Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Published date: Oct 30 2025

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: ‎Volume 20 - 2025

Pages: 1 - 11

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v20.15595

Shahla Mirzaeeishahlamirzaeei@gmail.comPharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah

Mojtaba Eidizadehkord56@gmail.comClinical Research Development Center, Imam Khomeini and Mohammad Kermanshahi and Farabi Hospitals, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah

Abbas Khosraviabbas.khosravi2000@gmail.comClinical Research Development Center, Imam Khomeini and Mohammad Kermanshahi and Farabi Hospitals, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah

Masood Bagheribagheri.m1368@gmail.comClinical Research Development Center, Imam Khomeini and Mohammad Kermanshahi and Farabi Hospitals, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah

Shiva Tagheshivataghe@gmail.comPharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of ceftazidime-containing nanofibers in treating corneal ulcers induced by the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an animal model.

Methods: This animal-assisted intervention involved 12 adult male New Zealand rabbits, each weighing between 3.5 and 4 kg. The animals were randomly assigned to two groups of six: an intervention group that received a ceftazidime nanofiber insert treatment and a control group that received no treatment. In the intervention group, the right eye was used as a test sample for ulcer induction and ceftazidime-loaded nanofiber examination, while the left eye served as a control to observe any inflammatory or irritating symptoms caused by the nanofiber in the absence of the active pharmaceutical compound. Examinations were performed daily, with slit lamp images taken on days 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15. Clinical responses were recorded and graded according to a clinical examination table.

Results: Prior to the intervention, both groups exhibited a similar severity of corneal ulcers. After 48 hours, four of the six rabbits in the intervention group were positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in their cultures, and the remaining two tested negative. Meanwhile, in the control group, three rabbits had positive cultures and three had negative cultures. After 96 hours from the onset of the treatment and the application of the ceftazidime nanofiber insert, three rabbits that initially presented with positive cultures exhibited negative cultures in the subsequent examinations; however, one rabbit still had positive smear and culture results. On day 9, the intervention group showed complete disappearance of infiltration and epithelial damage. However, the rabbit eyes in the control group demonstrated increased signs of involvement on days 6 and 9 compared to the previous examinations. Furthermore, the clinical results indicated a significant difference in the mean corneal ulcer scores between the two groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Given the observed effectiveness of the developed nanofiber in treating corneal ulcers induced by P. aeruginosa, this nanodrug delivery system has the potential to serve as a viable option for ocular drug delivery.

Keywords: Animal Model, Ceftazidime, Corneal Ulcer, Drug Delivery, Nanofiber Insert

1. Ung L, Bispo PJ, Shanbhag SS, Gilmore MS, Chodosh J. The persistent dilemma of microbial keratitis: Global burden, diagnosis, and antimicrobial resistance. Surv Ophthalmol 2019;64:255–271.

2. Gilani CJ, Yang A, Yonkers M, Boysen-Osborn M. Differentiating urgent and emergent causes of acute red eye for the emergency physician. West J Emerg Med 2017;18:509–517.

3. Lin A, Rhee MK, Akpek EK, Amescua G, Farid M, Garcia- Ferrer FJ, et al.; American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Cornea and External Disease Panel. Bacterial keratitis preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology 2019;126:1–P55.

4. Gause S, Hsu KH, Shafor C, Dixon P, Powell KC, Chauhan A. Mechanistic modeling of ophthalmic drug delivery to the anterior chamber by eye drops and contact lenses. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2016;233:139–154.

5. Ting DS, Ho CS, Cairns J, Elsahn A, Al-Aqaba M, Boswell T, et al. 12-year analysis of incidence, microbiological profiles and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of infectious keratitis: the Nottingham Infectious Keratitis Study. Br J Ophthalmol 2021;105:328–333.

6. Gaudana R, Ananthula HK, Parenky A, Mitra AK. Ocular drug delivery. AAPS J 2010;12:348–360.

7. Ghate D, Edelhauser HF. Ocular drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2006;3:275–287.

8. Parveen N, Joshi H. Ocuserts: A novel formulation approach in drug delivery system. Saudi J Med Pharm Sci 2020;4929:420–425.

9. Vikram S, Simon K, Jennifer L, David A, Robert L, Evan S. Fundamentals and principles of ophthalmology. Elsevier. American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2022.

10. Taghe S, Mirzaeei S, Bagheri M. Preparation of polycaprolactone and polymethacrylate nanofibers for controlled ocular delivery of ketorolac tromethamine: Pharmacokinetic study in Rabbit’s Eye. Eur J Pharm Sci 2024;192:106631.

11. Paswan SK, Verma P, Yadav MS, Bhowmik D, Gupta SS, Azmi L, et al. Advance technique in ocular. World J Pharm Pharm Sci 2015;4:346–365.

12. Sachdeva D, Bhandari A. Design, formulation, evaluation of levobunolol HCl ocular inserts. J Pharm Sci 2011;3:1625.

13. Gurtler F, Gurny R. Patent literature review of ophthalmic inserts. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1995;21:1–18.

14. Taghe S, Mirzaeei S, Ahmadi A. Preparation and evaluation of nanofibrous and film-structured ciprofloxacin hydrochloride inserts for sustained ocular delivery: Pharmacokinetic study in rabbit’s eye. Life 2023;13:913.

15. Patton TF, Robinson JR. Quantitative precorneal disposition of topically applied pilocarpine nitrate in rabbit eyes. J Pharm Sci 1976;65:1295–1301.

16. Favre D. International convention for the protection of animals. Animal Law Legal Center; 1988.

17. ISO. ISO 10993-10: 2010 Biological evaluation of medical devices–Part 10: Tests for irritation and skin sensitization. ISO; 2010.

18. Taghe S, Mirzaeei S. Preservative-free electrospun nanofibrous inserts for sustained delivery of ceftazidime; Design, characterization and pharmacokinetic investigation in rabbit’s eye. Int J Pharm X 2024;8:100297.

19. Lee EJ, Evans DJ, Fleiszig SM. Role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ExsA in penetration through corneal epithelium in a novel in vivo model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:5220–5227.

20. Gote V, Sikder S, Sicotte J, Pal D. Ocular drug delivery: Present innovations and future challenges. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2019;370:602–624.

21. Tanwar Y, Patel D, Sisodia S. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of ocular inserts of ofloxacin. DARU 2007;15:139–145.

22. Mirzaeei S, Barfar D. Design and development of antibacterial/anti-inflammatory dual drug-loaded nanofibrous inserts for ophthalmic sustained delivery of gentamicin and methylprednisolone: In vitro bioassay, solvent, and method effects’ evaluation. Adv Pharm Bull 2022;12:531–540.

23. Mirzaeei S, Taghe S, Asare-Addo K, Nokhodchi A. Polyvinyl alcohol/chitosan single-layered and polyvinyl alcohol/chitosan/eudragit rl100 multi-layered electrospun nanofibers as an ocular matrix for the controlled release of ofloxacin: An in vitro and in vivo evaluation. AAPS PharmSciTech 2021;22:170.

24. Karataş A, Algan AH, Pekel-Bayramgil N, Turhan F, Altanlar N. Ofloxacin loaded electrospun fibers for ocular drug delivery: Effect of formulation variables on fiber morphology and drug release. Curr Drug Deliv 2016;13:433–443.

25. Chen DW, Hsu YH, Liao JY, Liu SJ, Chen JK, Ueng SW. Sustainable release of vancomycin, gentamicin and lidocaine from novel electrospun sandwich-structured PLGA/collagen nanofibrous membranes. Int J Pharm 2012;430:335–341.

26. Mansouri K, Rostaminasab G, Ahmadi Jouybari T, Bagheri M. The use of orthokine therapy for the treatment of post refractive surgery corneal ulcer, a case report. Int Immunopharmacol 2023;120:110273.