Vitreous Pharmacokinetics and Retinal Safety of Intravitreal Preserved Versus Non-preserved Triamcinolone Acetonide in Rabbit Eyes

Purpose: To compare the intravitreal pharmacokinetic profile of a triamcinolone acetonide formulation containing the preservative benzyl alcohol (TA-BA) versus a preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide formulation (TA-PF), and evaluate potential signs of toxicity to the retina. Methods: A total of 60 New Zealand male white rabbits, divided into two groups, were studied. In the TA-BA group, 30 rabbits received an intravitreal injection of TA-BA (4 mg/0.1ml) into the right eye. In the TA-PF group, 30 rabbits received an intravitreal injection of TA-PF (4 mg/0.1ml) into the right eye. The intravitreal drug levels were determined in 25 animals from each group by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The potential for toxicity associated with the intravitreal triamcinolone injections was evaluated in five randomly selected animals from each group by electroretinography (ERG) and by light microscopy. Results: Median intravitreal concentrations of TA-BA (mu g/ml) were 1903.1, 1213.0, 857.8, 442.0, 248.6 at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after injection. Intravitreal concentrations of TA-PF (mu g/ml) were 1032.9, 570.1, 516.6, 347.9, 102.8 at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after injection. The median intravitreal triamcinolone concentration was significantly higher in the TA-BA compared to the TA-PF group at 7 days post-injection (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in median triamcinolone concentration at the other time points evaluated. There was no evidence of toxic effects on the retina in either group based on ERG or histological analyses. Conclusions: Following a single intravitreal injection, the median concentration of triamcinolone acetonide is significantly higher in the TA-BA compared to the TA-PF group at 7 days post-injection. No toxic reactions in the retina were observed in either group.

Workplace drug testing, different matrices different objectives

Drug testing is used by employers to detect drug use by employees or job candidates. It can identify recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs as a screening tool for potential health and safety and performance issues. Urine is the most commonly used sample for illicit drugs. It detects the use of a drug within the last few days and as such is evidence of recent use; but a positive test does not necessarily mean that the individual was impaired at the time of the test. Abstention from use for three days will often produce a negative test result. Analysis of hair provides a much longer window of detection, typically 1 to 3 months. Hence the likelihood of a falsely negative test using hair is very much less than with a urine test. Conversely, a negative hair test is a substantially stronger indicator of a non-drug user than a negative urine test. Oral fluid (saliva) is also easy to collect. Drugs remain in oral fluid for a similar time as in blood. The method is a good way of detecting current use and is more likely to reflect current impairment. It offers promise as a test in post-accident, for cause, and on-duty situations. Studies have shown that within the same industrial settings, hair testing can detect twice as many drug users as urine testing. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Adverse Drug Events Leading Children to Hospital Emergency Care

To determine the incidence of adverse drug events (ADE) that resulted in the need for children's emergency care, a total of 23,286 pediatric emergency case notes were analyzed. They were selected on the basis of the ICD code indicating a possible ADE. ADEs were found in 13 case notes (0.06%), predominantly among girls and mainly in the 1 to 5 year age group. About half of the observed events occurred as a result of accidental ingestion, 27.3% were suicide attempts, and 27.3% arose due to the discontinuation of treatment. Antiepileptic drugs were those most often involved. Three (23%) were serious. The results suggest that children have easy access to medications and are involved in the majority of accidental occurrences. Using drugs involves risks, and drawing attention to such risks while prescribing and dispensing them fosters the sharing of responsibility and the empowerment of the users, measures necessary to health promotion.

US Food and Drug Administration approval of generic versions of complex biologics: implications for the practicing physician using low molecular weight heparins

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have shown equivalent or superior efficacy and safety to unfractionated heparin as antithrombotic therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Each approved LMWH is a pleotropic biological agent with a unique chemical, biochemical, biophysical and biological profile and displays different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. As a result, LMWHs are neither equipotent in preclinical assays nor equivalent in terms of their clinical efficacy and safety. Previously, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned against using various LMWHs interchangeably, however recently, the FDA approved generic versions of LMWH that have not been tested in large clinical trials. This paper highlights the bio-chemical and pharmacological differences between the LMWH preparations that may result in different clinical outcomes, and also reviews the implications and challenges physicians face when generic versions of the original/innovator agents are approved for clinical use.

Safety assessment of oral photodynamic therapy in rats

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is based on the synergism of a photosensitive drug (a photosensitizer) and visible light to destroy target cells (e.g., malignant, premalignant, or bacterial cells). The aim of this study was to investigate the response of normal rat tongue mucosa to PDT following the topical application of hematoporphyrin derivative (Photogem®), Photodithazine®, methylene blue (MB), and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles loaded with MB. One hundred and thirty three rats were randomly divided in various groups: the PDT groups were treated with the photosensitizers for 10 min followed by exposure to red light. Those in control groups received neither photosensitizer nor light, and they were subjected to light exposure alone or to photosensitizer alone. Fluorescent signals were obtained from tongue tissue immediately after the topical application of photosensitizers and 24 h following PDT. Histological changes were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, 7, and 15 days post-PDT treatment. Fluorescence was detected immediately after the application of the photosensitizers, but not 24 h following PDT. Histology revealed intact mucosa in all experimental groups at all evaluation time points. The results suggest that there is a therapeutic window where PDT with Photogem®, Photodithazine®, MB, and MB-loaded PLGA nanoparticles could safely target oral pathogenic bacteria without damaging normal oral tissue.