Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in cyclodextrin nanoparticle eye drops: Ocular pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic effect on intraocular pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Orally administered angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) decrease intraocular pressure (IOP). Topical administration may reduce systemic side effects and result in a useful glaucoma drug. The aim of this study is to test the ocular delivery and pharmacologic effect of nanoparticle eye drops containing ARBs (e.g. irbesartan and candesartan). METHODS: 1.5% irbesartan and 0.15% candesartan eye drops were applied to rabbits. The pharmacokinetics in cornea and aqueous humour after single eye drop application were studied in 49 rabbits. The effect of the eye drops on IOP was studied in 10 rabbits using an iCare (® TonoVet Plus, iCare, Finland) tonometer and compared with 0.5% timolol eye drops. RESULTS: Candesartan lowered IOP from 24.6 ± 5.1 mmHg at baseline to 19.0 ± 2.9 mmHg (mean ± SD, p = 0.030, n = 10) 4 hr after application. Irbesartan lowered IOP from 24.2 ± 1.7 mmHg to 20.2 ± 0.9 mmHg (p = 0.14, n = 10). Timolol decreased the IOP from 24.9 ± 4.2 mmHg to 20.4 ± 4.8 mmHg (mean ± SD, p = 0.036, n = 10). The pharmacokinetics data show that both formulations deliver effective amounts of drug into the intraocular tissues, with irbesartan and candesartan reaching concentrations of 121 ± 69 and 30.43 ± 13.93 ng/g (mean ± SD), respectively, in the aqueous humour 3 hr after a single-dose administration. CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of irbesartan and candesartan eye drops delivers effective drug concentrations to the anterior segment of the eye in rabbits, achieving drug concentrations 100 times above the IC50 for angiotensin II receptor and showing an IOP-lowering effect. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) eye drops have potential as a new class of glaucoma drugs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".