In our study of Ad5-infected rabbits, FST-100 was given topically four times daily in the treatment group for 7 days parallel to an equally weighted group for 0.5% cidofovir treatment that was administered twice daily for the same duration. 0.3% tobramycin/0.1% dexamethasone and balanced salt solution were given four times daily for 7 days. The 0.5% cidofovir treatment regimen of 14 doses totaling 3.5 mg theoretically is a low concentration tested in vivo and should have the least adverse effects comparably; Gordon et al.
49 reported the direct toxicity of cidofovir in uninfected animals and found that clinically significant local ocular toxicity occurred almost always at a total dose exceeding 15 mg administered for a period of 10 days. Inoue et al.
20 recently evaluated the adverse effect of 1% cidofovir administered 4× daily for 14 days (56 doses) totaling 28 mg. There was significant eyelid redness in most of the animals in the 1% cidofovir group, as well as in the ddC- and d4T-treated groups on day 14.
20 There was significant hyperemia in all conjunctivae of the cidofovir-treated group on days 7 and 14, in the d4T-treated group after day 7, and in the ddC-treated group only on day 10 in comparison with the control group.
20 In the present study, we used 0.5% cidofovir totaling 3.5 mg that was eightfold less than the total 28 mg used by Inoue et al.
20 ; however, this low dosage showed severe local ocular toxicity in vivo (
Figs. 1,
3II). The drug total of 3.5 mg of cidofovir was also substantially below the acceptable limit proposed by Gordon et al.
49 The Ad5 infection was one of the primary factors for the observed eyelid redness and hyperemia. The balanced salt solution (
Fig. 3III) and 0.3% tobramycin/0.1% dexamethasone (
Fig. 3IV) treatment groups were similarly symptomatic; however, the symptoms were milder than the severity observed in the 0.5% cidofovir–treated group (
Fig. 3II). Cidofovir given as a topical drug in uninfected animals induced blockage of the nasolacrimal drainage system and lacrimation.
49 Further, Inoue et al.
20 reported a significant narrowing of the lacrimal canaliculus without complete obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct in the 1% cidofovir–treated group. Second, results of a histopathologic study suggested that the local side effects could have been induced by allergic inflammation rather than by cytotoxic necrotic reaction.
20