Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Nano-Biomaterials For Ophthalmic Drug Delivery pp 253–276Cite as

Ocular Preservatives: Risks and Recent Trends in Its Application in Ocular Drug Delivery (ODD)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1410 Accesses

Abstract

Topical application of eye drops, ointments, gels, or emulsions to treat ocular anterior segment diseases is preferred due to the ease of administration and low cost. Preservatives are the most important ingredients in ocular formulations next to active ingredient. These are often included to prevent the chances of inadvertent contamination of the ocular formulations preserved in multidose containers, most frequently during opening and application to the infected eyes. Indeed preservatives that kill or damage growing microbial cells may also be toxic to growing cells of the ocular tissues. Clinical studies suggest that the long-term use of ophthalmic preparations for effective therapy may induce major and frequent ocular surface changes causing allergic or inflammatory reactions such as redness, stinging, burning, irritation, eye dryness, or less frequently conjunctivitis or corneal damage. With the aging of population, the need for treatments of ocular diseases has become more important than ever. Increasingly high incidences of ocular disorders demand better, more effective, and innovative treatments without appreciable toxic manifestations because the preservation of vision is critical for improving the quality of life. This chapter addresses various commonly used ocular preservatives along with their ocular toxicity, newer preservatives, or other options coming up in this arena.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Freeman PD, Kahook MY (2009) Preservatives in topical ophthalmic medications: historical and clinical perspectives. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 4:59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Colin C (2006) Are multidose over-the-counter artificial tears adequately preserved? Basic investigations. Cornea 25:432–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schein OD, Hibberd PL, Starck T, Baker AS, Kenyon KR (1992) Microbial contamination of in-use ocular medications. Arch Ophthalmol 110:82–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baudouin C, Labbé A, Liang H, Pauly A, Brignole-Baudouin F (2010) Preservatives in eyedrops: the good, the bad and the ugly. Prog Retin Eye Res 29:312–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burstein NL (1980) Preservative cytotoxic threshold for BKC and chlorhexidine digluconate in cat and rabbit corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32:2259–2265

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaur IP, Lal S, Rana C, Kakkar S, Singh H (2009) Ocular preservatives: associated risks and newer options. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 28:93–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baudouin C, Pisella PJ, Fillacier K et al (1999) Ocular surface inflammatory changes induced by topical antiglaucoma drugs: human and animal studies. Ophthalmology 106:556–563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cooper JW, Gunn C (2000) Ophthalmic products. In: Carter SL (ed) Dispensing for pharmaceutical students, 12th edn. CBS Publisher and Distributors, New Delhi, pp 634–662

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shaw AJ, Balls M, Clothier RH, Bateman ND (1991) Predicting ocular irritancy and recovery from injury using Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. Toxicol In Vitro 5:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Takahashi N (1982) Cytotoxicity of mercurial preservatives in cell culture. Ophthalmic Res 14:63–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin SM, Tsao F-P (1998) Method of preserving ophthalmic solutions and compositions therefor. US patent 5725887

    Google Scholar 

  12. Block SS (2001) Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 311

    Google Scholar 

  13. Becquet F, Goldschild M, Moldovan MS, Ettaiche M, Gastaud P, Baudouin C (1998) Histopathological effects of topical ophthalmic preservatives on rat corneoconjunctival surface. Curr Eye Res 17:419–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu Y, Zhao D, Gao C, Zhou L, Pang G, Sun S (2012) In vitro activity of phenylmercuric acetate against ocular pathogenic fungi. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:1941–1944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tomlinson A, Trees GR (1991) Effect of preservatives in artificial tear solutions on tear film evaporation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 11:48–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fassihi AR, Naidoo NT (1989) Irritation associated with tear-replacement ophthalmic drops. A pharmaceutical and subjective investigation. S Afr Med J 75:233–235

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tripathi BJ, Tripathi RC (1989) Cytotoxic effects of BKC and chlorobutanol on human corneal epithelial cells in vitro. Lens Eye Toxic Res 6:395–403

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nordt SP (1996) Chlorobutanol toxicity. Ann Pharmacother 30:1179–1180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Doughty MJ (1994) Acute effects of chlorobutanol- or BKC-containing artificial tears on the surface features of rabbit corneal epithelial cells. Optom Vis Sci 71:562–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kilp H, Brewitt H (1984) Cytotoxicity of preservatives: a scanning electron microscopic and biochemical investigation. Chibret Int J Ophthalmol 1:4–20

    Google Scholar 

  21. Li HF, Petroll WM, Mo¨ller-Perderson T, Maurer JK, Cavanagh HD, Jester JV (1997) Epithelial and corneal thickness measurements by in vivo confocal microscopy through focusing (CMTF). Curr Eye Res 16:214–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berdy GJ, Abelson MB, Smith LM, George MA (1992) Preservative-free artificial tear preparations. Assessment of corneal epithelial toxic effects. Arch Ophthalmol 110:528–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Saint JM, Brignole F, Bringuier A-F, Bauchet A, Feldman G, Baudouin C (1999) Effects of BKC on growth and survival of Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:619–630

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herreras JM, Pastor C, Calonge M, Asensio VM (1992) Ocular surface alteration after long-term treatment with an antiglaucomatous drug. Ophthalmology 99:1082–1088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwab IR, Linberg JV, Gioia VM, Benson WH, Chao GM (1992) Foreshortening of the inferior conjunctival fornix associated with chronic glaucoma medications. Ophthalmology 99:197–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Longstaff S, Wormald RP, Mazover A, Hitchings RA (1990) Glaucoma triple procedures: efficacy of intraocular pressure control and visual outcome. Ophthalmic Surg 21:786–793

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gangrade NK, Gaddipati NB, Ganesan MG, Reddy IK (1996) Topical ophthalmic formulations: basic considerations. In: Reddy IK (ed) Ocular therapeutics and drug delivery: a multi-disciplinary approach. Technomic, Basel, pp 377–403

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ashton P, Diepold R, Pla¨tzer A, Lee VHL (1990) Effect of chlorhexidine acetate on the corneal penetration of sorbitol from an arnolol formulation in the pigmented rabbit. J Ocul Pharmacol 6:37–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Durand-Cavagna G, Delort P, Duprat P, Bailly Y, Plazonnet B, Gordon LR (1989) Corneal toxicity studies in rabbits and dogs with hydroxyethylcellulose and BKC. Fundam Appl Toxicol 13:500–508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Christiansen M, Cohen S, Rinehart J et al (2004) Clinical evaluation of an HPguar gellable lubricant eye drop for the relief of dryness of the eye. Curr Eye Res 28:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson JD, Farris RL (1988) Sodium hyaluronate and polyvinyl alcohol artificial tear preparations a comparison in patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Arch Ophthalmol 106:484–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brignole-Baudouin F, Riancho L, Liang H, Baudouin C (2011) Comparative in vitro toxicology study of travoprost polyquad-preserved, travoprost BAK-preserved, and latanoprost BAK-preserved ophthalmic solutions on human conjunctival epithelial cells. Curr Eye Res 36:979–988

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Labbé A, Pauly A, Liang H, Brignole-Baudouin F, Martin C, Warnet JM, Baudouin C (2006) Comparison of toxicological profiles of BKC and polyquaternium-1: an experimental study. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 22:267–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ammar DA, Noecker RJ, Kahook MY (2010) Effects of BKC-preserved, polyquad-preserved, and sofZia-preserved topical glaucoma medications on human ocular epithelial cells. Adv Ther 27:837–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Paimela T, Ryhänen T, Kauppinen A, Marttila L, Salminen A, Kaarniranta K (2012) The preservative polyquaternium-1 increases cytoxicity and NF-kappaB linked inflammation in human corneal epithelial cells. Mol Vis 18:1189–1196

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Choy CK, Cho P, Boost MV (2012) Cytotoxicity and effects on metabolism of contact lens care solutions on human corneal epithelium cells. Clin Exp Optom 95:198–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Abelson MB, Udell IJ (2000) Conjunctiva, cornea, and sclera. In: Albert DM, Jakobiec FA (eds) Principles and practice of ophthalmology, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 1689–1692

    Google Scholar 

  38. Grant R, Ajello M, Vlass E (1996) Salt water or high tech? A look at two new rinsing solutions for contact lenses. Optician 212:38–41

    Google Scholar 

  39. Paugh JR, Brennan NA, Efron N (1988) Ocular response to hydrogen peroxide. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 65:91–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vaughan JS, Porter DA (1993) A new in vitro method for assessing the potential toxicity of soft contact lens care solutions. CLAO J 19:54–57

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rozen S, Abelson M, Giovanoni A, Welch D (1998) Assessment of the comfort and tolerance of 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose preserved with Purite (Refresh Tears) in dry eye sufferers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:451

    Google Scholar 

  42. Noecker R (2001) Effects of common ophthalmic preservatives on ocular health. Adv Ther 18:205–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Karageszian VH, Karageozian HL, Climent A, Munoz S, Cuevas G, Gallegos VG (2003) Determine the in-vitro antimicrobial preservative effectiveness of a new broad spectrum antimicrobial preservative “Oxyd”. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1469

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kahook MY (2007) Travoprost Z. Ophthalmic solution with sofZia: clinical safety and efficacy. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 2:363–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lewis RA, Katz G, Weiss MJ (2007) Travoprost 0.004% with and without BKC: a comparison of safety and efficacy. J Glaucoma 16:98–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yee RW, Norcom EG, Zhao XC (2006) Comparison of the relative toxicity of travoprost 0.004% without BAK and latanoprost 0.005% in an immortalized human cornea epithelial cell culture system. Adv Ther 23:511–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Debbasch C, Brignole F, Pisella P-J, Warnet J-M, Rat P, Baudouin C (2001) Quaternary ammoniums and other preservatives’ contribution in oxidative stress and apoptosis on Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:642–652

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Baines MG, Cai F, Backman HA (1991) Ocular hypersensitivity to thiomersal in rabbits. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32:2259–2265

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yanochko GM, Khoh-Reiter S, Evans MG, Jessen BA (2010) Comparison of preservative-induced toxicity on monolayer and stratified Chang conjunctival cells. Toxicol In Vitro 24:1324–1331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Brahma AK, Pande M (1994) Comparative conjunctival toxicity of subconjunctival preservative-free gentamicin and subconjunctival preservative-free cefuroxime. Eur J Implant Refract Surg 6:57–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith L, George M, Berdy G, Abelson M (1991) Comparative effects of preservative free tear substitutes on the rabbit cornea: a scanning electron microscopic evaluation (ARVO abstract). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32 (Suppl):733

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tsubota K (1998) Tear dynamics and dry eye. Prog Retin Eye Res 17:565–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Holy FJ (1978) Surface chemical evaluation of artificial tears and their ingredients II. Interaction with superficial lipid layer. Cont Intraoc LENS Med J 4:52–65

    Google Scholar 

  54. Arffa RC (1997) Toxic and allergic reactions to topical ophthalmic medications. In: Arffa RC (ed) Grayson’s diseases of the cornea. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 669–683

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cai F, Backman HA, Baines MG (1988) Thiomersal: an ophthalmic preservative which acts as a hapten to elicit specific antibodies and cell mediated immunity. Curr Eye Res 7:341–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Fuchs T, Meinert A, Aberer W et al (1993) BKC-a relevant contact allergen or irritant? Results of a multicentre study of the German contact allergy group. Houtzart 44:699–702

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C (2002) Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol 86:418–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Green K (1992) The role of surfactants as bactericides in topical drug delivery. STP Pharm Sci 2:34–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Grant RL, Acosta D (1996) Prolonged adverse effects of BKC and sodium dodecyl sulfate in a primary culture system of rabbit corneal epithelial cells. Fundam Appl Toxicol 33:71–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lemp MA, Zimmerman LE (1988) Toxic endothelial degeneration in ocular surface disease treated with topical medications containing BKC. Am J Ophthalmol 105:670–673

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Weinreb RN, Wood I, Tomazzoli L, Alvarado J (1986) Subconjunctival injections. Preservatives-related changes in the corneal endothelium, Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 27:525–531

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Tripathi BJ, Tripathi RC, Kolli SP (1992) Cytotoxicity of ophthalmic preservatives on human corneal epithelium. Lens Eye Toxic Res 9:361–375

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kahook MY, Noecker RJ (2008) Comparison of corneal and conjunctival changes after dosing of travoprost preserved with sofZia, Latanoprost with 0.02% BKC, and preservative-free artificial tears. Cornea 27:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mondino BJ, Brawman-Mintzer O, Boothe WA (1987) Immunological complications of soft contact lenses. J Am Optom Assoc 58:832–835

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Chapman JM, Cheeks L, Green K (1990) Interactions of BKC with soft and hard contact lenses. Arch Ophthalmol 108:244–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Way WA, Matsumoto S, Apel LJ, Wiese A, Tarlo K, Vehige J (2001) Purite as a non-disruptive preservative for lubricating eye drop solutions in comparison to alternative preservatives. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:S39

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lopez B, Ubel J (1991) Quantitative evaluation of the corneal epithelial barrier: effect of artificial tears and preservatives. Curr Eye Res 10:7645–7656

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pham XT, Huff JW (1999) Cytotoxicity evaluation of multipurpose contact lens solutions using an in vitro test battery. CLAO J 25:28–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Epstein EP, Ahdoot M, Marcus E, Asbell PA (2009) Comparative toxicity of preservatives on immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 25:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Gaddipati NB, Gangrade NK, Ganesan MG, Reddy IK (1996) Packaging aspects of ophthalmic products. In: Reddy IK (ed) Ocular therapeutics and drug delivery: a multi-disciplinary approach. Technomic, Basel, pp 529–541

    Google Scholar 

  71. Van Santvliet L, Sam T, Ludwig A (1996) Packaging of ophthalmic solutions – influence on stability, sterility, eye drops instillation and patient compliance. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 42:375–384

    Google Scholar 

  72. Oldham GB, Andrews V (1996) Control of microbial contamination in unpreserved eyedrops. Br J Ophthalmol 80:588–591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Palmer RM, Kaufman HE (1995) Tear film, pharmacology of eye drops, and toxicity. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 6:11–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kaufman HE, Steinemann TI, Lehman E, Thompson HW, Varnell ED, Jacob-labarre JT, Gebhardt BM (1994) Collagen-based drug delivery and artificial tears. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 10:17–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Luo L, Li D, Corrales R, Pflugfelder S (2005) Hyperosmolar saline is a proinflammatory stress on the mouse ocular surface. Eye Contact Lens 31:186–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gupta College of Technological Sciences (College of Pharmacy), Ashram More, G.T Road, Asansol, 713301, West Bengal, India

    Sabyasachi Maiti, Sayantan Sadhukhan & Paromita Bakshi

Authors
  1. Sabyasachi Maiti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sayantan Sadhukhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paromita Bakshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabyasachi Maiti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida Health, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Yashwant Pathak

  2. College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida Health, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Vijaykumar Sutariya

  3. College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Anjali A. Hirani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maiti, S., Sadhukhan, S., Bakshi, P. (2016). Ocular Preservatives: Risks and Recent Trends in Its Application in Ocular Drug Delivery (ODD). In: Pathak, Y., Sutariya, V., Hirani, A. (eds) Nano-Biomaterials For Ophthalmic Drug Delivery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29346-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation