Release of Fluconazole from Contact Lenses Using a Novel <i>In Vitro</i> Eye Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rapid drug release followed by a plateau phase is a common observation with drug delivery from contact lenses (CLs) when evaluated in a vial. The aim of this study was to compare the release of fluconazole from seven commercially available daily disposable CLs using a conventional vial-based method with a novel in vitro eye model. METHODS: An eye model was created using two 3-dimensional printed molds, which were filled with polydimethylsiloxane to obtain an inexpensive model that would mimic the eyeball and eyelid. The model was integrated with a microfluidic syringe pump, and the flow-through was collected in a 12-well microliter plate. Four commercial daily disposable conventional hydrogels (nelfilcon A, omafilcon A, etafilcon A, ocufilcon B) and three silicone hydrogels (somofilcon A, narafilcon A, delefilcon A) were evaluated. These CLs were incubated with fluconazole for 24 h. The drug release was measured in a vial containing 4.8 mL of phosphate-buffered saline and in the polydimethylsiloxane eye model with a 4.8-mL tear flow across 24 h. RESULTS: Overall, conventional hydrogel CLs had a higher uptake and release of fluconazole than silicone hydrogel CLs (p < 0.05). A higher drug release was observed in the vial condition compared with the eye model (p < 0.001). In the vial system, the drugs were rapidly released from the CL within the first 2 h, followed by a plateau phase. In contrast, drug release in the eye model under low tear volume was sustained and did not reach a plateau across 24 h (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid drug release results from using a vial as the release system. Under low tear volume at physiological tear flow, commercial CLs can maintain a sustained drug release profile for up to 24 h. However, eyes with fungal keratitis may have increased tearing, which would significantly accelerate drug release.
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) | 0.001 | 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".