
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.66476
Pharmacology
Ophthalmology
Advancing Ocular Medication Delivery with Nano-Engineered Solutions: A Comprehensive Review of Innovations, Obstacles, and Clinical Impact
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Rajan Praiseth Bellston 1
Koilpillai Jebastin 1
Narayanasamy Damodharan 2
1 Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, IND
2 Pharmaceutics, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, IND
Damodharan Narayanasamy damodhan@srmist.edu.in
8 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e664769 7 2024
8 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Rajan et al.
2024
Rajan et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/273532-advancing-ocular-medication-delivery-with-nano-engineered-solutions-a-comprehensive-review-of-innovations-obstacles-and-clinical-impact
Recent advancements in ocular drug delivery have led to the introduction of a range of nanotechnology-based systems, such as polymeric nanoparticles, solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers, inorganic nanoparticles, niosomes, liposomes, nanosuspensions, dendrimers, nanoemulsions, and microemulsions. These systems enhance drug retention, penetration, bioavailability, and targeted delivery, promising prolonged drug release, and improved patient compliance. However, their interactions with biological systems pose potential toxicity risks, necessitating a careful evaluation of nanoparticle size, shape, surface charge, and coating. Traditional ocular drug delivery methods, like topical applications and injections, face challenges due to anatomical and physiological barriers, leading to frequent dosing and systemic toxicity risks. Nanocarriers offer solutions by improving drug permeation and targeted delivery, yet translating these innovations from research to clinical practice involves overcoming hurdles related to manufacturing scale-up, quality control, regulatory approval, and cost-effectiveness. The quality by design (QbD) framework provides a systematic approach to optimize nanocarrier formulation and process design, ensuring safety and efficacy. Assessing the safety of nanocarriers through in vivo and in vitro studies is crucial for their clinical application. This review explores the use of various nanomedicines in ocular drug delivery, highlighting the current state of ocular medication delivery and considering critical aspects such as scaling up and clinical applications.

toxicity
safety
drug penetration
ocular drug delivery
nanotechnology
nanocarriers
==== Body
pmcIntroduction and background

In recent years, a variety of delivery techniques have been created to tackle the major challenges associated with ocular drug delivery, aiming to develop a safe and effective system for administering medication to the precise site. The emergence of various nanotechnology-based nanomedicines and novel systems, including polymeric nanoparticles (NPs), solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN), nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC), inorganic nanoparticles, niosomes, liposomes, nanosuspensions, dendrimers, nanoemulsions, and microemulsions, has resulted in longer retention periods, better drug penetration through ocular barriers, improved bioavailability, and targeted delivery of drugs to particular cells and tissues [1]. The constraints of conventional and sustained-release ocular dosage forms have been addressed in the last several decades by the widespread application of nanotechnological interventions to improve drug release, bioavailability, and penetration of ocular drugs.

Ocular delivery systems based on nanotechnology serve as drug depots that provide prolonged drug release, lower the frequency of administration, and improve patient compliance. Additionally, the encapsulated active compounds are shielded from enzymatic and metabolic breakdown by nanocarriers. The negative aspects of conventional ocular dosage forms, such as ophthalmic drops, ointments, injections, and implants, are addressed by the developed nanotherapies. Because of physiological and anatomical barriers, these conventional forms have low penetration, reduced bioavailability, drug breakdown by enzymes, and general protein binding, all of which are efficiently addressed by nanotherapies [2,3]. When used as ophthalmic drops, submicron-sized liposomes have recently shown promise as a topical medication delivery technique for treating conditions affecting the posterior portion of the eye [4].

Nanotoxicology focuses on investigating the safety and toxicity of nanoparticles, including their interactions with biological systems. Due to their small form factor and significant surface area, these nanomaterials interact rapidly and effectively with cells and subcellular structures, potentially leading to harmful effects. Nanoparticles (NPs) often get trapped in the retinal area, vitreous cavity, and on the ocular surface upon administration, posing potential harm to the eyes. Because the eye is a surface organ, it is particularly susceptible to environmental nanoparticle toxicity. Furthermore, the toxicity of nanoparticles is closely linked to factors such as their size, shape, surface charge, and coating. For example, liver cells showed greater toxicity to 15 nm gold nanoparticles compared to 60 nm gold nanoparticles [5]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the potential ocular toxicity of nanoparticles used in ophthalmology. Nanotechnology-based ocular delivery systems (NODS) serve as drug reservoirs, which improve patient compliance, lower the frequency of administration, and provide prolonged drug delivery. In addition, the encapsulated active substances are shielded from enzymatic and metabolic breakdown by nanocarriers. Most research on the safety of liposomes focuses on pharmaceutical aspects such as stability, zeta potential, particle size, and properties related to their release in vivo. There are fewer reported systemic complaints regarding irritation of ocular tissues, suggesting that liposomes may not cause stimulating effects on the eyes. This hypothesis is supported by the use of certain liposome formulations in treating dry eye conditions [6,7]. 

Nano-drug delivery systems are considered the most effective method for targeted drug delivery [2-4]. Nevertheless, ensuring the safety and maintaining quality control of these nanocarrier drug delivery systems have become increasingly challenging. Challenges faced include the physicochemical characteristics, lack of reproducibility, structural destabilization, and high production costs of nano-drug delivery systems. Addressing these effectively requires optimizing nano-formulation and process design using scientific methodologies. Quality by design (QbD) provides a systematic approach with predefined objectives, employing scientific and risk-based proactive methods [8,9].

The emergence of nanotechnology has brought about substantial progress in ocular medication delivery, introducing innovative therapeutic strategies for treating eye conditions. It is expected that nanotechnology-based ocular drug delivery will eventually become the predominant approach in ocular therapy despite most current research being in the early stages [1-3,6].

Review

Conventional ocular drug administration routes

Drugs can be administered to the eye using various methods, including topical preparations like eye drops and ointments, as well as through intravitreal, subconjunctival, and periocular injections, and systemic routes such as oral and parenteral administration. 

Topical Administration

Conventional dosage forms such as ophthalmic drops, suspensions, and ointments are frequently applied topically due to their convenience for patients. Generally, these medications are absorbed through the corneal and conjunctival routes. However, factors like tear dynamics, loss before reaching the cornea, and tearing result in only a small fraction (approximately 5%) of the drug reaching the surface of the eye. Additionally, anatomical barriers further limit drug absorption, contributing to the drug's low bioavailability. As a result, frequent application of eye drops is required to maintain sufficient drug levels on the ocular surface. Ointments, on the other hand, may reduce patient compliance by limiting the duration of light exposure to the ocular surface Moreover, excessive tear production during inflammation dilutes the drug and rapidly washes it away from the affected area [1,3,4].

Systemic Administration

Drugs can be administered systemically to the eyes through parenteral and oral routes. Only 1% to 2% of the medication reaches the retinal and vitreous portions of the eye due to the retina's strong barriers and the eye's relatively small blood flow compared to the rest of the body. Therefore, in order to obtain therapeutic effects, frequent dosing is necessary, and higher doses raise the risk of systemic toxicity. Children and infants are especially susceptible to systemic side effects because they have lower levels of P-glycoproteins in their blood-brain barrier. As a result, there are many difficulties with administering medication systemically to the posterior portion of the eye [1,4].

Ocular Injections

Intravitreal injection with a 27 or 30 gauge needle is the main technique for injecting 20-100 µl of either a suspension or solution into the vitreous cavity. Drug distribution within the gel-like substance that makes up the vitreous cavity depends on a number of factors, including the molecular mass of the drug and the pathophysiological circumstances of the vitreous area. Larger linear molecules (greater than 40 kDa) and globular molecules (greater than 70 kDa) are kept in the vitreous cavity for longer periods of time than smaller drug molecules (with a molecular mass less than 500 Da). Hyaluronan, a negatively charged glycosaminoglycan found in the vitreous, can interact with molecules that are positively charged. A needle is inserted into the eye during an intravitreal injection, which can result in major risk and complications such retinal detachment, cataracts, infections, and vitreous hemorrhage. In comparison to intravitreal injections, intracameral, subconjunctival, and posterior juxtascleral injections are thought to be less invasive. However, these methods have drawbacks such as lower patient compliance, increased costs, and being perceived as both painful and invasive [1,3,4]. The various modern and classic ocular methods of drug administrations are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Novel ocular drug delivery systems

This image was created by Dr. Praiseth Bellston Rajan.

Translational hurdles in ophthalmic nanomedicine

The transition of ophthalmic nanomedicine from research to clinical use is fraught with several complex challenges. The main issues pertain to the difficulties in effectively delivering drugs to the different tissues within the eye. Significant obstacles include physiological barriers like blinking and tear turnover, anatomical barriers such as the multiple layers of the cornea and sclera, and dynamic barriers like tear drainage and conjunctival blood flow, all of which hinder optimal drug delivery [3,10]. Furthermore, the presence of tight junctions in the blood-retinal barrier restricts the access of systemically administered drugs to the retina, making effective treatment delivery even more challenging.

Nanocarriers have emerged as a promising solution to overcome these challenges by improving drug permeation and facilitating targeted delivery to specific ocular sites. Nevertheless, the transition of nanomedicine into clinical practice faces additional obstacles. These hurdles encompass scaling up production processes, ensuring stringent quality control standards, navigating intricate clinical development pathways, addressing biocompatibility and safety concerns, meeting rigorous regulatory requirements, and establishing cost-effectiveness relative to current therapies [1]. Effectively overcoming these multifaceted challenges is essential to advance ophthalmic nanomedicine from theoretical research to practical clinical solutions for disorders related to the eye.

Delivering drugs to the eye is exceedingly challenging due to the intricate and varied physiological barriers. Consequently, several innovative delivery mechanisms have been developed to address this issue. A small number of these novel drug delivery techniques like liposomal drug delivery system, nanomicelles, polymeric nanoparticles, nanocrystals, nanoemulsions, hydrogel-based nanoparticles are some of the successful techniques for treating different eye disorders that have been currently successfully commercialized as nano-formulation delivery systems despite intensive research. The marketed product must meet acceptable standards in terms of patient acceptability, safety, efficacy, and stability [1,3,10].

Additionally, research has shown that clinical translation of many of these drugs is hampered when nano-based delivery systems are scaled up from laboratory to huge industrial scales. For example, increasing the size of nanotechnology-based delivery systems like nanoparticles prepared using less energy-intensive methods like phase inversion temperature, phase inversion composition, and emulsion inversion point methods often results in modifications of their many attributes, most notably their physicochemical properties. In response to the limitations of low-energy processes, several high-energy techniques were developed. However, it has been noted that the production of nanoparticles by powerful techniques such as heat-assisted homogenization and ultrasonic treatment might lead to coalescence, which can cause thermodynamic instability in the system [1,7,10].

Furthermore, investigations reveal that numerous approaches for developing these nano-based technologies typically entail complex, step-by-step processes. These techniques also have very poor reproducibility and inadequate consistency. Developing nano-based technologies is very difficult due to issues like batch-to-batch variance and dispersion strength, which complicate quality control [3].

It is critical to increase the stability as well as safety of nanocarriers in order to mitigate any problems. Many new drug delivery methods have not undergone extensive in vivo testing in human eyes, having been primarily evaluated in vitro or on animals. The metabolic fate of nanocarriers in the eye remains unclear, and their targeting capabilities need enhancement. Due to their low cost and ease of handling, rodents have been widely utilized in preclinical research. In particular, these studies have made considerable use of rats, mice, and rabbits. Nevertheless, it has been observed that the pharmacokinetic characteristics of different formulations can vary significantly due to variations in ocular anatomy and physiology. For instance, rodents typically have higher lens-to-cornea ratios and smaller eyes compared to humans. Moreover, rabbits produce more mucus, blink less frequently, and are prone to ocular irritation. Additionally, the immunological composition of the human retina differs significantly from that of the rodents commonly used in preclinical studies. Due to these factors, predicting the success of clinical studies based on animal-based preclinical testing is exceedingly challenging [1,3,10].

QbD approaches for the nano-formulations 

The development of nanocarriers necessitated the inclusion of multiple components, all essential for ensuring the formulation's efficacy and safety. The development process involves both "bottom-up" and "top-down" approaches, each comprising several stages. Factors such as surfactant levels, volume of the surfactant solution, duration and intensity of mixing, exposure time for size reduction, and temperature conditions are among the variables that can influence either method. Understanding how each ingredient interacts with the others as well as how process variables affect even small variations in component concentrations is essential [8,9]. Achieving large-scale manufacture of nanocarrier formulations with the specified quality demands a thorough understanding of how slight changes in each element and process factors interact. 

Thus, employing the quality by design (QbD) framework for developing nanomaterials plays a crucial role in identifying key manufacturing parameters and controlling factors that influence the safety and quality of the final product. In drug delivery, QbD aims to determine significant product quality standards from safety, effectiveness, and clinical performance. Ultimately, it enhances process capability by minimizing product variability through the systematic evaluation of variable elements in materials and processes. Risk evaluation along with control are prioritized in QbD to guarantee the applicability of products and processes [8,9]. The elements of QbD are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Components of quality by design

This image was created by Dr. Praiseth Bellston Rajan.

Quality Target Product Profile

The Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) is a predetermined list of requirements for a drug that guarantees both the safety and effectiveness of the product as intended. It also assists in determining the essential qualitative aspects of the product. Before developing the QTPP, a connection must be established between the product's physicochemical properties and its biological performance as outlined in the target product profile. A nanoformulation's distribution of nanocarriers to the intended target cell, tissue, or organ, the formulation's pharmacokinetics, the toxicological characteristics of the drug product, and the nanocarriers' safety and efficacy profile are usually important components of its biological performance [8]. The quality target product profile for nano-formulations is listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Quality target product profile for nano-formulations

QTTP, Quality target product profile.

QTPP	Objective  	Reasoning  	Reference	
Drug formulation	Nanotechnology formulation	To improve the drug’s bioavailability, penetration, stability, and efficacy, which are dependent on the drug and dosage	[8]	
Method of delivery  	Topical, injectable, or oral  	Targeted, non-invasive, simple to administer, and with less adverse effects 	[8]	
Physical appearance	Lyophilized gel or powder  	Easy administration ensured by the final product's physical appearance	[8]	
Physicochemical evaluation	Entrapment efficiency, particle size, zeta potential, drug release	To ensure the drug is effectively loaded into the nanosystem. Affects penetration and absorption,  impacts the stability of the product, and affects the drug's pharmacokinetic properties	[8]	
Active pharmaceutical ingredient’s solubility in the drug delivery system  	Elevated to 50%  	Influences the drug release schedule, therapeutic outcomes, and rate of absorption into the skin	[8]	
Viscosity of dispersion  	100–500 mPas	Impact on the stability and release of drugs	[8]	
pH	Compatible with the formulation	Effect on drug loading, release, penetration rate, and stability	[8]	
System for closing containers      	Suitable for the dosage form	To ensure desired shelf lives	[8]	
Stability	Quality criteria  	Effect on product quality	[8]	
Pharmacokinetics	Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and targeting	Essential to attain the intended effect  	[8]	

Critical Quality Attributes

Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) direct the creation of procedures as well as products and are developed from the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP). They establish the acceptable range or limits for quality, ensuring that the nanoproduct meets the intended high standards. CQAs link the therapeutic performance of a product to its physical, chemical, biological, and microbiological properties. These include drug release, stability, impurity profile, entrapment efficiency, assay, sterility, and remaining solvents if organic solvents were employed in the manufacture of nanocarriers [8,9]. A fishbone diagram, also called an Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram, is useful for identifying all possible formulation and process parameters that affect the CQAs of a nano-formulation (Figure 3).

Figure 3 An Ishikawa diagram, or fishbone diagram, shows possible formulation and procedure variables influencing the CQAs of a nano-formulation

This image was created by Dr. Praiseth Bellston Rajan.

Critical Quality Attributes for nanocarriers are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Critical Quality Attributes for nanocarriers

CQA, Critical Quality Attributes

CQAs	Objective	Reasoning	Reference	
Size of the particle	<250nm  	A smaller globule size facilitates simple passage through the cellular membrane and aids in cancer cell targeting and passive targeting for brain administration.  	[8]	
Zeta potential	> ±30mV	The ideal zeta potential value is believed to be crucial since it is necessary for both particle homogeneity and dispersion stability.  	[8]	
Encapsulation  efficiency	Maximum elevation  	Administering the intended dosage, accomplishing regulated drug release from nanocarriers, and optimizing therapeutic response all depend on better entrapment efficiency. The necessary volume for administration may also be lowered by increased drug loading.  	[8]	
Drug release	Prolong release (>12h)  	For the objective of achieving prolonged medication absorption, slow and predetermined release is needed and is therefore deemed crucial.  	[8]	

Critical Material Attributes

The key elements influencing the variation of Critical Quality Attributes are Critical Material Attributes, which are closely linked to the composition of nanocarrier formulations. These factors include physical and chemical, biopharmaceutical, and microbiological characteristics of the input materials, which must stay within predetermined bounds in order to guarantee the desired purity of the final product. The important Critical Material Attributes (CMAs) in nanocarriers include variables such as the type, volume, and concentration of surfactants; the concentration of organic solvents (in solvent evaporation techniques); the levels of polymers and lipids; and the type and amount of salts used to prepare buffers or modify particle charge [8]. Critical Material Attributes and risk assessment for nanocarriers are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Critical Material Attributes and risk assessment for nanocarriers

 	                          Critical Material Attributes	 	
Critical Quality Attributes of a drug product	Drug	Solid lipid/ liquid lipid	Polymer	Surfactant/stabilizer concentration	Reference	
Size and Polydispersity Index	Decreased	Moderate	Moderate	Increased	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency	Increased	Increased	Increased	Moderate	[8]	
Release of the drug	Moderate	Increased	Increased	Decreased	[8]	
Zeta potential	Decreased	Decreased	Moderate	Increased	[8]	

The rationale for the initial risk evaluation of material properties is listed in Table 4.

Table 4 Rationale for the initial risk evaluation of material properties

CMA, Critical Material Attributes

Critical Quality Attributes of a drug product  	CMA	Rationale	
Size and Polydispersity Index	Drug      	Size is not significantly affected by drug characteristics when the drugs are dissolved or distributed in lipid or polymeric solutions.	
Solid lipid      	Small changes in size and Polydispersity Index can result from fluctuations in lipid content. If more lipid is present, particle size could grow if it is not fully used.	
Liquid lipid    	 The size of nanocarriers is not significantly impacted by liquid lipid.	
Concentration of the surfactant	  The surfactant has two crucial roles in reducing the size: provide stability to nanocarriers and inhibit particle agglomeration. 	
Encapsulation efficiency	Drug      	Drug characteristics have an impact on encapsulation because drugs that are very lipophilic are more likely to encapsulate.  	
Solid lipid    	The right amount of lipid is needed for better effectiveness in encapsulation. 	
Liquid lipid  	Liquid lipid enhances the efficacy of drug entrapment.	
Concentration of the surfactant	Drug entrapment in surfactants is low.	
Release of the drug	Drug  	The properties of the drugs have a modest effect on the release of drugs.	
Solid lipid	 Lipid encapsulation of the drugs allows for regulated drug release.  	
Liquid lipid    	The impact of liquid lipid content on entrapment efficiency is moderate.  	
Concentration of the surfactant	Drug release is not significantly influenced by the surfactant.  	
Zeta potential	Drug  	Zeta potential is not significantly affected by the drug.	
Solid lipid  	Zeta potential is partially influenced by lipid charge.	
Liquid lipid    	There is minimal impact of liquid lipid on zeta potential.	
Surfactant concentration	Stabilizers transfer charge, which is crucial for zeta potential.  	

Critical Process Parameters

The next group of potential factors influencing CQA variability is Critical Process Parameters, which have a special relationship with the manufacturing process of nano-formulations. Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) include key parameters that need to be kept within specified bounds in order to assure improved product quality. The QTPP and CQAs are directly impacted by these process parameters. The phase addition sequence, batch temperature, quantity, sonication speed and amplitude, stirring period and speed, homogenizing rate, and homogenizing period are a few examples of CPPs for nanocarriers [8]. The preliminary risk evaluation of the manufacturing process is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Preliminary risk evaluation of the manufacturing process

 	                                      Process steps	
 	                                     Size reduction	Temperature	Stirring speed at the end of the process	Reference	
Critical Quality Attributes of a drug product  	Velocity of homogenization  	Sonication intensity of the probe  	Size diminution duration  	 	 	 	
Size        	Increased	Increased	Increased	Moderate	Moderate	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency  	Increased	Increased	Moderate	Moderate	Decreased	[8]	
Release of drug	Decreased	Decreased	Decreased	Increased	Decreased	[8]	
Zeta potential	Decreased	Decreased	Decreased	Decreased	Increased	[8]	

The justifications for the initial risk assessment of the manufacturing process are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 Justification for the initial risk assessment of the manufacturing process

Critical process attributes	Critical Quality Attributes of a drug product  	Reasoning	Reference	
Velocity of homogenization/sonication intensity of the probe    	Size            	A reduction in size significantly affects the dimensions of nanocarriers. Sonication amplitude and homogenization speed decrease their size.	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency      	For hydrophilic drugs, size reduction might lead to the drug leaking into an external phase.	
Drug release    	The process of size reduction does not impact drug release.	
Zeta Potential  	Size reduction does not affect the zeta potential.	
Size reduction time	Size      	The duration of mixing and sonic treatment significantly influences the size.	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency  	The time required for a decrease in size has little effect on encapsulation efficacy.	
Drug release    	The process of size reduction does not influence drug release.  	
Zeta potential	Size reduction does not affect the zeta potential.  	
Temperature	Size        	Temperature affects size in a moderate way. Low temperature in lipid nanocarriers can cause big particles to develop and agglomerate.  	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency        	The impact on entrapment efficiency is moderate. Low temperatures can prevent the entire lipid from melting, which could result in a decrease in entrapment efficiency.  	
Drug release          	The impact of temperature on the release of drugs is moderate. When organic solvents evaporate at a high temperature, porous particles with rapid drug release are produced.	
Zeta potential  	Zeta potential is not much affected by temperature.	
Rate of agitating at the last step of the procedure  	Size          	Particle agglomeration results from low stirring speed, whereas small particle size creation is facilitated by high stirring speed.	[8]	
Encapsulation efficiency  	Stirring speed barely affects the efficiency of entrapment.	
Drug release  	The impact of stirring speed on drug release is low.	
Zeta potential	The impact of stirring speed on zeta potential is low.  	

Safety and potential toxicity issues related to nanocarriers

Nanoparticles

The safety and good tolerance of nanocarriers are crucial considerations for advancing their use in treating eye conditions. Researchers evaluate the ocular toxicity of nanocarriers applied topically using the Draize test and histological studies. Although nanoparticles hold great potential in medicine, their extensive toxicity, highlighted in numerous studies, has constrained their usage. Therefore, rigorous monitoring is now essential to guarantee their safety. Two varieties of polycarboxylic acid nanoparticles loaded with brimonidine were assessed by De et al. [11] for their ability to lower intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients. They used human corneal epithelial cells to demonstrate the biocompatibility and non-toxicity of polyacrylic acid nanoparticles in vitro. In contrast, polyitanconic acid nanoparticles were observed to be harmful to the cells [11]. 

Meanwhile, Vega et al. [12] developed poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles containing flurbiprofen. When administered topically to rabbits in vivo, these nanoparticles showed enhanced anti-inflammatory effects without causing irritation or damage to the adjacent ocular tissues [12]. Prow et al. [13] investigated the safety and toxicity of chitosan, amphiphilic polyphosphoester, and magnetic nanoparticles. They discovered that chitosan administered intravitreally causes ocular irritation. Nanoparticles present an added challenge due to their toxicity and size dynamics. Researchers observed toxicity in gold nanoparticles with a diameter of 1.4 nm, whereas those at a 15 nm diameter showed no toxicity. Additionally, studies indicate that nanoparticles can exhibit tissue toxicity depending on their shapes and morphology, as evidenced in carbon nanotubes [13]. 

Liposomes

Lajavardi et al. [14] found that PEGylated liposomes, which have a polyethylene glycol-coated surface, do not produce ocular inflammation in rats 24 hours after intravitreal injection, even at elevated levels (up to 116 mM lipid, or 1.16 μmol per eye). In addition, no damage was observed in the ocular region 14 days after 50 mM of this formulation was injected, according to a slit-lamp biomicroscopy investigation. As a result, a short- to mid-term intravitreal injection of these liposomes seems safe for the eye [14].

The local toxicity of medications delivered intravitreally by liposomes has been demonstrated to diminish in a number of animal model studies. Certain medications, such as those with anti-infective, anti-inflammatory, immune-suppressive or anti-metabolite characteristics, are less harmful in liposomal formulations than in their free versions. The decreased exposure of tissues to the drug molecules in their free state is responsible for this decrease in ocular toxicity [15].

Liposome-Nanoparticle Complex

Diebold et al. [16] synthesized combinations of liposomes and chitosan nanoparticles. These nanosystems were designed as eye drops capable of penetrating ocular mucosal barriers, combining the beneficial properties of both types of carriers. The scientists used a spontaneously immortalized epithelial cell line from a normal human conjunctiva ionically ordered bilayer assembly/N-hydroxysuccinimide carbonyl linker (IOBA-NHC) to evaluate the toxicity of the nanosystems. They measured cytotoxicity by the formation of a yellow color resulting from the cleavage of (2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide) (XTT) by mitochondrial enzymes. Compared to chitosan nanoparticles alone, the liposome-chitosan nanoparticle complexes showed higher cell viability. An in vivo acute tolerance test showed that the nanosystems did not exhibit any toxicity in either treated or sham-controlled eyes. The clinical microscopic sign score indicated the absence of any eye surface irritation [16].

Nanosuspension

A study comparing the efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen nanosuspension with over-the-counter eye drops was carried out by Boddeda et al. [17]. The flurbiprofen-loaded nanosuspension proved to be non-irritating and non-toxic based on the findings of the Draize evaluation and histological analysis [17].

Nanoemulsion

The safety of several cyclosporine-containing nanosuspensions, created to treat the ocular irritation brought on by Restasis®, was assessed using the Draize and Schirmer examinations. In the Draize assessment, the conjunctiva of both the commercial products and the nanosuspensions slightly reddened due to very little ocular discomfort. But in the Schirmer examination, the nanosuspension outperformed the commercial formulation, with no discernible differences in tear flow rates [18].

Niosomes

The MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) test was employed to assess the potential toxicity of both the free drug and drug-loaded niosomal dispersions on a human corneal epithelial model. Hamad Alyami et al. [19] developed these niosomal formulations and discovered that niosomal formulations made with Span 60 reduced the cell toxicity produced by 2 mg/mL of the free drug. This was observed in both formulations with the surfactant: cholesterol ratios of 1:1 and 2:1. Despite having the largest particle sizes among the studied formulations, the Span 60 niosomes did not cause toxicity, confirming that niosomes smaller than 10 μm do not irritate the eyes. Despite having a sufficiently high entrapment efficiency, niosomal formulations made with Span 40 did not show significant differences in toxicity compared to the free drug. This suggests that the toxicity of the surfactant may contribute to the overall toxicity of the cell, even when the free drug is encapsulated [19].

Due to the sensitivity of the eye to potential toxicity from nanocarriers and their component parts, it is crucial to confirm the safe use of ocular nanocarriers prior to when they are administered to patients [20]. The safety and efficacy of nanocarriers used in ocular drug delivery systems are presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 4 Safety and efficacy of nanocarriers used in ocular drug delivery system

This image was created by Dr. Praiseth Bellston Rajan.

The marketed preparations of nanocarriers used in ophthalmology are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 Marketed preparations of nanocarriers used in ophthalmology.

PMAM, Polyamidoamine.

Nanocarriers	Size	Description	Marketed preparations	
Solid lipid nanoparticles	10 to 500 nm	They are non-toxic carriers and maintain long-term stability and prevent lipophilic drug decomposition. They easily modify the surface for targeted delivery of drugs.	 Natacyn	
Polymeric nanoparticles	<400 nm	Target-specific delivery of drugs. They increase treatment efficacy by avoiding non-specific distribution and reaching the correct ocular tissues. Drug degradation can be prevented. They enhance the absorption of drugs by boosting intracellular penetration.  	 Timoptic	
Liposomes	0.08 to 10.00 µm	Water-soluble as well as fat-soluble drugs can be encapsulated. They are non-toxic and biocompatible. Corneal permeability can be improved.	Lipoquin	
Niosomes	10 to 1000 nm	Drug delivery to ocular tissues with targeted distribution and controlled release, hence improving the drug's bioavailability. They are less toxic, biodegradable, biocompatible, and mucoadhesive.	Cyclopentol	
Nanosuspensions	10 to 1000 nm	They enhance the bioavailability of ophthalmic medicines by improving their ability to dissolve. They also increase the duration of drug release and prolong the residency time in the cul-de-sac because it can make drugs that are poorly soluble in water more soluble in lacrimal fluid.	 Rimoflo T Eye Drops, ILEVRO (Nepafenac ophthalmic suspension)	
Nanostructured lipid carriers	50 to 1000 nm	They are biocompatible and stable and prevent the release of drugs when they are stored. They increase the drug's bioavailability to the ocular tissue.	Tetrandrine	
Nanoemulsion	100 nm	They are clear and thermodynamically stable. They prolong the drug's release and increase its solubility, which lower the frequency of the dose. Corneal permeability is increased.	Cationorm ophthalmic emulsion, Durezol (difluprednate ophthalmic suspension)	
Dendrimers	5 to 20 nm	Delivering lipophilic and hydrophilic drugs is feasible. They increases the solubility of the drugs and demonstrate significant drug loading and sustained release.	PAMAM (G1.5‑4.0), PAMAM core micelle	

Drug delivery methods based on nanotechnology remain to be tested in clinical settings for ocular administration and they are provided in Table 8.

Table 8 Drug delivery methods based on nanotechnology remain to be tested in clinical settings for ocular administration.

FDA, Food and Drug Administration; OCS, oral corticosteroids; AXR, Azelastine and Ketorolac; OTX, ophthalmic therapeutics extended.

Nanocarriers	Drug	Disease	Status	Clinical trials.gov Identifier (FDA)	
Nanoparticles	Paclitaxel	Intraocular melanoma	II	NCT00738361	
Nanoparticles  	OCS‑01‑ dexamethasone cyclodextrin  	Inflammation, corneal pain, postoperative  	II	NCT04130802  	
Nanoparticles      	Urea	Cataract	Randomized single-blind phase II trial	NCT03001466	
Liposome	Latanoprost	Glaucoma	II	NCT02466399	
Liposome	Vincristine	Aggressive tumor of the eye with metastases  	II	NCT00506142	
Nanoemulsion  	Brimonidine tartrate  	Dry eye disease  	III	NCT03785340  	
Nanoemulsion  	Cyclosporine	Dry eye disease  	III	NCT04384991  	
Nanosuspension	Nepafenac  	Diabetic macular edema	II  	NCT01331005  	

Patents for ocular delivery methods for drugs based on nanotechnology are listed in Table 9.

Table 9 Patents for ocular delivery methods for drugs based on nanotechnology

S.No.	Patent number	Title of the patent  	Disease focused  	Year	
1.	US10751337B2	Treatment strategies for dry eye disease and other eye conditions employing preservation-free ocular compositions  	Various eye problems, including dry eye disease  	2020	
2.	CN110664757A	Application and preparation techniques for nanocrystalline eye drops  	Birth-related macular degeneration  	2020	
3.	KR20200000395A	A cyclosporine-containing eye composition and a method of preparation  	A tingling feeling in the eye, conjunctivitis, and dry eye disease	2020	
4.	WO2018233878A1	A clobetasol nanoemulsion composed of oil and water  	Disorders or diseases that cause inflammation	2019	
5.	CN109906075A	Liposome corticosteroid for local administration to an inflammatory lesion or area  	Eye lesion with inflammation  	2019	
6.	JP2019108372A	Nitro phenylboronic acid mixture stabilizes nanoparticles  	To efficiently administer drugs to particular eye targets  	2019	
7.	US20190070302A1	The polymer and drug combine to generate nanoparticles, implants, and microparticles.	Uveitis and wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD)  	2019	
8.	US9931306B2	Conjunctival cul-de-sac using a nanostructured biocompatible wafer  	The ocular surface disease glaucoma  	2018	
9.	US9956195B2	Liposomes containing a minimum of one lipid bilayer, such as phosphatidylcholine and prostaglandin F2α  	Dry eye condition  	2018	
10.	US 10,010,516 t	Technique for controlling the vitality of retinal endothelial cells  	Pathological circumstances affecting retinal endothelial cells  	2018	
11.	AU2013256092B2  	Pharmaceutical nanoparticles with enhanced mucosal transport  	Assist in the delivery of less soluble drugs directly into the eye  	2017	
12.	WO2017152129A2	Therapy for retinal illnesses and/or glaucoma      	Disorders of the retina and glaucoma  	2017	
13.	US 9,320,801 B2	Non irritative nanoemulsion ophthalmic formulation containing cyclosporine  	Dry eye condition	2016	
14.	CN108066315A	The preparation process for ophthalmic puerarin and scutellarin lipid nanoparticles  	Cataract	2016	
15.	CN105726484B	Tetrandrine ophthalmic formulation and preparation technique using seed crystal nanoparticles  	Cataract	2016	

Future perspectives

The recent surge in ocular nanotherapies is largely due to increased collaborations between material researchers and healthcare workers who identify specific clinical needs addressable by material science tools, facilitating rapid translation to clinical applications. Despite advancements in nanotechnology-based strategies for ocular topical therapy, there remains a critical need to develop novel formulations with reduced dosage and administration frequency, enhanced drug release, and action at the target area, and fewer adverse events. The primary focus has shifted toward nanoparticles for topical application and subconjunctival implants, prompting diversification for broader benefits. Future research should prioritize developing safer, more effective nano-formulations capable of delivering small molecules and biologics (such as genes and peptides) to the anterior eye segment. These formulations should also ensure reduced toxicity, high stability, and improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the delivered drugs.

Liposomes have been extensively studied for ocular drug delivery; however, their high cost and rapid clearance from circulation by cells present challenges. Polymeric nanoparticles, on the other hand, offer promising alternatives as they can be easily functionalized with various drugs, are biodegradable, and pose minimal harm. Among them, polymers based on poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) have been effectively utilized in ocular drug delivery systems. Future efforts in nanoparticle development aim to enhance target specificity, prolong the duration of action, and minimize adverse effects.

Nanotechnology represents a significant advancement over traditional ocular drug delivery methods, offering the potential for increased therapeutic efficacy and innovative functionalities. The market for pharmaceuticals used to treat eye illnesses is expected to increase at an average annual rate of around 4.7% between 2018 and 2024, from USD 25.03 billion in 2017 to USD 34.52 billion by the end of 2024. This growth trajectory indicates substantial opportunities for novel therapeutic applications in the near future within the ocular product sector.

Conclusions

The most effective and patient-friendly treatment for ocular diseases is local therapy, owing to the complicated anatomy and physiology of the eye. There is a lot of interest in the topic because targeted medication delivery using nanomedicine to both the front and back of the ocular region aims to address the drawbacks of traditional preparations. The treatment for eye illnesses has become easier due to the use of nanocarriers for controlled and site-specific medication distribution to ocular components. This approach could help patients with eye disorders live better lives, experience less discomfort, and require fewer intravitreal injections. It may also increase treatment efficiency and reduce treatment expenses. Promising techniques such as membrane extrusion, supercritical fluid technology, and microfluidizers offer scalability for manufacturing these advanced drug delivery systems. Several ophthalmic nanomedicines, including hydrogels, advanced Particle Replication In Nonwetting Templates, liposomes (PRINT), nanocrystals, and nanoemulsions, have already been commercialized or are in development, highlighting their potential to revolutionize ocular drug delivery.

Nanotechnology has garnered significant research focus in the United States, accounting for one-third of all publications and half of all patent filings in recent years. With a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 22%, the nanotechnology sector represents a promising area for investment. Numerous medication delivery devices are currently undergoing clinical trials, and the nanomedicine industry is still in its early stages of development. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several intravitreal polymeric drug delivery implants for treating eye disorders. In conclusion, the advantages of novel drug delivery systems such as drug targeting, sustainability, and enhanced bioavailability are undeniable for ocular applications. Therefore, these innovative nanocarriers are expected to see increasing utilization in clinical practice in the future.

The authors thank the SRM College of Pharmacy, SRMIST, for providing tremendous opportunities to accomplish this work.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Damodharan Narayanasamy, Praiseth Bellston Rajan, Jebastin Koilpillai

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Damodharan Narayanasamy, Praiseth Bellston Rajan, Jebastin Koilpillai

Supervision:  Damodharan Narayanasamy

Concept and design:  Praiseth Bellston Rajan

Drafting of the manuscript:  Praiseth Bellston Rajan
==== Refs
References

1 Nanotechnology-based ocular drug delivery systems: recent advances and future prospects J Nanobiotechnology Li S Chen L Fu Y 232 21 2023 37480102
2 Nano-based drug delivery system: recent strategies for the treatment of ocular disease and future perspective Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul Qamar Z Qizilbash FF Iqubal MK Ali A Narang JK Ali J Baboota S 246 254 13 2019 31884933
3 Nanocarriers for ocular drug delivery: current status and translational opportunity RSC Adv Gorantla S Rapalli VK Waghule T Singh PP Dubey SK Saha RN Singhvi G 27835 27855 10 2020 35516960
4 Nanocarriers for ocular drug delivery: recent advances and future opportunities Indian J Ophthalmol Amrutkar CS Patil SB 2355 2366 71 2023 37322644
5 Nanoparticles in ocular applications and their potential toxicity Front Mol Biosci Yang C Yang J Lu A 931759 9 2022 35911959
6 Nanoformulations for ocular delivery of drugs - a patent perspective Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul Dogra A Kaur K Ali J Baboota S Narang RS Narang JK 255 272 13 2019 31985387
7 Emerging nano-formulations and nanomedicines applications for ocular drug delivery Nanomaterials (Basel) Khiev D Mohamed ZA Vichare R 173 11 2021 33445545
8 Application of QbD principles in nanocarrier-based drug delivery systems Pharmaceutical Quality by Design: Principles and Applications Rapalli VK Khosa A Singhvi G Girdhar V Jain R Dubey SK 255 296 London Academic Press 2019
9 Explicating the applications of quality by design tools in optimization of microparticles and nanotechnology based drug delivery systems Biointerface Res Appl Chem Sharma N Singh S Behl T Gupta N Gulia R Kanojia N 4317 4336 12 2022
10 Ophthalmic and otic drug administration: novel approaches and challenges Novel Drug Delivery Technologies: Innovative Strategies for Drug Re-positioning Desai A Shukla M Maulvi F Ranch K Singapore Springer 2019
11 Polycarboxylic acid nanoparticles for ophthalmic drug delivery: an ex vivo evaluation with human cornea J Microencapsul De TK Bergey EJ Chung SJ Rodman DJ Bharali DJ Prasad PN 841 855 21 2004 15799540
12 Flurbiprofen loaded biodegradable nanoparticles for ophtalmic administration J Pharm Sci Vega E Egea MA Valls O Espina M García ML 2393 2405 95 2006 16886193
13 Toxicity of nanomaterials to the eye Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Prow TW 317 333 2 2010 20077524
14 Downregulation of endotoxin-induced uveitis by intravitreal injection of vasoactive intestinal Peptide encapsulated in liposomes Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Lajavardi L Bochot A Camelo S 3230 3238 48 2007 17591893
15 Liposomes for intravitreal drug delivery: a state of the art J Control Release Bochot A Fattal E 628 634 161 2012 22289436
16 Ocular drug delivery by liposome-chitosan nanoparticle complexes (LCS-NP) Biomaterials Diebold Y Jarrín M Sáez V 1553 1564 28 2007 17169422
17 Design and ocular tolerance of flurbiprofen loaded nanosuspension Pharm Nanotechnol Boddeda B Boddu P Avasarala H Jayanti VR 56 67 3 2015
18 Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of a novel cyclosporin A nanoemulsion in the treatment of dry eye syndrome J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Kim HS Kim TI Kim JH Yoon KC Hyon JY Shin KU Choi CY 530 538 33 2017 28759302
19 Nonionic surfactant vesicles (niosomes) for ocular drug delivery: development, evaluation and toxicological profiling J Drug Deliv Sci Technol Alyami H Abdelaziz K Dahmash EZ Iyire A 102069 60 2020
20 Novel nanosystems for the treatment of ocular inflammation: current paradigms and future research directions J Control Release Lalu L Tambe V Pradhan D 19 39 268 2017 28756272
