An objective in the development of ophthalmic formulations is the use of in vitro or animal models that closely resemble the clinical situation. For this reason, experiments with conventional pilocarpine nitrate eyedrops and a depot formulation of pilocarpine nitrate sorbed to poly (butylcyanoacrylate) nanoparticles were carried out. In vitro, the diffusion of pilocarpine through bovine cornea was measured using Edelhauser cells. In vivo, the rabbit aqueous humor concentration of pilocarpine and miosis were determined after application of the above formulations. In addition, intraocular pressure was measured. Since pilocarpine has little influence on intraocular pressure in healthy rabbits, the pressure had to be increased artificially. Three models were employed that are described in the literature, namely, the betamethasone model, the alpha-chymotrypsin model, and the water-loading model. Pilocarpine could be loaded onto nanoparticles by 15% but was rapidly released from the nanoparticles based on the bovine corneal experiment. Nanoparticles only enhanced the aqueous humor concentration at 30 min; this increase, however, led to a considerably extended period of miosis as well as a reduction in intraocular pressure. The duration of the action and the intensity of the response were different among the three models tested. According to the present results, the betamethasone model seems to represent the best correlation to the clinical situation.

There is an expectation that ocular inserts, regardless of the nature of the polymer, will faithfully reduce systemic drug absorption. This may not necessarily be so, however, since not all polymers would release drug at the same rate and to the same extent. The objective of the present study was to determine how drug release rate from various polymeric ocular inserts may influence systemic timolol absorption in the pigmented rabbit. The inserts tested were made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC), or partial ethyl ester of poly(vinyl methyl ether/maleic anhydride) (PVMMA), approximately 89.4% w/w in all cases. Some polyvinyl alcohol inserts contained timolol in salt form with Carbopol 940 (PVA-C940), 8.6% w/w. The time course of timolol in plasma over 6 hr was monitored using reversed phase HPLC. While all inserts reduced the peak timolol concentration in plasma (Cmax), only the PVA and HPC inserts, which released timolol rapidly in vitro, reduced the extent of systemic timolol absorption (AUC). On the other hand, both PVA-C940 and PVMMA inserts, which released timolol relatively slowly in vitro, increased the extent of systemic timolol absorption. Moreover, the time at which peak timolol concentration was achieved in the plasma was much delayed, raising the possibility of delayed timolol absorption until discharge of the presumably viscous and/or mucoadhesive solutions of PVA-C940 and PVMMA inserts into the nasal cavity. It may be concluded that not all polymeric ocular inserts reduce systemic timolol absorption. Whether an insert would do so depends on the interplay of residence time in the conjunctival sac and rate of drug release from the insert.