- •Drug Product Development for the Back of the Eye
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 A Strategic Overview of Drug Delivery Systems
- •1.3 Specific Approaches to Drug Delivery for the Posterior Segment
- •1.3.1 The Influence of Physicochemical Properties on Drug Delivery and Pharmacokinetics
- •1.3.2 The Chosen Route of Administration
- •1.3.3 Location of the Target Tissue
- •1.3.4 Potency of the Drug
- •1.3.5 Need for Continuous or Pulsatile Delivery
- •1.3.6 Duration of Drug Delivery Necessary to Induce and Maintain Efficacy
- •1.3.7 Type of Drug Delivery System Selected
- •1.3.8 Pharmacokinetic (PK) Properties of the Drug
- •1.3.9 Local and Systemic Toxicity of the Drug and its Metabolites
- •1.3.10 Previous Ocular Use of Excipients
- •1.3.11 Development and Strategic Team Input
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Posterior Segment as a Sampling Site
- •2.3 Principle of Microdialysis
- •2.3.1 Extraction Efficiency/Recovery
- •2.4.1 Anesthetized Animal Models
- •2.4.2 Conscious Animal Model
- •2.5 Vitreal Pharmacokinetics in Animals Other than Rabbits
- •2.6 Summary
- •References
- •3.1 Commercial Fluorophotometer
- •3.2 Normal Human Subject and Rabbit Ocular Fluorescence
- •3.3 Fluorophotometry Applications
- •3.3.1 Tear Turnover Rate (%/min)
- •3.3.2 Corneal Epithelial Cell Layer Permeability Methodologies
- •3.3.3 Eye Bath Technique
- •3.3.4 Single Drop Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.3.5 Eye Bath Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.4 Clinical Applications of Fluorophotometry
- •3.5.1 Transscleral Pathways
- •3.5.2 Suprachoroidal Injection
- •3.6 Retrobulbar Fluorescein Injection
- •3.7 Intravenous Fluorescein Injection In Vivo
- •3.8 Ocular Uptake of Fluorescein from Topical Eye Drops
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.1.1 Role of the Blood-Retinal Barrier as a Dynamic Interface
- •4.1.2 Potential Approach of Blood-Retinal Barrier-Targeted Systemic Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •4.2.1 Amino Acid-Mimetic Drugs
- •4.2.2 Monocarboxylic Drugs
- •4.2.3 Nucleoside Analogs
- •4.2.4 Folate Analogs
- •4.2.5 Organic Cationic Drugs
- •4.2.6 Opioid Peptides and Peptidomimetic Drugs
- •4.2.7 Antioxidants
- •4.2.7.1 Vitamin C
- •4.2.7.2 Vitamin E
- •4.2.7.3 Cystine
- •4.2.8 Miscellaneous Protective Compounds
- •4.2.8.1 Creatine
- •4.2.8.2 Taurine
- •4.3.1 Organic Anion Transporter 3 (OAT3, SLC22A8)
- •4.3.3 P-Glycoprotein (ABCB1)
- •4.3.4 Multidrug Resistance-Associated Proteins (ABCCs)
- •4.3.6 ABCAs
- •4.4 Conclusions and Perspectives
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Drug Distribution
- •5.2.1 Drug Distribution from the Anterior Ocular Surface to the Posterior Segment
- •5.2.2 Studies of Trans-Corneal and Periocular Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •5.2.2.1 The Uvea-Scleral Route
- •5.3 Eye Drops for Posterior Segment Diseases in the Clinic
- •5.4 Summary
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Vitreous Anatomy
- •6.2.1 The Inner Limiting Membrane
- •6.3 The Vitreous As a Drug Reservoir
- •6.4 Flow Processes in the Vitreous
- •6.4.1 Flow Patterns
- •6.4.2 Injection and Hydrostatic Effects
- •6.4.3 Diffusion
- •6.4.4 Convective Flow
- •6.5 Clearance Pathways from the Vitreous Compartment
- •6.5.1 Charge and Collagen Interaction
- •6.5.2 Aqueous Clearance
- •6.5.3 Retinal Clearance
- •6.6 Transfer Through the Vitreoretinal Border
- •6.6.1 The Role of the Blood–Retinal Barrier
- •6.6.1.1 Amino Acid Transport
- •6.6.1.2 P-Glycoprotein
- •6.6.1.3 Organic Cationic Transporters
- •6.6.1.4 Organic Anion Transporters
- •6.6.1.5 Other Transporters
- •6.7 The Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.1 Underlying Mechanisms of Vitreous Degeneration
- •6.7.2 Physical Changes Involved in the Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.1 Pre-Clinical Model of Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.2 Effects of Vitreous Liquefaction on Intravitreal Drug Delivery
- •6.7.3 Vitrectomised Eyes
- •6.7.3.1 Intravitreal Drug Distribution and Clearance in Silicone Oil
- •6.7.4 Role of Ocular Movements in Disordered Vitreous
- •6.8 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Drug Delivery to Posterior Segment Ocular Tissues
- •7.3 Scleral Structure and Drug Delivery
- •7.4 Scleral Permeability: Initial Studies
- •7.5 Sustained-Release Delivery In Vitro
- •7.6 In Vivo Studies
- •7.7 Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Background
- •8.3 Posterior Segment Delivery
- •8.4 Transscleral and Intrascleral Drug Delivery
- •8.5 Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery
- •8.6 Summary
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Nonbiodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems
- •9.2.1 Retisert
- •9.2.2 Ocusert
- •9.2.3 Vitrasert
- •9.2.4 I-vation
- •9.2.5 Iluvien
- •9.2.6 Nonbiodegradable Matrix Implants
- •9.2.6.2 Punctal Plugs
- •9.3 Medical Applications for Biodegradable Polymers
- •9.3.3 Poly(Ortho Esters)
- •9.3.4 Polyanhydrides
- •9.5.1 Ozurdex™
- •9.5.2 Surodex
- •9.5.3 Verisome
- •9.5.4 Lacrisert
- •9.6.1 Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Implants
- •9.6.2 PLGA-Based Implants
- •9.6.5 Poly(Ortho Ester)-Based Implants
- •9.6.6 Polyanhydride-Based Implants
- •9.6.7 Other Biodegradable Polymer-Based Implants
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Manufacturing of Microparticles
- •10.3 Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.1 Morphological Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.2 Particle Size Analysis and Distribution
- •10.3.3 Infrared Absorption Spectrophotometry (IR)
- •10.3.4 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
- •10.3.5 X-Ray Diffraction
- •10.3.6 Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
- •10.3.7 Determination of Drug Loading Efficiency
- •10.3.8 “In Vitro” Release Studies
- •10.3.8.1 Additives in Microspheres
- •10.4 Sterilization of Microparticles
- •10.5 Calculation of the Dose of Microparticles for Injection
- •10.6 Injectability Studies
- •10.7 In Vivo Studies
- •10.7.1 In Vivo Injection of Microparticles
- •10.7.2 Ocular Disposition and Cellular Uptake
- •10.7.3 Tolerance of Microparticles
- •10.7.4 In Vivo Degradation of PLA and PLGA Microparticles
- •10.8 In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation
- •10.9 Microparticles for the Treatment of Posterior Segment Diseases. Animal Models and Human Studies
- •10.9.1 Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR)
- •10.9.2 Uveitis
- •10.9.3 Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
- •10.9.4 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •10.9.5 Macular edema
- •10.9.6 Acute Retinal Necrosis (ARN)
- •10.9.7 Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Retinitis
- •10.9.8 Choroidal Neovascularization
- •10.9.9 Diseases Affecting the Optic Nerve
- •10.9.11 Microparticles in Retinal Repair
- •10.10 Conclusions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Nanoparticles
- •11.2.1 Polymer Nanoparticles
- •11.2.2 Liposomes and Lipid Nanoparticles
- •11.2.3 Micelles
- •11.2.4 Protein Nanoparticles
- •11.2.5 Carbohydrate Nanoparticles
- •11.2.6 Dendrimers
- •11.2.7 Combination Nanosystems
- •11.3 Using Nanotechnology to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.3.1 Improving Patient Compliance
- •11.3.2 Increasing Drug Retention and Sustained Release
- •11.3.3 Increasing Permeability and Tissue Partitioning
- •11.3.4 Targeting Nanotherapies
- •11.3.5 Intracellular Trafficking
- •11.4 Alternative Approaches to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Hydrogel Technology
- •12.6 Future Directions
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 General Design Considerations
- •13.2.1 Administration Site
- •13.2.2 Body Design
- •13.2.3 Port Design
- •13.2.4 Vacuum and Pressure
- •13.2.5 Flushing and Fluid Replacement
- •13.2.5.1 Active Pumps
- •13.2.5.2 Passive Systems
- •13.2.5.3 Solid Refill
- •13.2.6 Contamination Potential
- •13.3 Historical Influences
- •13.3.1 Infusion Pumps
- •13.3.2 Glaucoma Drainage Devices
- •13.3.3 Pioneering of Refill Procedure in the Eye
- •13.4 Ophthalmic Refillable Devices
- •13.4.1 Invasiveness and Refilling Frequency
- •13.4.2 Intravitreal Delivery Through the Pars Plana
- •13.4.3 Episcleral Implantation for Trans-Scleral Delivery
- •13.4.4 Subretinal and Suprachoroidal Implantation
- •13.4.5 Lens Capsule Delivery
- •13.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Current Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye
- •14.3 Improved Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye Using Microneedles
- •14.3.1 Intrastromal Delivery to the Cornea Using Coated Microneedles
- •14.3.3 Suprachoroidal Delivery Using Hollow Microneedles
- •14.4 Microneedle Types and Other Applications
- •14.4.1 Poke and Apply
- •14.4.2 Coat and Poke
- •14.4.3 Poke and Release
- •14.4.4 Poke and Flow
- •14.5 Discussion
- •14.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 General Mechanisms of Iontophoretic Drug Delivery
- •15.1.2 The Shunt Pathway
- •15.1.3 The Flip–Flop Gating Mechanism
- •15.1.4 Electro-Osmosis
- •15.2 Ocular Drug Delivery: The Past and the Future
- •15.3 Ophthalmic Applications of Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Antimitotics
- •15.3.1.2 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Anesthetics
- •15.3.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.1 Transcorneal of Fluorescein Iontophoresis for Aqueous Humor Dynamic Studies
- •15.3.2.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.3.2.3 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.3.2.4 Other Drugs for Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.5 Is Transcorneal Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4 Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.4.1 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.4.2 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.4.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
- •15.4.3.1 Aspirin
- •15.4.3.2 Glucocorticoids
- •15.4.3.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Carboplatin
- •15.4.3.4 Is Transscleral Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4.3.5 Transscleral Iontophoresis for High Molecular Weight Compounds and Proteins
- •15.4.3.6 Clinical Application of Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.5 Applications of Iontophoresis to Ocular Gene Therapy
- •15.6 Future Developments
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Background
- •16.2.1 Intravitreal Injections
- •16.2.2 Impact of Genetics
- •16.3 Better Tools for Delivery and Treatment
- •16.3.1 Barriers to Success
- •16.3.2 Physics-Based Approaches
- •16.3.2.1 Physical Methods to Deliver Drugs to a Target Cell in the Posterior Segment
- •16.3.2.2 History of Electrical Fields in Medicine
- •16.3.2.3 Safety Concerns with Electric Fields
- •16.3.2.4 Definitions of Electric Field Methods
- •16.3.2.5 Advantages of Electric Fields for DNA Transfection vs. Viral Mediated DNA Delivery
- •16.3.2.6 Problems of In Vivo Electric Field Applications
- •16.3.2.7 Possible Strategies to Improve Electric Field-Mediated Drug Delivery
- •16.3.3 Experiences with Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.1 Examples of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.2 Summary of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.4 Experiences with Electroporation
- •16.3.4.1 Examples of Electroporation in Living Animals
- •16.3.4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Electroporation
- •16.4 Outstanding Issues in Electric Fields for the Delivery of Drugs
- •16.5 Summary
- •References
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 Routes of Protein Administration
- •17.2.1 Topical
- •17.2.2 Intracameral
- •17.2.3 Intravitreal
- •17.2.4 Periocular (Transscleral)
- •17.2.5 Suprachoroidal
- •17.2.6 Subretinal
- •17.2.7 Systemic
- •17.3 Advantages and Challenges of Protein Delivery
- •17.4 Current Development Strategies
- •17.4.1 Pure Protein
- •17.4.2 PEGylation
- •17.4.4 Liposomes
- •17.4.5 Stem Cells
- •17.4.6 Implants
- •17.5 Case Studies
- •17.6 Ophthalmic Protein Formulation Development
- •17.6.1 Protein Biosynthesis
- •17.6.2 Preformulation Studies
- •17.6.3 Selection of Excipients
- •17.6.4 Optimization of Process Variables
- •17.7 Specifications and Regulatory Guidelines
- •17.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •18.1 Need for Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.2 Background
- •18.3 Development of Drug Suspensions Intended for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.1 Drug Suspensions
- •18.3.1.1 Physical Pharmacy Principles that Explain the Stability and Formulation of Suspensions
- •18.3.1.2 Formulation Methodology
- •18.3.1.3 Manufacturing Process
- •18.3.2 Factors To Be Considered in Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.2.1 Formulation Development and Evaluation
- •18.3.2.2 In Situ Forming Suspensions, Selection of Drug Form for Suspension, and Polymeric Microparticle Suspension
- •18.3.2.3 Clinical Studies on Safety
- •18.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Drug Product Approval Process
- •19.3 Considerations for Back of the Eye Treatments
- •19.4 Adaptive Trial Design
- •19.5 Drug-Device Combinations
- •19.6 Product Summary Basis of Approval Reviews
- •19.6.1 OZURDEX™
- •19.6.2 LUCENTIS™
- •19.7 Summary
- •References
- •20.1 Background
- •20.2 FDA Endpoints
- •20.3 Endpoints for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (Table 20.1)
- •20.4 FDA Guidelines for Other Retinal Diseases
- •20.5 Endpoint for Geographic Atrophy
- •20.6 Endpoint for Retinal Vein Occlusion
- •20.7 Future Endpoints
- •References
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Ocular Physiology and Pathology
- •21.2.1 Ocular Inflammation
- •21.2.2 Neovascularization
- •21.2.3 Degeneration
- •21.3 Current Therapies for Key Back of the Eye Disorders
- •21.3.1 Age-Related Macular Degeneration
- •21.3.1.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.1.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.1.3 Current Research Focused on Identifying New Targets
- •21.3.2 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •21.3.2.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.2.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.3 Retinopathy of Prematurity
- •21.3.3.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.3.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use and in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.4 Degenerative Conditions
- •21.3.4.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.4.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.5 Opportunistic Infections
- •21.3.5.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.5.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.6 Autoimmune Disease
- •21.3.6.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.6.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •22.1 Bile Acids as Anti-Apoptotic Neuroprotectants
- •22.3 Potential Need for Local Delivery of Bile Acids as Neuroprotectants
- •22.4 Preliminary Studies of Ocular Delivery of Bile Acids
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index
174 |
T.W. Olsen and B.C. Gilger |
Third, drug diffusion from the suprachoroidal space avoids the barriers seen with transscleral delivery; namely, restrictive kinetic barriers of the sclera that have been demonstrated to increase with larger molecules (Olsen et al. 1995). Fourth, drug diffusion from this space may actually target the RPE in a more direct manner. Fifth, sustained release agents, formulations, or devices could optimize diffusional kinetics from this space (Gilger et al. 2006; Olsen et al. 2006). And finally, there may be advantageous immune responses to this space with larger biologic or immunogenic agents (Olsen et al. 2010). Perhaps this route of delivery will offer a unique avenue for future routine injections that are safe and effective in targeting retinal and macular diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy, retinal degeneration, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Efficacious local delivery methodology combined with low systemic levels represents a key concept in technology design.
8.2 Background
Posterior segment eye diseases are a common cause of blindness in ophthalmology, both in humans as well as in veterinary medicine. The total amount or volume of tissue in the posterior segment is quite small relative to other organ systems. For this reason, local drug delivery has become a very active area of research in vision sciences (Geroski and Edelhauser 2000).
Two important issues are driving new discoveries and treatment options for posterior segment disease. First, newer and more potent, targeted therapies are evolving specifically toward diseases of the posterior segment of the eye. One such remarkable therapy is the use of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents for the treatment of neovascular AMD (Brown et al. 2006; Rosenfeld et al. 2006; Gragoudas et al. 2004). Importantly, these drugs are not given systemically. Instead, they are delivered locally. Clearly, numerous potential therapies are transforming management of posterior segment disease to a pharmacologic and pharmacotherapeutic era in ophthalmology. Larger biologic agents, with targeted therapeutic and highly selective effects, are creating new challenges in delivery. Second, local delivery minimizes systemic side effects by taking advantage of the fact that we only need to treat a small volume of tissue relative to the rest of the body. The eye is approximately 1:1,000 of the total body volume, and the macula itself is proportionally small relative to the eye at 1:1,000 of the volume of the eye. Thus, local drug delivery for macular disease targets a small amount of tissue and minimizes the potential for collateral damage from systemic side effects. More potent and more highly efficacious agents reduce the dosing requirements, and allow for smaller quantitative amounts of drug.
Ophthalmology has long depended upon topical drug delivery for many diseases of the anterior segment, where diffusional barriers are minimal and access to critical tissues are simple and immediate. Topical drops have been used to treat anterior segment disease by optimizing formulation of each specific medication. Many of the key barrier issues in achieving therapeutic drug levels have been addressed, such
8 Suprachoroidal and Intrascleral Drug Delivery |
175 |
as a drug’s ability to cross the corneal epithelial and endothelial barriers. Anterior segment tissues that are readily accessible with topical therapy include the conjunctiva, cornea, iris, and even the ciliary body. For small molecules with optimized formulations, achieving a therapeutic drug level in these key tissues has been achieved using many different agents, compounds, and formulations.
8.3 Posterior Segment Delivery
Despite remarkable successes in treatment of anterior segment ophthalmic disease, treatment of posterior segment disease is clearly more challenging. Limitations for topical application of medications reaching significant therapeutic levels in the posterior pole, largely involves the aqueous humor fluid dynamics. Essentially, there is a bulk flow of fluid that removes drugs applied topically from the eye before reaching posterior segment tissues. The crystalline lens is also a barrier to posterior diffusion of drug into the vitreous. The vitreous itself modifies diffusion in unexpected ways that we do not yet fully understand and is likely to be highly dependent upon the levels of vitreous syneresis. Additionally, there are barriers for entry of drugs into the neurosensory retina; namely, the blood retinal barrier, the internal limiting membrane, and the tight junctions formed between the RPE cells and retinal vascular endothelium.
There are other ocular flow systems that are gaining interest as important barriers to achieving local drug delivery. Specifically, the choroid and the choroidal blood flow as well as lymphatic circulation (Robinson et al. 2006). The effects of the choroidal vasculature on drugs that diffuse through the sclera or on drugs that are inserted or injected into the suprachoroidal space are now recognized as important determinants in the pharmacokinetics of the posterior segment. The rapid blood flow of the choroidal circulation remains a poorly understood variable in the pharmacokinetics in this region (Fig. 8.1). For this reason, fluid dynamics within the subretinal space and suprachoroidal space are currently under intensive study. Other unknown variables that influence uveoscleral outflow include, but are not limited to, the role of the vortex ampullae, the influence of the RPE, Bruch’s membrane, and several other factors.
8.4 Transscleral and Intrascleral Drug Delivery
Transscleral diffusion for drug delivery to the retina and RPE drug delivery offers a relatively safe and direct pathway to posterior segment tissues. The transscleral route avoids entry through the outer tunic of the globe. From clinical experience, an agent such as triamcinolone can be delivered to the ocular posterior segment using a periocular injection into the subtenon’s location. Presumably, the effect on uveal tissues and inflammation is mediated through simple diffusion of the corticosteroid
176 |
T.W. Olsen and B.C. Gilger |
Fig. 8.1 An indocyanine green angiogram in the early transit phase of a rhesus macaque (Olsen), demonstrating the normal retinal vasculature overlying a more complex choroidal blood supply. This image demonstrates the extensive nature of the choroidal blood flow relative to the retinal vasculature
compound through the sclera and into the uveal tissues. Conceivably, the mechanism of drug transport into the eye could also occur via the systemic circulation or through more complex diffusional kinetics such as trans-conjunctival mediated topical delivery (i.e., serving as a depot for sustained topical release).
Earlier work (Maurice and Polgar 1977) demonstrated that molecules traverse the sclera. Later in vitro studies of human cadaveric sclera mounted in Ussing chambers demonstrated that the molecular size of a compound and the scleral thickness were key determinants of diffusion across the sclera chambers (Olsen et al. 1995). Mean scleral thickness as well as total scleral surface areas from a series of eyebank eyes helped determine the parameters of transscleral diffusion (Olsen et al. 1998). For small molecules, diffusion is rapid through the sclera. However, for larger biologic agents, such as ranibizumab or bevacizumab, there are significant limitations to the transscleral route and effective intraocular levels may be suboptimal.
Various animal studies have investigated transscleral barriers and parameters that influence diffusional kinetics in various species (Gilger et al. 2005; Olsen et al. 2002). Looking specifically at delivery of cyclosporine to treat equine recurrent uveitis (ERU), placement of a biodegradable, matrix-reservoir cyclosporine A (CsA) implant has demonstrated the advantage of deep scleral implantation compared with transscleral diffusion (Gilger et al. 2006).
8 Suprachoroidal and Intrascleral Drug Delivery |
177 |
8.5 Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery
Evidence that direct access to the suprachoroidal space is possible was first described by Einmahl et al. in 2002 using a rabbit model (2002). The authors used poly-ortho ester as a sustained drug delivery system with a solid, olive-tipped cannulae into the suprachoroidal space. They demonstrated that material was present in the suprachoroidal space for 3 weeks, yet there were pigment irregularities at the site of injection. In 2006, the use of a flexible, fiberoptic microcannula to access the suprachoroidal space in the pig model was reported (Olsen et al. 2006). This cannula (Fig. 8.2a, b) was originally used to access Schlemm’s canal for circumferential viscodilation during canaloplasty surgery (Lewis et al. 2009).
By accessing the suprachoroidal space in 94 porcine eyes, the authors demonstrated safety, and sustained local delivery for 120 days with very low systemic drug levels and few complications (Olsen et al. 2006). Pre and postinjection histology demonstrated that the potential space of the suprachoroidal region returns to a normal configuration after a brief period of time (Fig. 8.3a, b). Also, using dye-casting methods, the suprachoroidal space is rather extensive and has the capacity to expand and accommodate a relatively large volume of material (Fig. 8.4). The pharmacologic data demonstrated sustained local tissue levels from the sustained release formulation of triamcinolone in the suprachoroidal space along with either very low or undetectable systemic levels.
More recent studies have sought to determine the kinetics of larger biologic agents; such as bevacizumab injections into the suprachoroidal space accessed using the same flexible microcannula system. Clearly, intravitreal injections of both ranibizumab and bevacizumab are effective. However, there are several theoretic advantages to the suprachoroidal route. Specifically, the diffusion through the choroidal stroma and through a damaged Bruch’s membrane may offer more direct delivery to the disease-affected tissue than diffusion across the neurosensory retina. Early studies suggest a very different profile of drug kinetics comparing the intravitreal route (Fig. 8.5) with the suprachoroidal route (Fig. 8.6), especially when looking at a large molecular weight biologic, such as bevacizumab. Preliminary data (Fig. 8.7) indicate that large biologic proteins, such as bevacizumab, are rapidly removed from the suprachoroidal space, especially when these agents are not optimally formulated for sustained release (Olsen et al. 2010). Early studies also demonstrate a significant difference in the immune response to these two routes of administration. Intravitreal administration in the pig model of a human antibody (bevacizumab) has shown a granulomatous reaction (both vasculitis and vitritis; Fig. 8.8) in a small percentage of eyes injected intravitreally, as compared to a similar dose injected into the suprachoroidal space with no resultant inflammation.
Technologies are also evolving to optimize the ease of accessing this space. The use of either coated or hollow microneedles to access the deeper scleral tissues and even gain local access to the suprachoroidal region have been evaluated (Choy et al. 2008; Jiang et al. 2006, 2007, 2009). In studies using cadaver canine and porcine eyes, a single injection of liquid latex into the anterior suprachoroidal space accessed by a small sclerotomy created 5–7 mm posterior to the superior limbus resulted in the
Fig. 8.2 (a) Top image of the microcannulation system (iScience Interventional Inc. Menlo Park, CA). The box houses a fiberoptic so that the tip of the device can be identified in the suprachoroidal space. The syringe is for injecting viscous material through the cannula. (b) Bottom image demonstrates the relative size of the tip (bottom) along with the depth markers so that one can determine how far the cannula is extended into the suprachoroidal space
8 Suprachoroidal and Intrascleral Drug Delivery |
179 |
Fig. 8.3 Left, the histopathology of a porcine eye that demonstrates the separation of the suprachoroidal space immediately following an injection with a viscoelastic substance (double arrowhead). Note that pigmented cells are present in the choroid as well as in the inner scleral layers. Right, the histopathology at 1 month following a suprachoroidal injection with a viscoelastic agent, demonstrating the return to more normal apposition of the choroid to the sclera (white arrow)
Fig. 8.4 Temporal and nasal sections of a canine (a) and porcine (b) globe showing the suprachoroidal distribution of a single injection of latex, black and white images hightlight the distribution within the globe (B&W), and “edges” function of Image J NIH software
180 |
T.W. Olsen and B.C. Gilger |
Fig. 8.5 (100×) The arrow points to a fluorescent-labeled drug that is bound to an antibody (bevacizumab) following an intravitreal injection using a 30-G needle at the pars plana. Note how the drug is layered within the vitreous, limited partially by the internal limiting membrane (inner boundary) of the neurosensory retina
Fig. 8.6 (100×) The arrow points to a fluorescent-labeled drug that is bound to an antibody (bevacizumab) following a suprachoroidal injection using the micro-catheter (see Fig. 8.2). Note that the drug seems to be most concentrated at the endothelial layer of the larger choroidal vessels (arrow left) as well as at the level of the RPE-photoreceptors (arrow right)
8 Suprachoroidal and Intrascleral Drug Delivery
Intravitreal Injection
2.0
(ug/mg) |
1.5 |
|
Tissue/ |
1.0 |
|
BevFree |
||
0.5 |
||
|
||
|
0.0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
|
Days |
Suprachoroidal Injection
(ug/mg) |
3.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
2.5 |
Tissue/ |
1.5 |
|
|
Bev |
1.0 |
|
|
Free |
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
0 5 10 15
Days
181
6mm Choroid Peripheral Choroid 6mm Retina Peripheral Retina Anterior Vitreous Posterior Vitreous Remainder Vitreous Foveal sclera
20 |
25 |
30 |
6mm Choroid Peripheral Choroid 6mm Retina Peripheral Retina Anterior Vitreous Posterior Vitreous Remainder Vitreous Foveal sclera
20 |
25 |
30 |
Fig. 8.7 Graph comparing the days postinjection (x-axis) with local tissue drug levels (y-axis). The studies clearly demonstrate more rapid decrease in drug levels injected using the suprachoroidal route (bottom) than with the intravitreal route (top graph)
distribution of the latex to nearly 50% of the entire suprachoroidal space (see Fig. 8.4). Furthermore, the injected latex distributed to the suprachoroidal space adjacent to the area centralis (i.e., macula) in 56% of eyes injected (Gilger and Salmon 2010). In another study using porcine cadaver eyes (Fig. 8.9), an optimal volume for injection into the suprachoroidal space was determined to be 250 ml and this volume of ultrasound contrast agent injected into the anterior suprachoroidal space distributed to the space adjacent to the area centralis in over 80% of eyes, as determined by ocular ultrasound (Gilger, unpublished data). These studies suggest that access to the anterior suprachoroidal, either by cannula or microneedles, may allow the distribution of drugs
182 |
T.W. Olsen and B.C. Gilger |
Fig. 8.8 (Hemotoxalin and eosin stain at 100×) The arrow on this histopathology section points to a granulomatous reaction in the porcine eye to a humanized antibody (bevacizumab). This reaction was only seen in intravitreal injections and not in suprachoroidal injections using the same agent
Fig. 8.9 Contrast ultrasound image of a cadaver porcine eye after injection of 500 ml of microbubble contrast agent (Targestar-P, Targeson Inc) into the anterior suprachoroidal space. Note that the top of this image represents the anterior globe while the inferior portion represents the posterior pole. The contrast agent initially is visualized at the injection site (1), followed by the opposite anterior suprachoroidal space (2), followed by the suprachoroidal space at the posterior pole of the eye (3)
