Comparison of Vehicles for Vancomycin Drug Delivery in Extemporaneously Prepared Ophthalmic Solutions

Article Preview

Abstract:

This work compares the ophthalmic delivery of vancomycin 50 mg/ml eye drops using 5 different vehicles, namely: 0.3% w/v chitosan, 0.3% and 0.4% w/v HPMC (Methocel E4M), Tears NaturaleTM II and 0.9% w/v sodium chloride solution. In vitro and in vivo studies were carried out and the results evaluated in terms of viscosity, compatibility, stability, clarity, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and pharmacokinetics. The viscosity of Tears NaturaleTM II was comparable with that of HPMC (0.3% pH 7.1) but was higher than 0.3% w/v chitosan. The percent labeled amounts and MIC of vancomycin 50 mg/ml in all of the vehicles were stable for 30 days at 2-8°C, while the clarity in 0.3% w/v chitosan, 0.3% and 0.4% HPMC (pH 7.1), Tears NaturaleTM II and 0.9% sodium chloride solution was stable for 30, 14, 1 and 3 days respectively at 2-8°C. In vivo pharmacokinetic determinations of the AUC of tear film reciprocal of minimum inhibitory titer showed that vancomycin 50 mg/ml in 0.3% w/v chitosan, 0.3% and 0.4% w/v HPMC pH 7.1 and Tears NaturaleTM II were significantly different from 0.9% sodium chloride solution. At the present time, chitosan is undergoing clinical trials in Thailand with a view to its use in ophthalmology, while HPMC (0.3% w/v) in pH 7.1 has already been approved for use as a vehicle in ophthalmology for the delivery of vancomycin 50 mg/ml in extemporaneous eye drops.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

481-484

Citation:

Online since:

April 2012

Authors:

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2012 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] G. Kleinmann, S. Larson, B. Hunter, S. Stevens, N. Mamalis,R. J. Olson: Ophthalmologica. Vol. 221(2007), p.51.

Google Scholar

[2] B. K. Nanjawade, F. V. Manvi, A. S. Manjappa: J. Control. Release. Vol. 122 (2007), p.119.

Google Scholar

[3] L. A. Reynolds, R. G. Closson: Extemporaneous ophthalmic preparations, Applied Therapeutics, Vancouver, WA, (1993).

Google Scholar

[4] A. Khangtragool, S. Ausayakhun, P. Leesawat, R. Molloy, C. Laokul: CMU. J. Nat. Sci. Vol. 8 (2009), p.1.

Google Scholar

[5] R. C. Rowe, P. J. Sheskey, M. E. Quinn: Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients, 4th edn., Pharmaceutical Press and the American Pharmacists Association, London, (2009).

Google Scholar

[6] P. Leesawat, K. Vearnsilpa, N. Yanasarn, P. Thanawattanawanich: Chiang Mai J. Sci. Vol. 32 (2005), p.501.

Google Scholar

[7] CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI approved standard M100-S21. Wayne, PA (2011).

DOI: 10.1201/9781420014495-6

Google Scholar

[8] J. F. Charlton, K. P. Dalla, A. Kniska: Am. J. Health. Syst. Pharm. Vol. 55 (1998), p.463.

Google Scholar

[9] A. Khangtragool, S. Ausayakhun, P. Leesawat, R. Molloy, C. Laokul: CMU. J. Nat. Sci. Vol. 7 (2008), p.209.

Google Scholar

[10] A. R. Barnes: J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. Vol. 21 (1996), p.49.

Google Scholar

[11] W. Lund: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, The pharmaceutical codex: principles and practice of pharmaceutics, 12th edn, Info Access, Singapore, (1994).

Google Scholar

[12] W. Martindale, S. C. Sweetman: Martindale: the extra pharmacopoeia, 35th edn, Pharmaceutical Press, Singapore, (2007).

Google Scholar