This invention generally relates to medical devices.
A drug can be delivered to a patient by a medical device. Drug-delivering devices generally release the drugs too fast or too slow to achieve desired therapeutic effects. The volume of drug released to the patient can exceed therapeutic, and even toxic, levels for example. Also, when a drug releases immediately from a medical device, additional doses of the drug may need to be delivered to the patient.
The invention relates to controlled delivery of one or more drugs to a body of a patient via a medical device placed in the patient's body. A medical device, according to the invention, can deliver one or more drugs over a desired period of time and at a desired level or volume. The invention allows the release of the drug(s) from the device in a controlled manner, both in terms of the release time and amount. For example, a relatively constant and therapeutic level of a drug can be released into the body from a device over a relatively long period of time, whereas other drug-delivering devices cannot achieve such a sustained and constant drug release profile.
In one aspect, the invention features a medical device for placement in a human or other mammal. The device comprises a polymeric matrix forming (entirely or partially) the device and defining a lumen through the device. The matrix comprises polymer macromolecules and defines spaces between the macromolecules. The device also comprises a drug contained within at least some of the spaces and a material contained within at least some of the spaces. The material affects diffusion of the drug out of the matrix when the device is placed in the body.
In one embodiment according to this aspect of the invention, the molecular weight of the material is greater than that of the drug, thereby hindering and prolonging diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. In another embodiment, the material chemically associates with at least the drug such that the drug must disassociate from the material before diffusing out of the matrix. The device can be a ureteral stent or a catheter, for example, and it can be placed entirely or partially within the patient's body.
In another aspect, the invention involves a hydrophobic polymeric matrix for coating (entirely or partially) a medical device. The polymeric matrix comprises polymer macromolecules and spaces between the macromolecules. A drug and a material are contained within at least some of the spaces, and the material affects diffusion.
In one embodiment according to this other aspect of the invention, the molecular weight of the material is greater than that of the drug, thereby hindering and prolonging diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. In another embodiment, the material chemically associates with at least the drug such that the drug must disassociate from the material before diffusing out of the matrix.
In yet another aspect, the invention relates to a method of drug delivery. The method comprises placing a device, entirely or partially, into a body of a human or other mammal. The medical device is capable of delivering a therapeutic level of a drug to the body at a predetermined time after the device is placed into the body. The method also comprises providing a second drug to the body prior to the predetermined time to deliver a therapeutic level of the second drug to the body before the predetermined time. In one embodiment, the medical device comprises a polymeric matrix as described above.
The foregoing and other objects, aspects, features, and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following description and from the claims.
The drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.
In accordance with the invention, a medical device can be used as a vehicle to deliver one or more drugs to the body of a patient. A ureteral stent, catheter, and/or other medical device can be used to deliver the drug(s) by placing the device entirely or partially in the body of a patient. By using certain material(s) and drug(s) in a polymeric matrix, the diffusion of the drug(s) out of the matrix can be controlled in ways previously unachievable. The invention allows, for example, one or more drugs to be administered to the patient's body over a sustained time (ranging from days to months, for example) and at a relatively constant, and therapeutic, level.
A drug-delivering medical device according to the invention can be formed (entirely or partially) of a polymeric matrix, loaded with the drug(s) and material(s) that affect the diffusion of the drug(s) out of the matrix when the device is placed in the body of a human or other mammal. The device can be a ureteral stent, a catheter, a dialysis tube, a cannula, a urethral stent, a suture, or other medical device designed for placement (entirely or partially) in the body. A device according to the invention can alternatively be coated (entirely or partially) with such a loaded polymeric matrix. For example, a hydrophobic polymeric matrix can coat all or some portion of a lead wire, a stent, or a catheter.
The polymeric matrix should be biocompatible with the patient's body. The polymer should possess the ability to withstand conditions of the inner body environment for the desired period of drug delivery. The polymer can, in fact, be biodegradable, but the degradation should not interfere with the desired course of drug release. Moreover, the polymer should be chemically and physically compatible with both the drug(s) and the material(s) contained therewithin. In addition, the polymer, whether forming the medical device itself or being a coating on a medical device should allow diffusion of body fluid, drug, and certain material into and out of the matrix. The polymeric matrix can be either hydrophobic or hydrophilic, and typically is hydrophobic when the loaded matrix is a coating on a medical device.
The polymeric matrix comprises primarily polymer macromolecules with naturally occurring spaces and voids interspersed throughout these macromolecules. These spaces naturally form a series of channels some of which may traverse from the matrix interior to the matrix surface. The total space that these voids encompass typically will be less than 0.1 cubic centimeters per gram of polymer. Within these spaces, drug(s) and material(s) reside. In one embodiment, both the drug(s) and material(s) exist together within at least some of the same spaces. The material(s) affect(s) diffusion of the drug out of the matrix when the device is placed (entirely or partially) within a body. The permeability of the matrix to body fluid and certain particles, in combination with the internal spaces allow, in part, for the absorption of body fluid(s) into the matrix and the release of drug(s) out of the matrix. Upon absorption of body fluid(s), swelling may occur and new spaces may be created, thereby further affecting drug diffusion from the matrix.
Various polymers possess the characteristics described above and, thus, are suitable for forming the matrix according to the invention. These polymers include, but are not limited to, acyl substituted cellulose acetates and alkyl derivatives thereof, partially and completely hydrolyzed alkylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, unplasticized polyvinyl chloride, crosslinked homo- and copolymers of polyvinyl acetate, crosslinked polyesters of acrylic and methacrylate, polyvinyl alkyl ethers, polyvinyl fluoride, silicone, polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyamide, polysulphones, styrene acrylonitrile copolymers, crosslinked poly(ethylene oxide), poly(alkylenes), poly(vinyl imidazole), poly(esters), poly(ethylene terephthalate), and chlorosulphonated polyolefines. In one embodiment the polymeric matrix comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), commercially available from DuPont (Elvax 40W).
One or more drug(s) can be contained within the matrix. In general, any drug or combination of drugs that possess the ability to induce a desired effect within the body in which the device is placed can be used. Drugs that can be used include, but are not limited to, antispasmodic, local anesthetic, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID). In one embodiment, the drug comprises either oxybutynin chloride or ketorolac. Multiple drugs may be incorporated within the matrix, although for simplicity some of this description refers to a single drug.
The drug may be highly soluble. Highly soluble drugs tend to diffuse from a drug delivery device significantly faster than desired, and these can be controlled with release techniques according to the invention. The invention is applicable to less soluble drugs as well. The incorporation of certain materials, including, but not limited to, those that are either of low molecular weight or biodegradable, may serve to enhance the diffusion rate of less soluble drugs.
While the size and composition of the drug particle(s) are believed to impact the ability to control the drug diffusion rate out of the matrix, molecular weight is frequently used as a measure of the size of minute particles, and thus it is used here to help specify the range of drug particle size according to the invention. The drug(s) contained within the matrix, according to the invention, typically has a molecular weight less than about 1000. Loading, i.e., the quantity, of drug within the matrix varies according to the nature of the drug, the desired therapeutic effect, the desired period of drug delivery into the body, the quantity of the matrix, and the release profile of the diffusion-affecting material, among other factors. Drug loading may be between about 0.1 to 50 weight percent of the device depending on the above-identified factors. In one embodiment, drug loading is between about 2 to 20 weight percent of the device.
In addition to the drug(s), one or more other materials can be contained within the polymeric matrix. In general, any material or combination of materials that affect diffusion of the drug out of the matrix in a desirable way can be used. The material, generally, is a polymer or a biomaterial that affects drug diffusion based on its physical and/or chemical properties.
The material(s) can be selected based on the material's release profile. The release profile is a profile of the material's ability to affect drug diffusion out of the matrix over time, potentially determined by empirical analysis. The particle size of the material(s) may be the defining property for diffusion control and, as such, appropriate material(s) can be selected based on the molecular weight. The greater the molecular weight of the material(s), the more significantly the material will restrict drug diffusion out of the matrix. For example, assuming the drug incorporated within the matrix has a molecular weight of about 1000, the incorporation into the matrix of material(s) possessing a molecular weight of about 20,000 will tend to decrease the drug diffusion rate to a greater extent than the incorporation of material(s) possessing a molecular weight of about 2000. In such instances, the material(s) may have a molecular weight between about 1000 and 100,000. Selecting a material with a lower molecular weight than that of the drug tends to increase the diffusion rate of the drug out of the matrix. For example, the material can have a molecular weight of less than about 1000 when the drug has a molecular weight of about 1000.
The material's ability to associate chemically with the drug and, optionally, the polymeric matrix itself, may also serve as the drug diffusion-affecting mechanism. Where the incorporated material possesses such ability, the drug must overcome the barrier of the chemical association between the drug and the material, prior to diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. Such associations may be van der waals or ionic bonds. These associations are based on the polarity of the material, and also on the hydrophobic or hydrophilic nature of the material, the drug, and the polymeric matrix.
The material may be either soluble or nonsoluble. The material may also be biodegradable or non-biodegradable to achieve desired drug release into the body. Biodegradable material will control drug release for only that period, prior to excessive biodegradation, during which it is present in sufficient amounts. Biodegradable material can serve to increase drug diffusion from the matrix.
Loading of the material in the matrix may be between about 0 to 20 weight percent of the device depending on the nature of the material, the quantity of the matrix, the release profile of the material, the release profile of the drug, the desired drug diffusion effect, and the desired period for drug delivery, among other factors. In one embodiment, loading of the material is between about 1 to 10 weight percent of the device.
Suitable materials include, but are not limited to, styrenethylene-butylene-styrene (SIBS), collagen, alginates, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), dextrin, plasticizers, lipophilic material and other fatty acid salts, pore formers, sugar, glucose, starch, hyaluronic acid (HA), chelating agents, including ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and copolymers thereof. Multiple materials of varying release profiles may be incorporated within the matrix with the drug(s) to achieve the desired drug release profile.
A variety of methods can be used to manufacture a medical device or a coating according to the invention. For example, extrusion or injection molding can be used.
During extrusion, a molten state polymer is forced under high pressure through an opening, thus forming a medical device in the shape of the opening's cross-section. Initially, the solid polymer is melted by rotation of a screw and barrel under extreme heat, friction, and pressure. After the resulting molten polymer is forced through a pre-shaped die of desired cross-section, the extrudate is cooled either through immersion within a water bath or by exposure to air. Incorporation of the material(s) and drug(s) may occur prior to the extrusion process through precompounding with the polymer, or may occur as the polymer is melted during the actual extrusion process.
Injection molding provides a similar mechanical method to develop the medical device. During this process, an injection unit melts the polymer and subsequently injects the melt into a hollow mold cavity of desired shape. A ram fed injection molding machine contains a hydraulically operated plunger, first, to spread a thin layer polymer into a heated region; second, to converge the polymer melt at a nozzle; and lastly, to inject the melt into the mold. Alternatively, a reciprocation screw injection molding machine utilizes a hydraulically operated rotating screw to melt, mix and pump polymer after which, the screw serves as a plunger to inject the melt into the mold. Material(s) and drug(s) may be incorporated into the medical device by either precompounding both with the polymer, or alternatively, by addition during the melting process (Harris, L., “Injection Molding,” URL: http://ww.engr.uconn.edu/cheg/polymer/injmold.htm).
In addition, various chemical processes can be used to manufacture the polymeric matrix. In a process known as imbibing, material(s) and drug(s) are incorporated into a preexisting polymeric matrix. The polymeric matrix is immersed in a solution of desired concentration of drug(s), desired concentration of material(s) and appropriate solvent. Toluene, dimethylformamide (DMF) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), among others, provide effective solvent for the imbibing process. Upon immersion, the matrix swells as drug(s), material(s) and solvent penetrate into the matrix's network of channels and voids. Subsequently, solvent may be removed through ventilation, thereby entrapping the drug(s) and material(s) within the matrix.
Referring to
Solvent casting provides an alternative chemical method by which to manufacture the medical device. The desired amount of drug(s), material(s) and matrix polymer are dissolved in an appropriate solvent, e.g. methylene chloride, to form a casting solution. The resulting mixture is then charged into a mold of desired shape. Finally, the mold is dried, usually under vacuum, allowing the matrix polymer to recrystallize and form the device with material(s) and drug(s) contained within the interpenetrating spaces.
Applying a polymeric matrix coating to a medical device can involve dipping or spraying. For example, a mixture of solvent, polymer, drug(s), and material(s) can be applied to the medical device by a dipping or spraying mechanism. Subsequently, the solvent carrier is evaporated forming a polymeric matrix coating (containing drug(s) and material(s)) on the medical device surface.
Without being bound to any particular theory, it is believed that drug delivery out of the polymeric matrix operates by diffusion. Drug(s) reside within the spaces between the polymer macromolecules that comprise the polymeric matrix. When the matrix is placed in the body of a human or other mammal, body fluid permeates into the matrix. Swelling of the matrix with body fluid creates new spaces and channels. Body fluid carries drug out of the matrix and into the body. Absent proper control, the drug will diffuse out of the matrix at its natural rate, often too fast or too slow to achieve desired therapeutic effects. By incorporating the drug(s) and the other material(s) within the spaces of the polymeric matrix, in accordance with the invention, diffusion of the drug out of the matrix may be enhanced or restricted, as desired.
The material may restrict and prolong drug diffusion out of the matrix based on its physical and/or chemical properties.
The polymeric matrix may contain materials that restrict diffusion based on the material's size. Without being bound to any particular theory, it is believed that materials that have a molecular weight greater than that of the drug physically hinder diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. It is believed that such materials block the spaces and channels within the matrix, thereby restricting the drug's ability to diffuse out of the matrix. Materials with larger molecular weights serve as superior blocking agents, thereby restricting drug diffusion to an even greater extent.
The polymeric matrix may also contain materials that restrict diffusion of drug out of the matrix by chemically associating with the drug and, potentially, the matrix. The nature of the chemical association may be, but is not limited to, a van der waals or ionic bond. Certain materials may be selected based on their ability to form van der waals bonds with the drug and the matrix. Without wishing to be bound by any particular theory, it is believed that the van der waals interactions inhibit the mobility of the drug, thereby restricting diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. Body fluid may interfere with the bonds and promote diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. Ultimately, the recurring cycle of formation and breaking of bonds between the drug, the matrix and the material restricts diffusion of drug out of the matrix.
The molecular weight and the relative hydrophobic and/or hydrophilic properties of the material are important criteria for selection of material to associate with the drug and the matrix. Materials having the desired molecular weight and ratio of hydrophilic/hydrophobic groups are commercially available from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, Mo.) (www.sigma-aldrich.com). Materials with a greater molecular weight will likely possess larger hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic groups. As the desired groups increase in size, it is believed that the material will possess a greater likelihood of chemically associating with the drug and the matrix. Furthermore, it is believed that as the groups become larger, the strength of the material's chemical association with the drug and the matrix also increase, thereby further restricting diffusion of drug out of the matrix.
In addition, the hydrophobic and/or hydrophilic nature of the material can be a relevant criterion for material selection. Hydrophobic molecules form van der waals bonds with other hydrophobic molecules. Similarly, hydrophilic molecules form van der waals bonds with other hydrophilic molecules. Accordingly, the material(s) can be selected based on the relative hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties of the material(s), the drug(s) and, optionally, the matrix. For example, where both the drug and the matrix are hydrophobic, a material with more hydrophobic groups can be used so that the material forms van der waals bonds with both the drug and the matrix. The greater the material's ratio of hydrophobic groups to hydrophilic groups, the greater the likelihood that bonds will form, and the greater the affect on the drug diffusion rate will be. Alternatively, where the drug is hydrophilic and the matrix is hydrophobic, a material with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups may be selected such that the material may bond with both. In accordance with these embodiments, the material may be, but is not limited to, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethylene oxide (PEO), or copolymers thereof.
Materials may also be chelating agents. Chelating agents also possess the ability to associate with both the matrix and the drug, thereby restricting diffusion of the drug out of the matrix. Generally, bonds between chelating agents and each of the drug and the matrix are stronger than van der waals bonds. As a result, the use of chelating agents may have a greater effect on the drug diffusion rate. The material may be the chelating agent ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
The material(s) may also be selected based on its polarity. Without wishing to be bound by any particular theory, it is believed that by incorporating nonpolar material within the polymeric matrix, the entry of body fluid, polar because of its substantial water content, into the matrix is restricted. Furthermore, it is believed that the nonpolar material creates a hydrophobic macroenvironment that shelters the drug from the hydrophilic body fluid that is necessary for drug to diffuse out of the matrix.
Material contained within the spaces of the polymeric matrix may increase the diffusion of drug out of the polymeric matrix. The use of biodegradable or low molecular weight material may increase the drug diffusion rate. As the matrix swells with body fluid, biodegradable material will biodegrade quickly thereby creating new spaces and channels and increasing the drug diffusion rate. Similarly, low molecular weight material may diffuse out of the matrix prior to the diffusion of drug out of the matrix, opening new spaces and channels, and thereby increasing the drug diffusion rate. Low molecular weight materials include, but are not limited to, low molecular weight PEO and PEG, sugar, glucose, dextrin, starch, collagen, alginate and hyaluronic acid (HA).
The polymeric matrix medical device or a medical device coated entirely or in part with the polymeric matrix coating is placed within the body, possibly within a lumen. By way of example, but not limited to, the devices may be placed (either entirely or partially) within a body cavity, duct, or vessel. In one embodiment, the device, e.g. a ureteral stent, is placed within the ureter of the patient. Upon placement, body fluid enters the matrix and interacts with the drug(s) and the material(s). Subsequently, the drug(s) will diffuse out of the matrix at a rate determined, in part, by the chemical and/or physical properties of the material.
Another aspect of the invention is directed toward drug administration during the brief period between the placement of a drug delivery device within the body (either entirely or partially) and drug diffusion out of the device. Upon placement, drug should diffuse and achieve therapeutic levels within the body at a predetermined time. By directly providing a second drug which will achieve therapeutic levels within the body prior to the aforementioned predetermined time, one can effectively provide a continuous therapeutic dosage of drug. As an example, the drug release period from a drug delivery ureteral stent may be between 3 to 30 days. Direct instillation of drug, which takes effect about 2 to 24 hours after administration, can serve an important complementary role during the first few days following placement of the medical device within the body. The medical device may be a medical device with incorporated drug(s) and material(s) described above. However, the method of direct drug administration may be used with any drug-delivering medical device.
The drug may be administered by direct intravesical drug instillation. The drug may also be administered via a ureteral catheter. By way of example, the drug may be administered locally, i.e., near the site of placement of the medical device. The drug may also be administered at the distal end of a placed ureteral stent or in the trigone area of the bladder, both of which are considered to be areas of great stent discomfort.
The drug administered directly may be either the same or a different drug from that incorporated within the placed medical device. Examples of drugs for use in this embodiment include, but are not limited to, antispasmodic, local anesthetic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID), other anti-inflammatory drugs, calcium channel blockers, and other smooth muscle relaxants.
The invention is not to be limited only to the illustrative description provided herein. Variations, modifications, and other implementations of what is described herein will occur to those of ordinary skill without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3279996 | Long, Jr. et al. | Oct 1966 | A |
3618604 | Ness | Nov 1971 | A |
3832252 | Higuchi et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
3845770 | Theeuwes et al. | Nov 1974 | A |
3854480 | Zaffaroni | Dec 1974 | A |
3916899 | Theeuwes et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
3948254 | Zaffaroni | Apr 1976 | A |
3993072 | Zaffaroni | Nov 1976 | A |
4036227 | Zaffaroni et al. | Jul 1977 | A |
4054139 | Crossley | Oct 1977 | A |
4069307 | Higuchi et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4111202 | Theeuwes | Sep 1978 | A |
4186745 | Lewis et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
4240163 | Galin | Dec 1980 | A |
4286590 | Murase | Sep 1981 | A |
4309996 | Theeuwes | Jan 1982 | A |
4391797 | Folkman et al. | Jul 1983 | A |
4472327 | Neefe | Sep 1984 | A |
4589880 | Dunn et al. | May 1986 | A |
4603152 | Laurin et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4723950 | Lee | Feb 1988 | A |
4731080 | Galin | Mar 1988 | A |
4816264 | Phillips et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4853978 | Stockum | Aug 1989 | A |
4902503 | Umemura et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4923450 | Maeda et al. | May 1990 | A |
4933178 | Capelli | Jun 1990 | A |
4946899 | Kennedy et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4957479 | Roemer | Sep 1990 | A |
4959217 | Sanders et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4973304 | Graham et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4978391 | Jones | Dec 1990 | A |
5080892 | Yamamori et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
5091205 | Fan | Feb 1992 | A |
5091442 | Milner | Feb 1992 | A |
5098379 | Conway et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5102401 | Lambert et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5102402 | Dror et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5114719 | Sabel et al. | May 1992 | A |
5130159 | Shlenker et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5135516 | Sahatjian et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5137671 | Conway et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5165952 | Solomon et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5171318 | Gibson et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5178870 | Schaeken et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5217493 | Raad et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5261896 | Conway et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5272012 | Opolski | Dec 1993 | A |
5279594 | Jackson | Jan 1994 | A |
5282784 | Willard | Feb 1994 | A |
5304121 | Sahatjian | Apr 1994 | A |
5316774 | Eury et al. | May 1994 | A |
5328954 | Sarangapani | Jul 1994 | A |
5344411 | Domb et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5360415 | Yabushita et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5362754 | Raad et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5366505 | Farber | Nov 1994 | A |
5370681 | Herweck et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5378475 | Smith et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5389314 | Wang | Feb 1995 | A |
5409012 | Sahatjian | Apr 1995 | A |
5462644 | Woodson | Oct 1995 | A |
5468787 | Braden et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5509900 | Kirkman | Apr 1996 | A |
5512055 | Domb et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5527337 | Stack et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5569463 | Helmus et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5599291 | Balbierz et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5599298 | Sahatjian | Feb 1997 | A |
5605696 | Eury et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5607683 | Capelli | Mar 1997 | A |
5611354 | Alleyne | Mar 1997 | A |
5616119 | Davis | Apr 1997 | A |
5616608 | Kinsella et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5624704 | Darouiche et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5629008 | Lee | May 1997 | A |
5643207 | Rise | Jul 1997 | A |
5647843 | Mesrobian et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5656296 | Khan et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5676972 | Galiatsatos et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5679399 | Shlenker et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5693034 | Buscemi et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5696034 | Katayama et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5697967 | Dinh et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702754 | Zhong | Dec 1997 | A |
5707366 | Solomon et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5716406 | Farber | Feb 1998 | A |
5741331 | Pinchuk | Apr 1998 | A |
5762638 | Shikani et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5772640 | Modak et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5849327 | Berliner et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5853745 | Darouiche | Dec 1998 | A |
5873904 | Ragheb et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5877224 | Brocchini et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5902283 | Darouiche et al. | May 1999 | A |
5932248 | Chen et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5945115 | Dunn et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5989463 | Tracy et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6001386 | Ashton et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6013853 | Athanasiou et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6039967 | Ottoboni et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6060534 | Ronan et al. | May 2000 | A |
6083208 | Modak et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6096108 | Coulonvaux et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6106505 | Modak et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6120789 | Dunn | Sep 2000 | A |
6143314 | Chandrashekar et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6176849 | Yang et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6179817 | Zhong | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6184266 | Ronan et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6224579 | Modak et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6248129 | Froix | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6258121 | Yang et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6261630 | Nazarova et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6262115 | Guittard et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6270053 | Eshel | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6299894 | Markkula et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6316522 | Loomis et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322847 | Zhong et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6335028 | Vogel et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6335029 | Kamath et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6364852 | Lee | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6475434 | Darouiche | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6482830 | Redkar et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6545097 | Pinchuk et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6596401 | Terry et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6641831 | Schierholz | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6706024 | Modak et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6719991 | Darouiche et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6746481 | Larik et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6796960 | Cioanta et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6887270 | Miller et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
20010007083 | Roorda | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010010016 | Modak et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20020031601 | Darouiche et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020045868 | Reever | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020107330 | Pinchuk et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020165521 | Cioanta et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188246 | Hayner et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030018306 | Bucay-Couto et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030024534 | Silvestri et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030040754 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030060877 | Falotico et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078242 | Raad et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030153983 | Miller et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030199993 | Gellman et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030203991 | Schottman et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030224033 | Li et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040166094 | Darouiche et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040166102 | Darouiche et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040208908 | Modak et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040249441 | Miller et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3347660 | Jul 1985 | DE |
0 328 421 | Aug 1989 | EP |
0 379 271 | Jul 1990 | EP |
0 734 721 | Oct 1996 | EP |
0 734 721 | Oct 1996 | EP |
0818207 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0970711 | Jan 2000 | EP |
1 247 537 | Oct 2002 | EP |
2152382 | Aug 1985 | GB |
2319507 | May 1998 | GB |
8601813 | Mar 1986 | WO |
WO 9310847 | Jun 1993 | WO |
9506487 | Mar 1995 | WO |
9508305 | Mar 1995 | WO |
WO 9714447 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO 9836784 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9924391 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 9947595 | Sep 1999 | WO |
0062830 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 0103607 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0121229 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0221913 | Mar 2002 | WO |
WO 0243788 | Jun 2002 | WO |
WO 03066119 | Aug 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 1996, Merck Research Laboratories, 12th Edition, p. 932. |
Ketorolac. The Merck Index. 14th Ed. Accessed online on Nov. 3, 2008 at http://themerckindex.cambridgesoft.com/TheMerckIndex/index.asp. |
Oxybutynin. The Merck Index. 14th Ed. Accessed online on Nov. 3, 2008 at http://themerckindex.cambridgesoft.com/TheMerckIndex/index.asp. |
Konety, Badrinath et. al, Urolume Stent Placement for the treatment of postbrachytherapy bladder outlet obstruction, Urology 55: 721-724, 2000. |
Vasudev, Sindhu C. et. al., Development of chitosan/polyethylene vinyl acetate co-matrix: controlled release of aspirin-heparin for preventing cardiovascular thrombosis, Biomaterials, 1997, vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 375-381. |
Olweny, Ephrem O. et. al., Evaluation of a chronic indwelling prototype mesh ureteral stent in a porcine model, Urology 56 (5) 2000, pp. 857-862. |
Gonzalez, Alex et. al., Minimizing Hospital Length of Stay in Chrildren Undergong Ureteroneocystostomy, Urology 52 (3) 1998, pp. 501-504. |
Medscape, Products and Devices in the Management of Urinary Incontinence: Indwelling Urinary Catheters and External Catheters, Society of Urological Nurses and Associates, 2003, pp. 1-3. |
Liu, JS, Hrebinko, RL., J Urol. Jan. 1998; 159(1) abstract ,p. 1. |
Fowler, Clare J., Urology 55 (Suppl 5A): 60-64, 2000. |
Arda, Serdar, et al., Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 36, No. 12 Dec. 2001: pp. 1829-1831. |
Young-Gi, et al., Radiology 2002 (Apr. 2002); 223:83-90. |
Taniguchi, Takumi, et al., Lidocaine attenuates the hypotensive and inflammatory responses to endotoxemia in rabbits, Critical Care Medicine, vol. 24(4) (Apr. 1996) pp. 642-646. |
Instill, Merriam-Webster, (Apr. 13, 2011), pp. 1-2. |
Bridge, R., Polymer Extrusion. Honors Project for Chemical Engineering at University of Connecticut [online], May 1997 [retrieved on Feb. 11, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://www.engr.uconn.edu/cheg/polymer/c256hnp.htm>. |
Harris, L., Injection Molding. Honors Project for Chemical Engineering at University of Connecticut [online], May 1997 [retrieved on Feb. 11, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://www.engr.uconn.edu/cheg/polymer/injmold.htm>. |
Langer, R. “Drug Delivery and Targeting,” Nature, 392: pp. 5-9 (1998). |
Swartz, R., et al., “Biofilm Formation on Peritoneal Catheters Does Not Require the Presence of Infection,” ASAIO Trans., vol. 37, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 1991, pp. 626-634. |
Richards, G.K., et al., “Comparative Rates of Antibiotic Action Against Staphylococcus epideratidis Biofilms,” ASAIO Trans., vol. 37, No. 3, Jul.-Sep. 1991, pp. M160-M162. |
Gristina et al., A., “Bacterial Adherence and the Glycocalyx and Their Role in Musculoskeletal Infection,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America, vol. 15, No. 3, Jul. 1984, pp. 517-535. |
Ikeda, F. et al., “Formation of Biofilm by Slime Producing Staphylococcus epidermis and Bactericidal Activity of Cefazolin,” Kansenshogaku Zasshi. Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, vol. 65, No. 7, Jul. 1991, pp. 875-882. |
Percuflex® Tail Plus™ Tapered Ureteral Stent. Boston Scientific. Urology. http://www.bostonscientific.com/med—specialty/deviceDetail.jhtml?task=tskBasicDevice.jhtml&s. Feb. 24, 2004 download. |
H.N. Bhargava et al., “Triclosan: Applications and Safety,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 24(3), Jun. 1996, pp. 209-218. |
Rhonda D. Jones et al., “Triclosan: A Review of Effectiveness and Safety in Health Care Settings,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 28(2), Apr. 2000, pp. 184-196. |
J. Regòs et al., “Antimicrobial Spectrum of Triclosan, a Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Agent for Topical Application. II. Comparison with Some Other Antimicrobial Agents,” Dermatologica, vol. 158, 1979, pp. 72-79. |
Stephen Rothenburger et al., “In Vitro Antimicrobial Evaluation of Coated VICRYL* Plus Antibacterial Suture (Coated Polyglactin 910 with Triclosan) Using Zone of Inhibition Assays,” Surgical Infections, vol. 3, supplement, 2002, pp. S-79-S-87. |
Edward S. Wong et al., Guideline for Prevention of Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infections. http://www.cdc.gov., Feb. 1981. |
Allan Ronald, “The Etiology of Urinary Tract Infection: Traditional and Emerging Pathogens,” Dis. Mon., vol. 49, 2003, pp. 71-82. |
Alain Meyrier, Urinary Tract Infections, vol. II, Chapter 7 of The Schrier Atlas of Diseases of the Kidney, ed. Robert W. Schrier, 1999. |
Donald P. Griffith et al., “Urease: The Primary Cause of Infection-Induced Kidney Stones,” Investigative Urology, vol. 13(5), Mar. 1976; pp. 346-350. |
D.J. Stickler et al., “Control of Encrustation and Blockage of Foley Catheters,” The Lancet, vol. 361, Apr. 26, 2003, pp. 1435-1437. |
Ciba Specialty Chemicals. Ciba® IRGASAN® DP 300, Ciba® IRGACARE® MP Antimicrobials. Toxicological and ecological data; Official registrations. Jan. 2003. 16 pages. |
Ciba Specialty Chemicals. Ciba® IRGASAN® DP 300, Ciba®IRGACARE® MP. Antimicrobial active ingredient for personal care products. 2001. 16 pages. |
Stamm, Walter E., “Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Prevention,” American Journal of Medicine, vol. 91, No. 3B, Sep. 1991, pp. 65S-71S. |
Golomb, Gershon, et al., “Prevention of Bacterial Colonization on Polyurethane in vitro by Incorporated Antibacterial Agent,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. 25, No. 8, Aug. 1991, pp. 937-952. |
Mulhall, Anne, “Biofilms and Urethral Catheter Infections,” Nursing Standard, vol. 5, No. 18, Jan. 23-29, 1991, pp. 26-28. |
Chang, Chung Che, et al., “Effect of Staphylococcus epidermidis on Adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Proteus mirabilis to Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) and Gentamicin-Containing PMMA,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 9, No. 2, Mar. 1991, pp. 284-288. |
Liedberg, H., et al., “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Adherence to and Growth on Different Urinary Catheter Coatings,” International Urology and Nephrology, vol. 22, No. 5, 1990, pp. 487-492. |
Anwar, Hosmin. et al., “Testing the Susceptibility of Bacteria in Biofilms to Antibacterial Agents,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Vo. 34, No. 3, 1990, pp. 2043-2046. |
Dunne, W. Michael Jr., “Effects of Subinhibitory Concentrations of Vancomycin or Cefamandole on Biofilm Production by Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 34, No. 3, Mar. 1990, pp. 390-393. |
Doughterty, Steven H., et al., “Endogenous Factors Contributing to Prosthetic Device Infections,” Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, vol. 3, No. 2, Jun. 1989, pp. 199-209. |
Speer, Anthony G., et al., “Biliary Stent Blockage with Bacterial Biofilm,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 108, No. 4, Apr. 1998, pp. 546-553. |
Liedberg, H., et al., “Silver Coating of Urinary Catheters Prevents Adherence and Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Urological Research, vol. 17, No. 6, 1989, pp. 357-358. |
Ramsay, J.W.A., et al., “Biofilms, Bacteria, and Bladder Catheters: A Clinical Study,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 64, No. 4, Oct. 1989, pp. 395-398. |
Farber, Bruce F., et al., “The Use of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs to Prevent Adherence of Staphylococcus epidermidis to Medical Polymers,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 166, No. 4, Oct. 1992, pp. 861-865. |
Farber, Bruce F., at al., “Staphylococcus epidermidis Extracted Slime Inhibits the Antimicrobial Action of Glycpeptide Antibiotics,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vo., 161, No. 1, Jan. 1990, pp. 37-40. |
Donnenfeld, E.D., et al., “Biofilm and Bacterial Adherence Inhibition with Sodium Salicylate,” Investigative Opthamology & Visual Science, vol. 35, No. 4, 1994, p. 2164. |
Farber, B.F., et al., “Staphylococcus aureus Extracted Polysaccharide Interferes with the Antimicrobial Action of Glycopeptide Antibiotics,” Clinical Research, vol. 38, No. 2, 1990, p. 428A. |
Farber, B.F., et al., “Extracted S. epidermldis Slime Interferes with the Antimicrobial Action of Glycopeptide Antibiotics,” Clinical Research, vol. 37, No. 2, 1990, p. 428A. |
Farber, B.F., et al. “Unique Properties of S. epidermldis Extractable Polysaccharide Slime (SEEP),” Clinical Research, vol. 36, No. 3, 1988, p. 455A. |
Teichberg, Saul, et al., “Salicylic Acid Decreases Extracellular Biofilm Production by Staphylococcus epidermidis: Electron Microscope Analysis,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 167, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1501-1503. |
Farber, Bruce F., et al., “A Novel Antibiofilm Technology for Contact Lens Solutions,” Ophthalmology, vol. 102, No. 5, May 1995, pp. 831-836. |
Roberts, E.L., et al., “The Role of Sodiuym Salicylate in the Prevention of the Adherence of Acanthamoeba Castellanii to Unworn Contact Lenses,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 35, No. 4, 1994, p. 2150. |
Donnenfeld, Eric D., et al., “Controlled Evaluation of a Bandage Contact Lens and a Topical Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug in Treating Traumatic Corneal Abrasions,” Ophthalmology, vol. 102, No. 6, Jun. 1995, pp. 979-984. |
Costerton, J. William, et al., “Bacterial Biofilms in Nature and Disease,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 41, 1987, pp. 435-464. |
Parsons, C. Lowell, et al., “Inhibition of Sodium Urate Crystal Adherence to Bladder Surface by Polysaccharide,” Journal of Urology, vol. 134, No. 3, Sep. 1985, pp. 614-616. |
Kingston, D., et al., “Self-disinfecting Plastics for Intravenous Catheters and Prosthetic Inserts,” Journal of Hygiene, Cambridge, vol. 96, 1986, pp. 185-198. |
Speer, A.G., et al., The Role of Bacterial Biofilm in Clogging of Bilary Stents, Dept. Gastroenterology, Middesex Hospital, London UK, Dept. Biology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Gastrointest Endosc 1986; 32:156. |
Sherman, Stuart, et al., “Stent-induced Pancreatic Ductal and Parenchymal Changes: Correlation of Endoscopic Ultrasound with ERCP,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 44, No. 3, 1996, pp. 276-282. |
Theodorou C et al, “Incontinence after surgery for benign prostatic hypertrophy: The case for complex approach and treatment”. (abstract), (1998). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040022824 A1 | Feb 2004 | US |