Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of the treatment for various ocular conditions affecting the ocular surface, anterior and posterior segments of the eye due to their anti-inflammatory, anti-oedematous and anti-neovascularization properties. Prednisolone, prednisolone acetate, dexamethasone, triamcinolone acetonide, fluocinolone acetonide, and loteprednol etabonate are amongst the most widely used ophthalmic corticosteroids. Corticosteroids differ in their activity and potency in the eye due to their inherent pharmacological and pharmaceutical differences.Different routes and regimens are available for ocular administration of corticosteroids. Conventional topical application to the eye is the route of choice when targeting diseases affecting the ocular surface and anterior segment, while periocular, intravitreal, and suprachoroidal injections can 3 be potentially effective for posterior segment diseases. Corticosteroid-induced intraocular pressure elevation and cataract formation remain the most significant local risks following topical as well as systemic corticosteroid administration. Invasive drug administration via intracameral, subconjunctival and intravitreal injection can enhance ocular bioavailability and minimize dose and dosing frequency of administration, yet may exacerbate ocular side effects of corticosteroids. This review provides a critical appraisal of the ophthalmic uses of corticosteroid, routes of administration, drug delivery fundamentals and novel ocular implantable steroids delivery systems, factors influencing side effects and future perspectives for ocular corticosteroid therapy.

, Poloxamer-based thermoresponsive ketorolac tromethamine in situ gel preparations: Design, characterisation, toxicity and transcorneal permeation studies, European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ejpb.2017.01.008 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractThis study was aimed at preparing, characterising and evaluating in situ gel formulations based on a blend of two hydrophilic polymers i.e. poloxamer 407 (P407) and poloxamer 188 (P188) for a sustained ocular delivery of ketorolac tromethamine (KT). Drug-polymer interaction studies were performed using DSC and FT-IR. The gelation temperature (T sol-gel ), gelation time, rheological behaviour, mucoadhesive characteristics of these gels, transcorneal permeation and ocular irritation as well as toxicity was investigated. DSC and FT-IR studies revealed that there may be electrostatic interactions between the drug and the polymers used.P188 modified the T sol/gel of P407 bringing it close to eye temperature (35 o C) compared with the formulation containing P407 alone. Moreover, gels that comprised P407 and P188 exhibited a pseudoplastic behaviour at different concentrations. Furthermore, mucoadhesion study using mucin discs showed that in situ gel formulations have good mucoadhesive characteristics upon increasing the concentration of P407. When comparing formulations PP11 and PP12, the work of adhesion decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 377.9 ± 7.79 mN.mm to 272.3 ± 6.11 mN.mm. In vitro release and ex vivo permeation experiments indicated that the in situ gels were able to prolong and control KT release as only 48% of the KT released within 12 h. In addition, the HET-CAM and BCOP tests confirmed the nonirritancy of KT loaded in situ gels, and HET-CAM test demonstrated the ability of ocular protection against strongly irritant substances. MTT assay on primary corneal epithelial cells revealed that in situ gel formulations loaded with KT showed reasonable and acceptable percent cell viability compared with control samples.

No abstract