer-based stimuli-responsive nanosystems for biomedical applications. Biotechnol J 2013; 8: 931- 45.
114. Deligkaris K, Tadele TS, Olthuis W, van den Berg A. Hydrogelbased devices for biomedical applications. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 2010; 147: 765-74.
115. Radhakrishnan J, Krishnan UM, Sethuraman S. Hydrogel based injectable scaffolds for cardiac tissue regeneration. Biotechnol Adv 2014; 32: 449-61.
116. Jeong B, Kim SW, Bae YH. Thermosensitive sol-gel reversible hydrogels. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2002; 54: 37-51.
117. Qiu Y, Park K. Environment-sensitive hydrogels for drug delivery. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2012; 64: 49-60.
118. Casolaro M, Casolaro I, Lamponi S. Stimuli-responsive hydrogels for controlled pilocarpine ocular delivery. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 2012; 80: 553-61.
119. Fathi M, Entezami AA, Arami S, Rashidi M-R. Preparation of N-Isopropylacrylamide/Itaconic Acid Magnetic Nanohydrogels by Modified Starch as a Crosslinker for Anticancer Drug Carriers. International Journal of Polymeric Materials and Polymeric Biomaterials 2015; 64: 541-9.
120. Yasuda H. Biocompatibility of Nanofilm-Encapsulated Silicone and Silicone-Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Macromolecular Bioscience 2006; 6: 121-38.
121. Abrego G, Alvarado H, Souto EB, Guevara B, Bellowa LH, Parra A, et al. Biopharmaceutical profile of pranoprofen-loaded PLGA nanoparticles containing hydrogels for ocular administration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015; 95: 261-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.01.026.
122. Kaur IP, Smitha R. Penetration enhancers and ocular bioadhesives: two new avenues for ophthalmic drug delivery. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy 2002; 28: 353-69.
123. Stapleton F, Stretton S, Papas E, Skotnitsky C, Sweeney DF. Silicone hydrogel contact lenses and the ocular surface. The Ocular Surface 2006; 4: 24-43.
124. Xie B, Jin L, Luo Z, Yu J, Shi S, Zhang Z, et al. An injectable thermosensitive polymeric hydrogel for sustained release of Avastin(R) to treat posterior segment disease. Int J Pharm 2015; 490: 375-83. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.05.071
125. Kirchhof S, Goepferich AM, Brandl FP. Hydrogels in ophthalmic applications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2015; 95: 227-38. doi:10.1016/j. ejpb.2015.05.016
126. Rauck BM, Friberg TR, Medina Mendez CA, Park D, Shah V, Bilonick RA, et al. Biocompatible reverse thermal gel sustains the release of intravitreal bevacizumab in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 469-76. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-13120
127. Hu CC, Chaw JR, Chen CF, Liu HW. Controlled release bevacizumab in thermoresponsive hydrogel found to inhibit angiogenesis. Biomed Mater Eng 2014; 24: 1941-50. doi:10.3233/ BME-141003
128. Gilger BC, Mandal A, Shah S, Mitra AK. Episcleral, intrascleral, and suprachoroidal routes of ocular drug delivery-recent research advances and patents. Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul 2014; 8: 81-91.
129. Stanzel BV, Liu Z, Brinken R, Braun N, Holz FG, Eter N. Subretinal delivery of ultrathin rigid-elastic cell carriers using a metallic shooter instrument and biodegradable hydrogel encapsulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 490-500. doi:10.1167/iovs.11- 8260
130. Gao SQ, Maeda T, Okano K, Palczewski K. A microparticle/ hydrogel combination drug-delivery system for sustained release of retinoids. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 6314-23. doi:10.1167/ iovs.12-10279
131. Kuno N, Fujii S. Biodegradable intraocular therapies for retinal disorders: progress to date. Drugs Aging 2010; 27: 117-34. doi:10.2165/11530970-000000000-00000
132. Thanos CG, Bell WJ, O'Rourke P, Kauper K, Sherman S, Stabila P, et al. Sustained secretion of ciliary neurotrophic factor to the vitreous, using the encapsulated cell therapy-based NT-501 intraocular device. Tissue Eng 2004; 10: 1617-22. doi:10.1089/ ten.2004.10.1617
133. Emerich DF, Thanos CG. NT-501: an ophthalmic implant of polymer-encapsulated ciliary neurotrophic factor-producing cells. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2008; 10: 506-15.
134. Humayun M, Santos A, Altamirano JC, Ribeiro R, Gonzalez R, de la Rosa A, et al. Implantable MicroPump for Drug Delivery in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2014; 3: 5. doi:10.1167/tvst.3.6.5
135. Gutierrez-Hernandez JC, Caffey S, Abdallah W, Calvillo P, Gonzalez R, Shih J, et al. One-Year Feasibility Study of Replenish MicroPump for Intravitreal Drug Delivery: A Pilot Study. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2014; 3: 8. doi:10.1167/tvst.3.3.8
136. Fangueiro JF, Veiga F, Silva AM, Souto EB. Ocular Drug Delivery - New Strategies for targeting anterior and posterior segments of the eye. Curr Pharm Des 2015. doi:10.2174/138161282266615121 6145900
137. du Toit LC, Pillay V, Choonara YE, Govender T, Carmichael T. Ocular drug delivery-a look towards nanobioadhesives. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011; 8: 71-94. doi:10.1517/17425247.2011.5421 42
138. Almeida H, Amaral MH, Lobao P, Lobo JM. In situ gelling systems: a strategy to improve the bioavailability of ophthalmic pharmaceutical formulations. Drug Discov Today 2014; 19: 400-12. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2013.10.001
139. Pontes de Carvalho RA, Krausse ML, Murphree AL, Schmitt EE, Campochiaro PA, Maumenee IH. Delivery from episcleral exoplants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 4532-9. doi:10.1167/ iovs.06-0030
140. Lo R, Li PY, Saati S, Agrawal R, Humayun MS, Meng E. A refillable microfabricated drug delivery device for treatment of ocular diseases. Lab Chip 2008; 8: 1027-30. doi:10.1039/b804690e
141. Lo R, Li PY, Saati S, Agrawal RN, Humayun MS, Meng E. A passive MEMS drug delivery pump for treatment of ocular diseases. Biomed Microdevices 2009; 11: 959-70. doi:10.1007/s10544-009- 9313-9
142. Bush RA, Lei B, Tao W, Raz D, Chan CC, Cox TA, et al. Encapsulated cell-based intraocular delivery of ciliary neurotrophic factor in normal rabbit: dose-dependent effects on ERG and retinal histology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 2420-30.
143. Ashworth JL, Biswas S, Wraith E, Lloyd IC. Mucopolysaccharidoses and the eye. Surv Ophthalmol 2006; 51: 1-17. doi:10.1016/j. survophthal.2005.11.007
144. Fathi M, Barar J, Aghanejad A, Omidi Y. Hydrogels for ocular drug delivery and tissue engineering. Bioimpacts 2015; 5: 159-164. doi: 10.15171/bi.2015.31