May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
The Microspray: A New Ocular Drug Delivery Device
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. Diestelhorst
    Ophthalmology,
    University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • M. Hellmich
    Imsie,
    University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • D. Hochrainer
    Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany
  • G. Roessler
    Ophthalmology,
    University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • A. Steinfeld
    Ophthalmology,
    University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • B. Zierenberg
    Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M. Diestelhorst, Boehringer P; M. Hellmich, None; D. Hochrainer, Boehringer P; G. Roessler, None; A. Steinfeld, None; B. Zierenberg, Boehringer P.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 2469. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. Diestelhorst, M. Hellmich, D. Hochrainer, G. Roessler, A. Steinfeld, B. Zierenberg; The Microspray: A New Ocular Drug Delivery Device . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2469.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:To study the safety, tolerability and handling of a new Microspray (MS) in patients with glaucoma, dry–eye syndrome and in healthy volunteers. Methods: Patients with glaucoma or dry–eye syndrome applied one drop of a tear–film substitute (Sic–OphthalTM) from 10 ml bottles and via the MS to one eye each at random. The MS, based on the Respimat® technology, consists of droplets in the size range 1–5 µm, which reach the eye with a low velocity after being released by the patient. Safety, tolerability, handling and SE were qualified by VAS and questionnaire. In a second study 20 volunteers –naive to eye medication– applied Sic–OphthalTM via the MS and from the bottle for 5 consecutive days to each eye at random in a cross–over design. Results: 20 patients (12 females, 8 males; age: 69.5±11 years) who had used eye drops for 17.3 years (mean: 3.1 drops/day/eye; range: 1–9 drops) judged safety, tolerability and handling stat. significantly (p=0.000) in favor of the MS application. The experienced patients could apply one drop properly only via the MS. The volunteers confirmed these findings (p=0.000). VAS were stat. significantly in favor of the MS device (p=0.000). Conclusions: The Microspray was superior to the conventional bottle application with regards to safety, tolerability and handling by both the experienced patients and the naive volunteers. The Microspray shall simplify the treatment in ophthalmology and thereby increase the compliance. The bioavailability from the Microspray will be studied.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled • pharmacology • drug toxicity/drug effects 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×