One Week Sustained In Vivo Therapeutic Release and Safety of Novel Extended-Wear Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses

Ocular surface itch and pain: key differences and similarities between the two sensations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pathophysiology and treatment of ocular itch and pain, encompassing nociceptive and neuropathic categories.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ocular itch and pain are sensations that arise from activation of ocular surface polymodal nerves. Nociceptive itch, commonly comorbid with ocular pain complaints, is mainly driven by a histamine-mediated type 1 hypersensitivity reaction. Beyond topical therapy, novel drug delivery systems are being explored to improve ocular residence time of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antihistamines. Nociceptive ocular pain can be driven by a variety of factors. Treatment focuses on addressing the causative sources of pain. Neuropathic ocular itch and pain are driven by nerve damage and dysfunction and as such, topical and oral neuromodulation have been explored as treatments. Oral neuromodulators include alpha 2 delta ligands, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and low dose naltrexone. Novel therapies are being evaluated for both modalities such as difelikefalin (κ-opioid receptor agonist) for neuropathic itch and libvatrep (transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 antagonist) for neuropathic pain.

SUMMARY

Both ocular itch and pain can be driven by nociceptive and/or neuropathic mechanisms. Identifying contributors to abnormal ocular sensations is vital for precise medical care. Novel therapeutics for these conditions aim to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

In vitro-in vivo correlation of drug release profiles from medicated contact lenses using an in vitro eye blink model

There is still a paucity of information on how in vitro release profiles from drug-loaded contact lenses (CLs) recorded in 3D printed eye models correlate with in vivo profiles. This work aims to evaluate the release profiles of two drug-loaded CLs in a 3D in vitro eye blink model and compare the obtained results with the release in a vial and the drug levels in tear fluid previously obtained from an animal in vivo study. In vitro release in the eye model was tested at two different flow rates (5 and 10 µL/min) and a blink speed of 1 blink/10 s. Model CLs were loaded with two different drugs, hydrophilic pravastatin and hydrophobic resveratrol. The release of both drugs was more sustained and lower in the 3D eye model compared to the in vitro release in vials. Interestingly, both drugs presented similar release patterns in the eye model and in vivo, although the total amount of drugs released in the eye model was significantly lower, especially for resveratrol. Strong correlations between percentages of pravastatin released in the eye model and in vivo were found. These findings suggest that the current 3D printed eye blink model could be a useful tool to measure the release of ophthalmic drugs from medicated CLs. Nevertheless, physiological parameters such as the composition of the tear fluid and eyeball surface, tear flow rates, and temperature should be optimized in further studies.