Eye is a distinctive organ with protective anatomy and physiology. Several pharmacokinetics compartment model of ocular drug delivery has been developed for describing the absorption, distribution and elimination of ocular drugs in the eye. Determining pharmacokinetics parameters in ocular tissues is a major challenge because of the complex anatomy and dynamic physiological barrier of the eye. In this review, pharmacokinetics of these compartments exploring different drugs, delivery systems and routes of administration are discussed including factors affecting intraocular bioavailability. Factors such as pre-corneal fluid drainage, drug binding to tear proteins, systemic drug absorption, corneal factors, melanin binding, drug metabolism renders ocular delivery challenging and elaborated in this manuscript. Several compartment models are discussed those are developed in ocular drug delivery to study the pharmacokinetics parameters. There are several transporters present in both anterior and posterior segments of the eye which play a significant role in ocular pharmacokinetics and summarized briefly. Moreover, several ocular pharmacokinetics animal models and relevant studies are reviewed and discussed in addition to the pharmacokinetics of various ocular formulations.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: These studies were designed to determine whether ritonavir inhibits breast cancer in vitro and in vivo and, if so, how. Experimental Design: Ritonavir effects on breast cancer cell growth were studied in the estrogen receptor (ER)^positive lines MCF7 and T47D and in the ER-negative lines MDA-MB-436 and MDA-MB-231. Effects of ritonavir on Rb-regulated and Akt-mediated cell proliferation were studied. Ritonavir was tested for inhibition of a mammary carcinoma xenograft. Results: ER-positive estradiol-dependent lines (IC 50 , 12-24 Amol/L) and ER-negative (IC 50 , 45 Amol/L) lines exhibit ritonavir sensitivity. Ritonavir depletes ER-a levels notably in ER-positive lines. Ritonavir causes G 1 arrest, depletes cyclin-dependent kinases 2, 4, and 6 and cyclin D 1 but not cyclin E, and depletes phosphorylated Rb and Ser 473 Akt. Ritonavir induces apoptosis independent of G 1 arrest, inhibiting growth of cells that have passed the G 1 checkpoint. Myristoyl-Akt, but not activated K-Ras, rescues ritonavir inhibition. Ritonavir inhibited a MDA-MB-231 xenograft and intratumoral Akt activity at a clinically attainable serum C max of 22 F 8 Amol/L. Because heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) substrates are depleted by ritonavir, ritonavir effects on Hsp90 were tested. Ritonavir binds Hsp90 (K D , 7.8 Amol/L) and partially inhibits its chaperone function. Ritonavir blocks association of Hsp90 with Akt and, with sustained exposure, notably depletes Hsp90. Stably expressed Hsp90a short hairpin RNA also depletes Hsp90, inhibiting proliferation and sensitizing breast cancer cells to low ritonavir concentrations. Conclusions: Ritonavir inhibits breast cancer growth in part by inhibiting Hsp90 substrates, including Akt. Ritonavir may be of interest for breast cancer therapeutics and its efficacy may be increased by sustained exposure or Hsp90 RNA interference.

No abstract