Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Composite contact-lens design controls half-release time through polymer position, thickness and diffusion ratio in vial, blinking wear and blister-pack storage.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 04:35 UTC pith:3LBTOUH3

load-bearing objection Solid design maps for composite-lens t50 under blinking and storage; the midline-reversal claim is real under their continuous-interface model but untested against finite interfacial resistance. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05633 v1 pith:3LBTOUH3 submitted 2026-07-06 physics.bio-ph

Drug release dynamics from a three-layer composite contact lens in the vial, eye wear with blinking, and blister pack settings

Daniel M. Anderson , Rayanne A. Luke This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords blinkingcomposite lenscontact lensdrug deliveryencapsulated lenstear filmt50diffusion model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds a three-layer diffusion model for contact lenses that sandwich a drug-loaded polymer film inside hydrogel. It shows that the time to release half the drug, t50, is set by the interplay of three design knobs: how slowly the polymer diffuses relative to the hydrogel, where the polymer sits between the two faces of the lens, and how thick the polymer layer is. Under blinking the usual geometric intuition can reverse; when polymer diffusion is slow, shifting the film can temporarily trap drug on the slower-clearing side and lengthen release. In a blister pack, a modest drug load in the surrounding fluid can keep half the original dose inside the lens for a week or a month. The model is calibrated to animal data and is meant to give quantitative levers for sustained ocular delivery that avoids the burst release of ordinary soaked lenses.

Core claim

The dimensionless half-release time is a nontrivial function of polymer midline position, polymer thickness and the polymer-to-hydrogel diffusion ratio D. For small D the dependence of dimensional t50 on midline position can reverse under blinking, because drug that has entered the post-lens hydrogel is temporarily trapped between the slow polymer film and the slowly clearing post-lens tear film.

What carries the argument

Three coupled one-dimensional diffusion PDEs for the posterior hydrogel, the polymer insert and the anterior hydrogel, with continuous concentration and flux imposed at the two internal interfaces; cumulative released mass then defines t50 through the simple condition that half the initial load has left the lens.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats the polymer-hydrogel boundaries as perfectly continuous in concentration, ignoring any finite mass-transfer resistance that real layered materials may possess.

What would settle it

Fabricate composite lenses with measured small D and deliberately off-center polymer films, wear them under controlled blinking, and test whether the predicted trapping-induced rise or fall in t50 appears in the measured cumulative-release curves.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Designers can lengthen or shorten therapeutic release from hours to days by choosing D and polymer placement rather than simply thickening the lens.
  • A blister-pack concentration of only a few percent of the polymer load is enough to keep half the drug inside the lens for a month of storage.
  • Knowing the relative pre- and post-lens clearance rates tells whether the polymer should be placed closer to the cornea or closer to the air interface.
  • The same three parameters can be tuned to approach near-zero-order release kinetics without an initial burst.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Coupling the blister-pack storage model to realistic multi-day wear cycles would quantify residual drug after overnight storage and help set single-day versus multi-day product specifications.
  • A finite interfacial mass-transfer coefficient would further slow release beyond the predictions that rely on D alone, offering an extra manufacturing control.
  • The trapping mechanism identified for blinking wear may also operate in other layered ocular inserts that seek zero-order kinetics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a one-dimensional three-layer diffusion model for a composite contact lens (drug-polymer insert between two hydrogel layers) and studies the time to 50% drug release, t50, in three settings: perfect-sink vial, eye wear with blinking (adapting the authors’ prior tear-film/blink model), and blister-pack storage. After nondimensionalization, t50 is shown to depend on the polymer-to-hydrogel diffusivity ratio D, the dimensionless polymer thickness ΔH̄, and the polymer midline H̄mid (Eq. 35). Diffusivities are hand-tuned to Ross et al. (2019) cumulative-release data; the calibrated model is then used to map t50 over the design space and to demonstrate that, under blinking with asymmetric pre-/post-lens clearance, the dependence of t50 on H̄mid can reverse for small D because of temporary trapping of drug in the post-lens hydrogel (Figs. 8–9, Table 3). Blister-pack calculations address storage concentrations needed to retain half the load for one week or one month.

Significance. Composite (encapsulated-film) lenses are a leading experimental route to near-zero-order ocular delivery; a systematic parametric map of t50 across geometry and diffusivity, especially under realistic blinking, is of clear interest to both modelers and lens designers. The work correctly implements standard multi-layer diffusion, supplies transparent calibration to published rabbit data, and produces falsifiable ordering predictions (midline reversal at small D). The blister-pack storage estimates are practically useful. Strengths include the explicit nondimensional reduction (Eq. 35), the anterior–posterior invariance argument, and the open discussion of the continuous-interface idealization relative to Pimenta and Gudnason. The principal limitation is that the continuous-concentration interface (α o∞) is never bounded against finite mass-transfer resistance, so the quantitative reliability of the trapping/reversal claim remains open.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.1 Eqs. (11),(14) / dimensionless (23),(26) and the discussion in §6.2: the continuous-concentration (and continuous-flux) interface is the formal α o∞ limit of the mass-transfer conditions used by Pimenta et al. and Gudnason et al. The claimed midline-reversal of t50 for small D under blinking (Figs. 8–9, Table 3) relies on free exchange between the polymer insert and the post-lens hydrogel so that drug can be temporarily trapped. With finite α the flux out of the polymer is throttled and the trapping mechanism is quantitatively altered. Because D1 itself was hand-tuned under the continuous assumption and no bound or sensitivity study on α is supplied, it is unclear whether the reported ordering of t50 with H̄mid survives realistic interfacial resistance. A short parametric sweep in α (or an effective-diffusivity argument of the type already cited from Gudnason) is needed to establish
  2. §3.3.1 and Table 1: D1 and D2 are obtained by hand-tuning to a single cumulative-release curve (Ross et al.). No uncertainty quantification, residual analysis, or leave-one-out check is reported. All subsequent t50 maps are forward predictions of this single calibrated point. At minimum the manuscript should state the sensitivity of the qualitative trends (especially the sign of ∂t50/∂H̄mid at small D) to modest variations in D around the fitted value, or supply a formal least-squares fit with confidence intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 6 and Figure 7 color-bar scales differ substantially across panels; a common scale (or explicit note of the scale change) would aid visual comparison of the D-dependence.
  2. Table 1 lists k=0 for the vial while Table 2 uses k=2 for eye wear; a brief sentence explaining why the partition coefficient is set differently in the two settings would remove ambiguity.
  3. The code-availability statement promises a GitHub repository but does not yet give a permanent DOI or commit hash; providing one would strengthen reproducibility.
  4. Typographical: “coefficient” appears repeatedly with a double-f ligature that may render inconsistently; standardize to “coefficient.”
  5. §4.2: the statement that a typical D=0.002 data point required 8–12 hours on a laptop is useful for reproducibility but could be moved to a methods or SI note so that it does not interrupt the scientific narrative.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

One-time hand-fit of D1/D2 to Ross vial data plus self-citation of authors’ prior blink-reset model; subsequent t50 maps and midline-reversal claims are ordinary forward parametric explorations of the calibrated PDE system, not forced by construction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.3.1 / Fig. 2b]
    "Model parameters, namely diffusion coefficients, are hand-tuned to fit this data in Figure 2b; we find D2 = 7 × 10−13 m2/s (hydrogel) and D1 = 1.4 × 10−15 m2/s (drug-polymer film). Note that this yields the ratio D = D1/D2 = 0.002. We continue to use parameter values pertaining to Ross et al. [19], but investigate the effect of changing model parameters on drug concentration and cumulative release."

    D is fixed by matching the base-case vial release curve; every subsequent t50 value reported for that same D (and nearby D values) is therefore a direct numerical consequence of the fit rather than an independent forecast. The circularity is mild because the paper never claims the base t50 itself is a prediction and because the interesting claims concern the functional dependence on H̄mid and ΔH̄, which are not part of the fit.

  2. self citation load bearing [§4 opening paragraph and blink/reset conditions (54)–(62)]
    "In this section we adapt our previous model (Anderson & Luke [31]) to simulate the dynamics of drug release from the composite CL during wear and blinking. We use the same blink/reset conditions as in Anderson & Luke [31] (see their equations (30a)–(30f)) ¯C slide_post = ¯Cpost(t−_blink) (1 − 3ΔXcl / 2π Reff_cl)."

    All eye-wear t50 values, the spatial asymmetry of concentration profiles, and the claimed midline-reversal / trapping effect (Figs. 8–9, Table 3) rest on the pre- and post-lens clearance rates supplied by the authors’ own prior blink model. Those rates are imported without re-derivation or external validation inside the present paper; the new composite-layer results therefore inherit their quantitative ordering from the self-cited reset map.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained once the three-layer diffusion system (Eqs. 9–18 / 21–30) and the continuous-interface conditions (Eqs. 11,14) are accepted. D1 and D2 are hand-tuned once to the Ross et al. cumulative-release curves (Fig. 2b); all later t50(H̄mid, ΔH̄, D) surfaces (Figs. 5–7, 9, Tables 3–4) and the trapping argument under blinking are simply numerical outputs of that fixed model under varied geometry and clearance rates. No quantity that was fitted is later re-presented as an independent prediction, and the maps do not feed back into the fit. The only self-citation that is load-bearing for the eye-wear results is the reuse of the blink-reset conditions of Anderson & Luke (2024); those conditions are taken as given and are not re-derived or used to force the new composite-lens claims. Continuity of concentration (the α o∞ limit) is an explicit modeling choice discussed in §6.2, not a circular reduction. Hence circularity is minor and does not undermine the central parametric findings.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central t50 maps rest on three free diffusivities/partition numbers fitted or chosen by hand, a set of standard continuum-diffusion axioms, and the modeling idealizations (continuous interfaces, 1-D transport, blink-reset rules) that convert the physical lens into the three-layer PDE system. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • D1 (polymer diffusivity) = 1.4e-15 m^{2}/s
    Hand-tuned to 1.4e-15 m^{2}/s so that the composite-lens cumulative-release curve matches Ross et al. rabbit data (Fig. 2b).
  • D2 (hydrogel diffusivity) = 7e-13 m^{2}/s
    Hand-tuned to 7e-13 m^{2}/s to match the same Ross et al. data set; also used as the reference scale for all dimensionless times.
  • partition coefficient k = 0 or 2
    Set to 0 (perfect sink) in vial comparisons and to 2 in eye/blister simulations; value taken from prior literature but not re-measured for the composite geometry.
  • pre-lens blink-loss fraction p = scanned 0–1
    Treated as a free parameter scanned over [0,1]; controls the strength of anterior–posterior asymmetry under blinking.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption One-dimensional diffusion dominates because Hcl/Rcl = O(10^{-2})
    Stated in §2 and used to reduce the annular insert to three coupled 1-D PDEs.
  • domain assumption Concentration and flux continuous at polymer–hydrogel interfaces (α o∞ limit)
    Eqs. 11–15 / 23–27; acknowledged as a special case of the finite-α conditions of Pimenta and Gudnason.
  • domain assumption Blink-induced mass loss is captured by instantaneous reset maps (p and peff_slide)
    Imported from the authors’ prior model [31] and applied after every inter-blink interval (§4.1).
  • domain assumption Drug initially present only inside the polymer insert; hydrogel starts empty
    Initial conditions of §3.1; matches the manufacturing description of Ross et al. and Bengani et al.
  • standard math Linear Fickian diffusion with constant coefficients in each layer
    Standard continuum assumption underlying all three PDEs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 34941 in / 3136 out tokens · 28533 ms · 2026-07-11T04:35:23.255887+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we design a multi-layer model of composite contact lens drug release. Such lenses have been designed by encapsulating drug-polymer films in contact lens hydrogels. Composite lenses can promote sustained discharge of drug and achieve near zero-order release kinetics, thus surpassing other ocular delivery methods that are limited by short residence times and an undesirable initial burst release. Our model is informed by in vivo data, and includes three coupled partial differential equation layers to simulate the composite lens. We mathematically investigate the effect of composite contact lens design characteristics on the time to $50\%$ therapeutic drug release ($t_{50}$) in the vial, eye, and blister pack settings. In the eye setting, we incorporate our prior model that considers the effect of many blinks on the pre- and post-lens tear film drug concentrations. We simulate drug cumulative release profiles and study the variability of $t_{50}$ across: (1) the ratio of the drug-polymer film to hydrogel diffusion coefficients, (2) the centerline of the polymer film within the hydrogel, and (3) the polymer film thickness. In the blister pack setting, we study storage questions that may inform future commercial design. This work may help medical professionals better understand the mechanics of contact lens drug delivery and predict targeted tissue transport of ophthalmic drugs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05633 by Daniel M. Anderson, Rayanne A. Luke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic that describes the geometry of the composite lens model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Vial setting: simulated drug concentration and release profiles calibrated to fit data from Ross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Vial setting: simulated drug concentration in the lens for drug-polymer films that are (a) half the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vial setting: cumulative drug release profiles. Effects of varying (a) the initial drug mass loaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vial setting: contour plot of t¯50 − t¯classic 50 for the case D = 1 corresponding to the polymer and hydrogel regions having the same diffusion coefficient (recall t¯classic 50 ≈ 0.0492). The thick red-dashed lines indicate the zero contour where t¯50 = t¯classic 50 . The dotted lines indicate the extreme values of the parameters H¯mid and ∆H¯ corresponding to zero thickness polymer layer (bottom of trian… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vial setting: dimensionless t¯50 plotted as functions of ∆H¯ and H¯mid for four different values of D: 10−2 (upper left), 10−1 (upper right), 1 (lower left), 10 (lower right); recall t¯classic 50 ≈ 0.0492. Note the differences in t¯50-axis and color bar scales across the four subplots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vial setting: contour plots of t¯50 − t¯classic 50 as functions of ∆H¯ and H¯mid for four different values of D: 10−2 (upper left), 10−1 (upper right), 1 (lower left), 10 (lower right). Thick red-dashed lines indicate the zero contour where t¯50 = t¯classic 50 . Note the differences in color bar scales across the four subplots. predicted t¯50 depends on the quantity |H¯mid − 0.5| but not on the sign of H¯m… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eye wear with blinking setting: contact lens drug concentration profiles from the post- to pre-lens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Eye wear with blinking setting: dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Eye wear with blinking setting: contact lens drug concentration profiles from the post- to pre-lens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Blister pack setting: contact lens drug concentration profiles for a range of equally-spaced time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Blister pack setting: (a) contact lens drug concentration profile for a range of equally-spaced time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Blister pack setting: contact lens drug concentration profile for a range of equally-spaced time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Blister pack setting: (a) contact lens drug concentration profile and (b) blister pack drug mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Vial soaking/uptake setting: contact lens drug concentration profile. (a): for a range of equally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Li and A

    C.-C. Li and A. Chauhan. Modeling ophthalmic drug delivery by soaked contact lenses. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 45(10):3718–3734, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    Bengani, K.-H

    L. Bengani, K.-H. Hsu, S. Gause, and A. Chauhan. Contact lenses as a platform for ocular drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. , 10:1483–1496, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Carvalho, C.S

    I.M. Carvalho, C.S. Marques, R.S. Oliveira, P.B. Coelho, P.C. Costa, and D.C. Ferreira. Sustained drug release by contact lenses for glaucoma treatment–a review. J. Control. Release , 202:76–82, 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    Fraunfelder and S.M

    F.T. Fraunfelder and S.M. Meyer. Systemic side effects from ophthalmic timolol and their prevention. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. , 3:177–184, 1987

    1987

  5. [5]

    Franco and I

    P. Franco and I. De Marco. Contact lenses as ophthalmic drug delivery systems: A review. Polymers, 13(7):1102, 2021. 30

    2021

  6. [6]

    L. Zhao, J. Song, Y. Du, C. Ren, B. Guo, and H. Bi. Therapeutic applications of contact lens-based drug delivery systems in ophthalmic diseases. Drug Deliv. , 30(1):2219419, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    C.M. Phan, M. Bajgrowicz, H. Gao, L.N. Subbaraman, and L.W. Jones. Release of fluconazole from contact lenses using a novel in vitro eye model. Optom. Vis. Sci. , 93(4):387–394, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    Mohamdeen, A.G

    Y.M.G. Mohamdeen, A.G. Tabriz, M. Tighsazzadeh, U. Nandi, R. Khalaj, et al. Development of 3D printed drug-eluting contact lenses. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. , 74(10):1467–1476, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    P. Garg, P. Shokrollahi, H.F. Darge, C.M. Phan, and L.W. Jones. 3D-printed contact lenses to release polyvinyl alcohol as a therapeutic agent for the treatment of dry eyes. Pharmaceutics, 17(2):219, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Manjeri and S.D

    A. Manjeri and S.D. George. Hydrogel-embedded polydimethylsiloxane contact lens for ocular drug delivery. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. , 7(11):7324–7331, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Gulsen and A

    D. Gulsen and A. Chauhan. Dispersion of microemulsion drops in HEMA hydrogel: a potential oph- thalmic drug delivery vehicle. Int. J. Pharm. , 292(1-2):95–117, 2005

    2005

  12. [12]

    Ciolino, T.R

    J.B. Ciolino, T.R. Hoare, N.G. Iwata, I. Behlau, C.H. Dohlman, R. Langer, et al. A drug-eluting contact lens. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci , 50:3346–3352, 2009

    2009

  13. [13]

    Kudryavtseva, M

    V. Kudryavtseva, M. Otero, J. Zhang, A. Bukatin, D. Gould, and G.B. Sukhorukov. Drug-eluting sandwich hydrogel lenses based on microchamber film drug encapsulation. ACS Nanosci. Au , 3(3):256– 265, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Y. Wei, Y. Hu, X. Shen, X. Zhang, J. Guan, and S. Mao. Design of circular-ring film embedded contact lens for improved compatibility and sustained ocular drug delivery. Eur. J. Pharma. Biopharm. , 157:28– 37, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Karlgard, N.S

    C.C.S. Karlgard, N.S. Wong, L.W. Jones, and C. Moresoli. In vitro uptake and release studies of ocular pharmaceutical agents by silicon-containing and p-HEMA hydrogel contact lens materials. Int. J. Pharm. , 257(1-2):141–151, 2003

    2003

  16. [16]

    A. Hui, M. Willcox, and L.W. Jones. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of novel ciprofloxacin-releasing silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. , 55(8):4896–4904, 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    Ciolino, C.F

    J.B. Ciolino, C.F. Stefanescu, A.E. Ross, B. Salvador-Culla, P. Cortez, E.M. Ford, et al. In vivo performance of a drug-eluting contact lens to treat glaucoma for a month. Biomaterials, 35(1):432–439, 2014

    2014

  18. [18]

    Pimenta, A.P

    A.F.R. Pimenta, A.P. Serro, P. Paradiso, B. Saramago, and R. Colaço. Diffusion-based design of multi- layered ophthalmic lenses for controlled drug release. PLoS One , 11(12):e0167728, 2016

    2016

  19. [19]

    Ross, L.C

    A.E. Ross, L.C. Bengani, R. Tulsan, D.E. Maidana, B. Salvador-Culla, et al. Topical sustained drug delivery to the retina with a drug-eluting contact lens. Biomaterials, 217:119285, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Bengani, H

    L.C. Bengani, H. Kobashi, A.E. Ross, H. Zhai, B. Salvador-Culla, R. Tulsan, et al. Steroid-eluting contact lenses for corneal and intraocular inflammation. Acta Biomater. , 116:149–161, 2020

    2020

  21. [21]

    Kuang, A.E

    L. Kuang, A.E. Ross, L. Chen, L.N. Kanu, N. Boychev, A. Ghaffarieh, et al. Overcoming antimicro- bial resistance in bacterial keratitis with an antibiotic-eluting contact lens. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. , 66(15):38–38, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Kim, M.C

    Y.H. Kim, M.C. Lin, and C.J. Radke. Central-to-peripheral corneal edema during wear of embedded- component contact lenses. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye , 45(1):101443, 2022. 31

    2022

  23. [23]

    Pereira-da Mota, C.M

    A.F. Pereira-da Mota, C.M. Phan, A. Concheiro, L.W. Jones, and C. Alvarez-Lorenzo. Testing drug release from medicated contact lenses: The missing link to predict in vivo performance. J. Control. Release, 343:672–702, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Toffoletto, B

    N. Toffoletto, B. Saramago, A.P. Serro, and A. Chauhan. A physiology-based mathematical model to understand drug delivery from contact lenses to the back of the eye. Pharm. Res. , 40(8):1939–1951, 2023

    work page 1939

  25. [25]

    Carichino, K.L

    L. Carichino, K.L. Maki, N.D. Gunputh, and C.M. Phan. A meta-analysis of in vitro release of hy- drophilic therapeutics from contact lenses using mathematical modeling. Pharmaceutics, 17(11):1479, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Ferreira, P

    J.A. Ferreira, P. Oliveira, P.M. Silva, A. Carreira, and J.N. Murta. Sustained drug release from contact lenses. Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. , 60(2):151, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Ferreira, P

    J.A. Ferreira, P. De Oliveira, and P.M. Da Silva. Mathematical analysis of waiting times for reaching therapeutic effects. Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. , 76(3&4):163, 2011

    2011

  28. [28]

    Gudnason, S

    K. Gudnason, S. Solodova, A. Vilardell, M. Masson, S. Sigurdsson, and F. Jonsdottir. Numerical simulation of franz diffusion experiment: Application to drug loaded soft contact lenses. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol., 38:18–27, 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Gudnason, S

    K. Gudnason, S. Sigurdsson, B.S. Snorradottir, M. Masson, and F. Jonsdottir. A numerical framework for drug transport in a multi-layer system with discontinuous interlayer condition. Math. Biosci. , 295:11–23, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Gudnason, S

    K. Gudnason, S. Sigurdsson, and F. Jonsdottir. Multi-region finite element modelling of drug release from hydrogel based ophthalmic lenses. Math. Biosci. , 331:108497, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Anderson and R.A

    D.M. Anderson and R.A. Luke. Mathematical models of drug delivery via a contact lens during wear. La Matematica, 3(4):1510–1564, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    C.-M. Phan, M. Shukla, H. Walther, M. Heynen, D. Suh, and L. Jones. Development of an in vitro blink model for ophthalmic drug delivery. Pharmaceutics, 13(3):300, 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Nichols, G.L

    J.J. Nichols, G.L. Mitchell, and P.E. King-Smith. Thinning rate of the precorneal and prelens tear films. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. , 46(7):2353–2361, 2005

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    On tear film breakup (TBU): dynamics and imaging

    Richard J Braun, Tobin A Driscoll, Carolyn G Begley, P Ewen King-Smith, and Javed I Siddique. On tear film breakup (TBU): dynamics and imaging. Math Med Biol , 35(2):145–180, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Hamilton

    R.S. Hamilton. Packaging for contact lenses. U.S. Patent, June 2007. Filed November 7, 2002

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    D.E. Liu, C. Kotsmar, F. Nguyen, T. Sells, N.O. Taylor, J.M. Prausnitz, et al. Macromolecule sorption and diffusion in HEMA/MAA hydrogels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 52:18109–18120, 2013

    2013

  37. [37]

    de la Cruz and Y.G

    G.G. de la Cruz and Y.G. Gurevich. Thermal diffusion of a two-layer system. Physical Review B , 51(4):2188–2192, 1995

    1995

  38. [38]

    Saettone and L

    M.F. Saettone and L. Salminen. Ocular inserts for topical delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. , 16(1):95–106, 1995

    1995

  39. [39]

    Mariz, J

    M. Mariz, J. Murta, M.H. Gil, and P. Ferreira. An ocular insert with zero-order extended delivery: Release kinetics and mathematical models. Eur. J. Pharma. Biopharm. , 181:79–87, 2022

    2022

  40. [40]

    US Regulatory Approval of a Drug-Eluting Contact Lens

    G.D Novack. US Regulatory Approval of a Drug-Eluting Contact Lens. Eye & Contact Lens , 49(4):136– 138, 2023. 32

    2023