Pharmacokinetics of angiotensin‐receptor blocker in cyclodextrin nanoparticle eye drops in rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Cyclodextrin nanoparticles form water‐soluble complexes with lipophilic and poorly water‐soluble drugs and thus can greatly improve drug transport from the ocular surface to the posterior eye segment. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the ocular pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of two newly developed □‐cyclodextrin based angiotensin receptor antagonist formulations for topical administration: cyclodextrin‐Irbesartan 1.5% and cyclodextrin‐Candesartan 0.15%. Methods 59 rabbits were included in the study to receive one of the two study drugs. For each drug group, single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics were performed in a randomized fashion: Single dose rabbits were euthanized 0.5, 1.5, 3 or 6 hours post eye drop administration, whereas multiple dose animals were dosed for 5 days twice daily. Pharmacokinetic parameters including maximal drug concentration (C max ) and time of maximal drug concentrations (T max ) for single dosing and mean concentrations for multiple dosing were calculated for aqueous humor (AH) and retina/choroid (RT). Analysis was done using LC‐MS/MS. Results Topical administration of the study drugs was well tolerated. Single dose Irbesartan eye drop administration led to a RT C max of 251 ng/g ± 143 ng/g at 0.5 hours whereas in the AH a C max of 121 ng/g ± 69 ng/g was reached at 3 hours post instillation. For single dose Candesartan eye drops, RT C max was 63 ng/g ± 39 ng/g at 0.5 hours after application. AH reached a C max of 30 ng/g ± 14 ng/g at the 3 hours time point. For multiple dosing mean RT concentration reached 338 ng/g ± 124 ng/g for Irbesartan and 36 ng/g ± 10 ng/g for Candesartan, whereas mean AH concentrations were 231 ng/g ± 68 ng/g and 70 ng/g ± 22 ng/g, respectively. Conclusions The present data confirm that cyclodextrin based Candesartan and Irbesartan eye drops deliver drugs to the posterior pole of the eye in biologically relevant concentrations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".