Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jconrel
Abstract
Soft contact lenses are receiving an increasing attention not only for correcting mild ametropia but also as drug delivery devices. To provide
poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate), PHEMA, lenses with the ability to load norfloxacin (NRF) and to control its release, functional monomers were
carefully chosen and then spatially ordered applying the molecular imprinting technology. Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) studies revealed
that maximum binding interaction between NRF and acrylic acid (AA) occurs at a 1:1, and that the process saturates at 1:4 molar ratio. Hydrogels
were synthesized using different NRF:AA molar ratios (1:2 to 1:16), at two fix AA total concentrations (100 and 200 mM), and using moulds of
different thicknesses (0.4 and 0.9 mm). The cross-linker molar concentration was 1.6 times that of AA. Control (non-imprinted) hydrogels were
prepared similarly but with the omission of NRF. All hydrogels showed a similar degree of swelling (55%) and, once hydrated, presented adequate
optical and viscoelastic properties. After immersion in 0.025, 0.050 and 0.10 mM drug solutions, imprinted hydrogels loaded greater amounts of
NRF than the non-imprinted ones. Imprinted hydrogels synthesized using NRF:AA 1:3 and 1:4 molar ratios showed the greatest ability to control
the release process, sustaining it for more than 24 h. These results prove that ITC is a useful tool for the optimization of the structure of the
imprinted cavities in order to obtain efficient therapeutic soft contact lenses.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soft contact lenses; Ocular controlled release; Molecular imprinting; ITC; Template:functional monomer ratio
1. Introduction
The success of the therapy with antibiotics strongly depends
on achieving enough drug concentration in the infected area for
a sufficient period of time. Systemic delivery generally does not
allow these aims to be accomplished when the infection affects
poorly irrigated areas, such as ocular and bone structures [1,2].
In these cases, antibiotics have to be locally applied using appropriate devices [3,4]. The ocular bioavailability of drugs
instilled on the corneal surface is usually limited to the 110%
of the dose owing to the intense draining effect of blinking and
lachrymal fluid removal [5]. Thus instillation has to be frequently repeated, providing pulse-type concentration profiles.
An important fraction of the dose can be unproductively absorbed through the conjunctiva and/or swept through the nasolachrymal conduct, and then systemically absorbed, with the
consequent risk of side effects. Several approaches have been
proposed to obtain more sustained profiles, such as the addition
Corresponding author. Fax: +34 981547148.
E-mail address: ffrusdog@usc.es (C. Alvarez-Lorenzo).
0168-3659/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.05.003
237
238
Fig. 2. Dependence of the storage (G, full symbols) and loss (G, open symbols)
moduli on the angular frequency for wet and dried PHEMA hydrogels copolymerized with AA 100 mM.
Fig. 3. NRF sorption isotherms for non-imprinted PHEMA hydrogels copolymerized with different proportions of AA or VP.
239
Table 1
Amount of NRF loaded (mg/g of dried gel) by non-imprinted PHEMA
hydrogels cross-linked with EGDMA 80 mM and prepared with different
proportions of VP or AA
PHEMA
hydrogels
0.05
0.010
No comonomer
VP50
VP100
VP200
AA50
AA100
AA200
0.005 (0.001)
0.088 (0.014)
0.074 (0.065)
0.029 (0.030)
0.668 (0.118)
0.942 (0.020)
1.129 (0.018)
0.009 (0.002)
0.146 (0.007)
0.106 (0.062)
0.048 (0.029)
1.315 (0.104)
1.883 (0.077)
2.067 (0.013)
0.018 (0.002)
0.241 (0.045)
0.579 (0.025)
0.447 (0.045)
2.384 (0.045)
4.003 (0.232)
4.786 (0.247)
avoid the assumption that the samples were selected from normal populations, followed by Multiple Range Test [45].
3. Results and discussion
The NRF structure makes the drug potentially able to interact
simultaneously with various functional monomers, which is a
main requirement for the achievement of imprinted networks. It
has two ionisable groups: a carboxylic acid (pKa1 = 6.34 0.06)
and an amino group (pKa2 = 8.75 0.07) [37] that can electrostatically interact with ionized groups of other molecules (Fig. 1).
Additionally, it can also interact through hydrogen bonds or
establish hydrophobic interactions through the aromatic ring. This
has prompted us to choose VP and AA as possible functional
monomers (Fig. 1). AA is a weak acid (pKa = 4.5) that could
interact with the protonizable amino groups or with hydrogen
bond acceptor groups; whilst VP is a weak base (pKb = 8.5; [46])
with affinity for acid groups and also able to interact with the
aromatic group through stacking.
3.1. Non-imprinted hydrogels: preliminary studies
In order to carry out a first screening of the suitability of AA
or VP as functional monomers, conventional (i.e. non-imprinted) hydrogels were prepared with different proportions for each
240
Table 2
Amount of NRF loaded (AL; mg/g of gel) by imprinted PHEMA hydrogels prepared with NRF:AA 1:3 to 1:6 molar ratios and different thicknesses
PHEMA
Hydrogels
0.050
0.010
AL
IF
AL
IF
AL
IF
0.79 (0.06)
1.01 (0.04)
1.60 (0.12)
1.702.10
1.862.41
2.062.46
1.62 (0.14)
1.84 (0.13)
3.21 (0.21)
1.411.70
1.602.05
1.421.80
3.00 (0.19)
3.32 (0.20)
5.89 (0.56)
0.851.00
0.951.17
0.991.13
The imprinted factor ranges (IF = ALMIP / ALNIP) are also shown. Mean values (standard deviations in brackets; n = 3).
241
242
Fig. 10. NRF release profiles in lachrymal fluid from PHEMA hydrogels
synthesized with AA 200 mM and EGDMA 160 mM using different NRF:AA
molar ratios; zero, i.e. non-imprinted hydrogels (), 1:16 (x), 1:10 (), 1:6 (),
and 1:4 (). The hydrogels (thickness 0.4 mm) were previously loaded by
immersion in 0.025 mM, 0.050 mM or 0.10 mM NRF solutions (n = 3).
Table 3
NRF release rate constants (KH; %min 1 / 2) in lachrymal fluid obtained by fitting of the release profiles to the Higuchi equation, for the three types of hydrogels
synthesised in the presence of different NRF:AA molar ratios and then loaded by immersion in NRF solutions (0.025 mM, 0.050 mM, and 0.10 mM)
NRF:
AA
0.050 (mM)
0.10 (mM)
0
1:16
1:12
1:8
1:6
1:4
1:3
3.73
3.37
2.91
2.99
2.97
2.49
2.64
3.09
2.60
2.67
2.48
2.29
2.09
2.06
3.43
2.85
2.51
2.66
2.29
2.24
2.31
NRF:
AA
0
1:16
1:12
1:10
1:8
1:6
1:4
0.025 (mM)
0.050 (mM)
0.10 (mM)
0.025 (mM)
0.050 (mM)
0.10 (mM)
3.87
3.81
3.59
3.45
3.42
2.76
2.71
3.16
3.24
3.05
3.15
3.00
2.91
2.26
2.68
2.50
2.56
2.51
2.47
2.40
2.12
3.92
2.24
1.84
1.62
1.54
1.47
1.11
3.86
2.82
2.77
2.65
2.25
2.12
1.57
3.37
3.05
2.85
2.58
2.57
2.44
2.21
the drug (isotherms similar to those shown in Fig. 3), the free drug
remaining in solution once sorption equilibrium was reached (less
than the 25% of the initial one) may be too low to enable further
sorption. This ability of the hydrogels to make use of almost all
drug in solution, far from being a drawback (drug solubility in
water did not allow more concentrated solutions to be prepared),
has an interesting practical importance since it avoids any concern
over drug waste during loading of these hydrogels if used as
therapeutic contact lenses.
The ability of NRF imprinted hydrogels to load timolol was
evaluated to test the specificity of the binding receptors (Fig. 8).
Timolol has spatial size similar to that of NRF (estimated using CS
Chem3D Std software v. 4.0, Cambridge Soft Corporation), and
has previously shown a high affinity for PHEMA-co-AA
hydrogels [26]. By contrast, the nature and spatial distribution of
the chemical groups is quite different. When immersed in
0.050 mM drug solutions, NRF imprinted hydrogels loaded
remarkably lower amounts of timolol than of NRF, and similar to
those loaded by the non-imprinted hydrogels. This proves the
ability of the imprinted cavities to specifically recognize NRF. This
test was carried out using loading drug solutions of concentration
(0.050 mM) not enough to saturate the hydrogels and, as a
consequence, the binding affinity is the main factor for loading.
This explains that hydrogels prepared with the NRF:AA 1:4
loaded more NRF than those synthesized with lower molar ratios.
NRF-loaded hydrogels did not release the drug when
immersed in water (only a 4% after 24 h), which confirms the
strength of the interactions and opens also the possibility of storing the drug-loaded lenses in aqueous medium. Once immersed
in lachrymal fluid, the hydrogels were able to sustain drug release
for more than one day, although remarkable differences in release
were observed as a function of the NRF:AA molar ratio used to
prepare the hydrogels (Figs. 9 and 10). In all cases, the release
constants, obtained by fitting of Higuchi equation (Table 3), for
imprinted hydrogels with NRF:AA molar ratio above 1:16 were
lower than those for the non-imprinted ones (p b 0.001). Imprinted
hydrogels prepared with NRF:AA 1:3 or 1:4 molar ratios showed
the greatest ability to control the release of the drug, sustaining the
process for 2 to 5 d. The net difference in release rate between
imprinted and non-imprinted hydrogels was greater for those
loaded in the most diluted drug solution. These findings clearly
correlate with the ITC results. The NRF:AA 1:4 molar ratio was
the one predicted by calorimetric titration as the minimum needed
to saturate the binding points of the drug and, therefore, the one
that can provide the most perfectly created imprinted cavities.
Once immersed in diluted NRF solutions, the drug is host in these
high affinity cavities and such an affinity is responsible for sustaining the release. It is also interesting to note that the PHEMAco-AA hydrogels showed a release rate independent of their
thickness (release profiles were practically superimposed for 0.9
and 0.4 mm thickness). This clearly corroborates that the release is
controlled by the affinity of the cavities for the drug and not by the
diffusion of the free drug through the network. Otherwise, the
thinnest discs would show a significantly greater release rate [23].
The minimum inhibitory concentration, MIC, of norfloxacin
for most bacteria is below 2.6 g/ml [42]. This concentration is
attained in the in vitro experiments in 3060 min when using
243
244
[10] M.R. Jain, Drug delivery through soft contact lenses, Br. J. Ophthalmol. 72
(1988) 150154.
[11] T.P. Heyrman, M.L. McDermott, J.L. Ubels, H.F. Edelhauser, Drug uptake
and release by a hydrogel intraocular lens and the human crystalline lens,
J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 15 (1989) 169175.
[12] J.M. Chapman, L. Cheeks, K. Green, Drug interaction with intraocular
lenses of different materials, J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 18 (1992) 456459.
[13] C. Alvarez-Lorenzo, H. Hiratani, A. Concheiro, Contact lenses for drug
delivery: achieving sustained release with novel systems, Am. J. Drug Del.
(submitted for publication).
[14] L. Krejci, I. Brettschneider, R. Praus, Hydrophilic gel contact lenses as a
new drug delivery system in ophtalmology and as a therapeutic bandage
lenses, Acta Univ. Carol., Med. 21 (1975) 387396.
[15] J.A. Silbert, A review of therapeutic agents and contact lens wear, J. Am.
Optom. Assoc. 67 (1996) 165172.
[16] J.L. Creech, A. Chauhan, C.J. Radke, Dispersive mixing in the posterior
tear film under a sift contact lens, IEC Res. 40 (2001) 30153026.
[17] E.M. Hehl, R. Beck, K. Luthard, R. Guthoff, B. Drewelow, Improved
penetration of aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones into the aqueous
humour of patients by means of Acuvue contact lenses, Eur. J. Clin.
Pharmacol. 55 (1999) 317323.
[18] G. Wajs, J.C. Meslard, Release of therapeutic agents from contact lenses,
Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carr. Syst. 2 (1986) 275289.
[19] T.T. McMahon, K. Zadnik, Twenty-five years of contact lenses: the impact
on cornea and ophthalmic practice, Cornea 19 (2000) 730740.
[20] C.C.S. Karlgard, N.S. Wong, L.W. Jones, C. Moresoli, In vitro uptake and
release studies of ocular pharmaceutical agents by silicon-containing and
p-HEMA hydrogel contact lens materials, Int. J. Pharm. 257 (2003)
141151.
[21] J.P. Vairon, L. Yean, J.C. Meslard, F. Subira, C. Bunel, Immobilisation
reversible sur polymers et liberation controlee, Application aux lentilles
corneennes reservoirs de medicaments, L'actualit Chimique, Septembre
Octobre, 1992, pp. 330350.
[22] D. Gulsen, A. Chauhan, Ophthalmic drug delivery through contact lenses,
Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 45 (2004) 23422347.
[23] D. Gulsen, C.C. Li, A. Chauhan, Dispersion of DMPC liposomes in contact
lenses for ophthalmic drug delivery, Curr. Eye Res. 30 (2005) 10711080.
[24] R. Uchida, T. Sato, H. Tanigawa, K. Uno, Azulene incorporation and
release by hydrogel containing methacrylamide propyltrimethylammonium chloride, and its application to soft contact lens, J. Control. Release
92 (2003) 259264.
[25] T. Sato, R. Uchida, H. Tanigawa, K. Uno, A. Murakami, Application of
polymer gels containing side-chain phosphate groups to drug-delivery
contact lenses, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 98 (2005) 731735.
[26] C. Alvarez-Lorenzo, H. Hiratani, J.L. Gomez-Amoza, R. MartinezPacheco, C. Souto, A. Concheiro, Soft contact lenses capable of sustained
delivery of timolol, J. Pharm. Sci. 91 (2002) 21822192.
[27] H. Hiratani, C. Alvarez-Lorenzo, Timolol uptake and release by imprinted
soft contact lenses made of N,N-diethylacrylamide and methacrylic acid,
J. Control. Release 83 (2002) 223230.
[28] H. Hiratani, C. Alvarez-Lorenzo, The nature of backbone monomers
determines the performance of imprinted soft contact lenses as timolol
drug delivery systems, Biomaterials 25 (2003) 11051113.
[29] H. Hiratani, A. Fujiwara, Y. Tamiya, Y. Mizutani, C. Alvarez-Lorenzo,
Ocular release of timolol from molecularly imprinted soft contact lenses,
Biomaterials 26 (2005) 12931298.
[30] H. Hiratani, Y. Mizutani, C. Alvarez-Lorenzo, Controlling drug release
from imprinted hydrogels by modifying the characteristics of the imprinted
cavities, Macromol. Biosci. 5 (2005) 728733.