Delivery of Ketotifen Fumarate by Commercial Contact Lens Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the uptake and delivery of the anti-allergy drug ketotifen fumarate (KF) by commercially available contact lenses. METHODS: A total of 14 different commercially available contact lenses were investigated, including five frequent-replacement silicone hydrogels, three conventional hydrogels, and six daily disposable lenses. Lenses were soaked in a 0.025% KF loading solution for 24 h, and the concentration of KF in solution over time was determined by ultraviolet absorbance at 297 nm. After the 24-h loading period, lenses were placed in fresh vials containing borate buffered saline, and the release of drug into solution at 34°C was monitored for 24 h. RESULTS: All the lenses studied demonstrated significant uptake and release of KF into the borate buffered saline (p < 0.05 compared with initial time point). Lenses with charged surfaces [balafilcon A, etafilcon A, and etafilcon A (daily disposable)] demonstrated the greatest uptake and release of KF. Etafilcon A released 284.5 ± 29.8 μg/lens, whereas balafilcon A released 227.6 ± 14.7 μg/lens, which was substantially more (p < 0.05) than the lowest releasing lenses [nelfilcon A (40.4 ± 4.1 μg/lens) and comfilcon A (110.4 ± 8.9 μg/lens)]. The majority of lenses were able to match or exceed the total amount of KF commonly administered to the eye using twice-daily dosing of commercially available (0.025%) eye drop formulations. Most of the lenses surveyed reached a plateau concentration of KF relatively quickly, and no lens was able to release KF for longer than 4 h. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available lenses demonstrated the ability to release a clinically relevant amount of KF compared with conventional eye drops. The use of commercially available contact lenses as a KF delivery system in a daily wear scenario may be feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".