Preparations for suppressing or attenuating ocular irritancy

Abstract

Provided is a tear-free formulation for suppressing or reducing ocular irritancy of a pre-made cosmetic or therapeutic formulation or an ophthalmic formulation suitable for application to an eye of a subject or to a skin region surrounding an eye of a subject.

Claims

1. A method for reducing, diminishing or ameliorating irritation to an eye region or to a skin region surrounding the eye, the method comprising topically administering to the eye region or to the skin region surrounding the eye a formulation selected from the group consisting of: (i) soy-bean lecithin, jojoba oil, squalene oil, egg yolk and sodium hyaluronate; (ii) soy-bean lecithin, jojoba oil, squalene oil, egg yolk and at least one polysaccharide selected from sodium hyaluronate, xanthan gum and carrageenan; (iii) soy-bean lecithin, jojoba oil, squalene oil, egg yolk and at least one polyol selected from mannitol, glycerol, zemea and trehalose; and (iv) soy-bean lecithin, jojoba oil, squalene oil, egg yolk, at least one polysaccharide selected from sodium hyaluronate, xanthan gum and carrageenan, and at least one polyol selected from mannitol, glycerol, zemea and trehalose.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the formulation is selected from the group consisting of (A) a baby shampoo, baby bath, mild skin cleanser, facial skin cleanser, sensitive skin cleanser and cleansing formulations suitable for use on human infant skin; or from the group consisting of (B) adult shampoo, adult bath, mild skin cleanser, facial skin cleanser, sensitive skin cleanser and cleansing formulations suitable for use on human adult skin.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the formulation further comprising at least one additional additive selected from the group consisting of phospholipids, polysaccharides, polyols, saponins, salicilates, preservatives, perfumes, natural coloring agents, emollients, non-aqueous or aqueous solvents or mixtures, and other active or non-active components.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the formulation further comprising at least one preservative.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the formulation further comprising at least one saponin.

6. A method of reducing, diminishing or ameliorating irritation to an eye region or to a skin region surrounding the eye, said irritation being associated with at least one skin care formulation, the method comprising adding on to said skin care formulation a formulation according to claim 1 to obtain an add on formulation, wherein said skin care formulation is selected from the group consisting of (A) a baby shampoo, baby bath, mild skin cleanser, facial skin cleanser, sensitive skin cleanser and cleansing formulations suitable for use on human infant skin; or from the group consisting of (B) adult shampoo, adult bath, mild skin cleanser, facial skin cleanser, sensitive skin cleanser and cleansing formulations suitable for use on human adult skin.

7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the add on formulation comprises at least one saponin selected from the group consisting of Sapindus mukorossi extract, Camellia oleifera extract and Quillaja extract; Aspen bark extract; soy-bean lecithin; Jojoba oil; Squalene oil; Egg yolk; at least one polysaccharide selected from sodium hyaluronate, xanthan gum and carrageenan; and at least one polyol selected from mannitol, glycerol, zemea and trehalose.

8. A method for suppressing or reducing ocular irritancy of a pre-made cosmetic or therapeutic formulation or an ophthalmic formulation suitable for application to an eye of a subject or to a skin region surrounding an eye of a subject, the cosmetic or therapeutic formulation being capable of causing irritation to an ocular membrane or to the eye's cornea, the method comprising adding on to said pre-made cosmetic or therapeutic formulation or an ophthalmic formulation a formulation according to claim 1.

9. The method of claim 6, wherein the add on formulation comprises Sapindus mukorossi extract, Camellia oleifera extract, Quillaja extract, Aspen bark extract, soy-bean lecithin, jojoba oil, squalene oil, egg yolk, at least one polysaccharide selected from sodium hyaluronate, xanthan gum and carrageenan; and at least one polyol selected from mannitol, glycerol, zemea and trehalose.

10. The method of claim 6, wherein the add on formulation comprises 0.5-6 wt % of Sapindus mukorossi extract; 0.1-6 wt % of Camellia oleifera extract; 0.1-6 wt % of Quillaja extract; 0.1-0.8 wt % of Aspen bark extract; 0.1-5 wt % of soy-bean lecithin; 0.2-4 wt % of jojoba oil; 0.2-4 wt % of squalene oil; 0.2-5 wt % of egg yolk; at least one polysaccharide selected from sodium hyaluronate up to 0.8 wt %, xanthan gum up to 2.5 wt % and carrageenan up to 2.5 wt %; at least one polyol selected from mannitol up to 2.5 wt % and glycerol up to 2.5 wt %, and optionally zemea up to 15 wt % and/or trehalose up to 2.5 wt %; and optionally perfume up to 1.5 wt %.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

(1) Methods

(2) Evaluation of the Suppression or Attenuation of Ocular Irritancy

(3) The suppression of the ocular irritancy of a formulation which comes in contact with an ocular membrane by the addition of the additive of the invention to the formulation can be tested using one of several commonly used methods, including the Draize eye test, Bovine Cornea Opacity Test (BCOP), Isolated chicken eye test (ICE), hens egg chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay, epithelial model cultivated from human corneal cells. A combination of several tests other than the Draize eye test is considered to provide reliable replacement for the animal Draize eye test.

(4) Bovine Cornea Opacity Test (BCOP)

(5) The BCOP test can be performed by following the procedure in the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4 test no. 437 or Pierre Gautheron et al. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 1992 18, 442-449. The BCOP test uses isolated corneas from the eyes obtained as a by-product from abattoirs. Each treatment group (test substance, negative/positive controls) consists of a minimum of three eyes where the cornea has been excised and mounted to a holder. The critical factor while applying the formulations which comprise the no-tear additive (or the control formulations) is ensuring that the test solution adequately covers the epithelial surface. Irritancy effects to the cornea are measured as permeability to fluorescein and opacity, which when combined gives an In Vitro Irritancy Score (IVIS) for each treatment group. Permeability is determined by measuring the amount of fluorescein dye that penetrates through the cornea. Opacity is determined by measuring the amount of light transmitted through the cornea. A substance that induces an IVIS equal to or higher than 55.1 is defined as a corrosive or severe irritant.

(6) Isolated Chicken Eye Test (ICE)

(7) The ICE test can be performed by following the procedure in the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4 test No. 438. Similarly to the BCOP test, The ICE method uses eyes collected from chickens obtained from slaughterhouses where they are killed for human consumption. The eye is enucleated and mounted in an eye holder with the cornea positioned horizontally. The test substance and negative/positive controls are applied to the cornea. Toxic effects to the cornea are measured by a qualitative assessment of opacity, a qualitative assessment of damage to epithelium based on fluorescein retention, a quantitative measurement of increased thickness (swelling), and a qualitative evaluation of macroscopic morphological damage to the surface. The endpoints are evaluated separately to generate an ICE class for each endpoint, which are then combined to generate an Irritancy Classification for each test substance.

(8) Hens Egg Chorioallantoic Membrane (HET-CAM) Assay

(9) Hen eggs are placed in commercial incubators. On day 10 of development, the eggs are removed from the incubator and candled to determine the viability of the embryo. A rectangular window is removed from the shell directly over the air cell and the egg membrane is carefully moistened with 2-3 ml 0.9% saline and returned to the incubator.

(10) The eggs are then dosed and observed continuously for 5 minutes for the appearance of lysis, hemorrhaging and/or coagulation which is documented.

(11) In addition, the eggs are scored for severity at 1 and 5 minutes. The severity of each reaction after 1 and 5 minutes is recorded.

(12) Human Corneal Epithelial Cell Line

(13) An immortalized human corneal epithelial (HCE) cell line was purchased from ATCC Company. HCE cells were established by infecting primary human corneal epithelial cells with a recombinant SV40-adenovirus vector and by cloning three times to obtain a continuously growing cell line. Initially, HCE cells were grown in a culture medium containing 1 vol of Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium and 1 vol of Ham's nutrient mixture F-12 supplemented with 15% (vol/vol) fetal bovine serum, 1% (vol/vol) antibiotic, antimycotic solution (penicillin 10,000 U/ml, streptomycin 10,000 mg/ml and amphotericin B 25 mg/ml), 2 mM L-glutamine, 5 mg/ml insulin, 10 ng/ml human epithelial growth factor, 0.5% (vol/vol) dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma). For cytotoxicity testing, HCE cells were grown in the same medium and plated at a density of 15,000-30,000 cells/well in a 96-well microtiter plate. The cells were exposed to the test compound-containing medium 24 hours after plating (before the cell culture started to form multilayers and became confluent).

(14) Human cells were incubated in an appropriate medium with the diluted shampoo samples (1:75) for 10 min, and were compared with negative (SLES) and positive controls (saline). After 24 hour incubation at 37 C. under 75% humidity and 5% CO.sub.2 atmosphere, the cells were examined for viability by the MTT method (see Mosmann, T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J. Immunol Methods., 1983 65: 55-63). To this end (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide from Sigma Israel was added to the medium. The calorimetric measurement was performed by an ELISA reader.

Example 1

(15) Sapindus Mukorossi Extract Concentration

(16) HCE cell line was exposed to three shampoo formulations: the shampoo formulation of Table 6 (herein referred to as Shampoo No. 1) having an amount Sapindus mukorossi extract of 2.25 weight %, and two other Shampoo formulations, Shampoo No. 2 and Shampoo No. 3 which deviate from Shampoo No. 1 in the concentration of Sapindus mukorossi extract by having 1.5 and 3.0 wt %, respectively. The HCE cell line was exposed to of Shampoo No. 1 at room temperature such that 50% of the ECH cell line remained viable. The HCE cell line was then exposed to each one of Shampoo No. 2 and Shampoo No. 3, respectively at the same conditions which it was exposed to Shampoo No. 1 and the viability percentage of the HCE cell line was measured, and the result described in Table 7.

(17) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 % Viability of HCEC as a function of Sapindus mukorossi extract concentration in shampoo (the shampoo's composition as described in table 1, except the % Sapindus mukorossi extract) Shampoo Sapindus mukorossi Viability of HCEC (%) No. extract (wt %) (10%) 2 1.5 100% 1 2.25 50% 3 3 22%

(18) As one can see, the highest viability was obtained when Sapindus Mukorossi extract concentration was the lowest and it may thus be determined that Sapindus Mukorossi extract is an irritant agent

Example 2

(19) Chamomile Extract

(20) Chamomile extract is known for treating inflammation associated with hemorrhoids when applied topically. According to the prior art, chemical components of chamomile extract demonstrated anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperglycemic, anti-genotoxic, and anti-cancer properties. Hence we studied its ability to reduce eye irritation. However, the addition of chamomile extract (1 wt %) to Shampoo No. 3 under the same exposure conditions to Shampoo Nos. 1 to 3, did not change the viability percentage of HCEC, which remained about 22%.

Example 3

(21) Film Creation on Top of the Eye

(22) Lecithins Composition and Content

(23) The viability percentage of HCEC as a function of lecithin type (egg or soy-bean) and their concentration in the shampoo were studied. The result described in Table 8.

(24) The lecithins listed in Table 8, were added to the shampoo described in Table 6 (i.e., 0.8% soy-bean lecithin+0.5 egg yolk or 1% egg yolk+0.3% soy-bean lecithin).

(25) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 % Viability of HCEC as a function lecithins type in the shampoo (the shampoo's composition as described in Table 6, 3 wt % Sapindus extract) Viability of HCEC Lecithin type and percentage (%) (10%) 0.5 wt % soy-bean lecithin (addition) 20% 0.5 wt % egg yolk (addition) 60% No addition 22%

(26) As the results indicate, the addition of 0.5% of soy-ban lecithin did not change the viability percentage of HCEC. However, the addition of 0.5% of egg yolk improved the viability percentage significantly.

Example 4: Comparative Example

(27) Shampoo Formulations Including

(28) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Shampoo formulations Chemical Ingredient Family Sapindus Mukorossi Saponins extract Camellia oleifera extract Saponins Quillaja extract Saponins Aspen bark (Populus Salicaceae tremuloides) extract Soy-bean Lecithin Phospholipids Jojoba oil Emollient Squalene oil Emollient Egg Yolk Phospholipids + cholesterol + Emollient Sodium Hyaluronate Poly saccharides Xanthan gum Poly saccharides Carrageenan Poly saccharides Mannitol Poly-ol Glycerol Poly-ol Zemea Poly-ol Trehalose Poly-ol Perfume

Example 5

(29) Reduction of Oils and Lecithins

(30) The effect of oils and lecithin on the viability percentage of HCEC was tested in the shampoo described in Table 6, but in each test, one of the following ingredients was missed out (replaced by water).

(31) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 % Viability of HCEC as function of oil and lecithin absence in the shampoo (the shampoo composition as described in Table 6, except 2.25% Sapindus extract) Viability of HCEC missed out component (%) (10%) oil 20% soya lecithin 40% Whole shampoo 50%

(32) The results presented in Table 10 demonstrate that when oil or soy-bean lecithin was absent, the viability was reduced. The higher reduction obtained while the oil was absent.

Example 6

(33) Hydrogel Creation

(34) Hydrogels of sodium hyaluronate have been used for many years in ophthalmic surgery in Europe and in the U.S. to maintain the shape of the eye, to cover surgical instruments and to protect the corneal endothelium from damage, thus we test its influence.

(35) Reduction of Sodium Hyaluronate

(36) The effect of sodium hyaluronate absence on the viability percentage of HCEC was tested on the shampoo described in Table 6, but the sodium hyaluronate replaced by water.

(37) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 % Viability of HCEC as function of sodium hyaluronate absence in the shampoo (the shampoo composition as described in Table 7, except 2.25% Sapindus extract) Viability of HCEC missed out component (%) (10%) Without sodium hyaluronate 35% Whole shampoo 50%

(38) The results presented in Table 11 demonstrate that when sodium hyaluronate was absent, the viability was reduced.

Example 7

(39) The Influence of Saponin Type

(40) Camellia oleifera Seed Extract (Tea)

(41) Quillaja Saponaria Extract

(42) Saponaria officinalis Extract

(43) In order to compare the effect of the saponin extracts from different plants, the Quillaja extract (Table 6) was replaced once with Camellia extract, and seconds with Saponaria extract (All shampoos contained 2.25 wt % Sapindus extract).

(44) TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 % Viability of HCEC as a function of saponins type in the shampoo (the shampoo composition as described in Table 6, except 2.25% Sapindus extract) Saponin type Viability of HCEC (%) (10%) Quillaja extract 50% Camellia extract 100% Saponaria extract 100%

(45) As the results indicate, the viability percentage increased significantly when Quillaja replaced by Camellia or Saponaria extracts.

(46) In Vivo Methods

(47) One drop of diluted shampoo; 6 wt. % by saline, was instilled into one volunteers' eye, and one drop of saline his other eye. Each shampoo's composition was examined on 10 volunteers. The evaluations of the eye irritation criteria were as follows:

(48) The intensity of eye irritation: burning, stinging and/or itching according to the following scale: None Slight prickling, tingling and/or slight burning and/or stinging and/or slight itching Moderate burning and/or stinging and/or moderate itching Severe burning and/or stinging and/or strong itching

(49) The evaluations of the eye irritation were done immediately after the after 8-10 min, 15 min, and 1 hour. The scores were collected, and average of the scores is appearing in the following tables.

(50) The study was accompanied by an ophthalmologist.

(51) Egg Yolk Concentration

(52) The eye irritation of shampoos containing different egg yolk concentration was studied, and the result described in Table 13.

(53) TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 irritation average score as a function of egg yolk concentration (shampoo composition as described in Table 6) Egg yolk concentration (wt %) Average Score 0 2.5.sub.(0.4) 0.5 1.1.sub.(0.3) 1.5 0.2.sub.(0.3)

(54) As one can see in Table 13, significant reduction in eye irritation was obtained while increasing the egg yolk concentration.

(55) Chamomile Extract

(56) The effect of chamomile extract (1 wt % addition) on eye irritation was tested in the shampoo described in Table 6.

(57) TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 irritation average score as a function of chamomile addition (shampoo composition as described in Table 6) Average Chamomile addition Score No addition 1.1.sub.(0.3) 1 wt % chamomile addition 1.3.sub.(0.3)

(58) The addition of chamomile extract to shampoo didn't improve the eye irritation as was demonstrated also at the in-vitro test.

(59) Sodium Hyaluronate

(60) The effect of sodium hylorunate on eye irritation was tested in the shampoo described in Table 6, with or without sodium hylorunate.

(61) TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 irritation average score with or without sodium hylorunate (shampoo composition as described in Table 7, 5 wt % egg yolk) Average Sodium hyaluronate addition Score With 0.05 wt % sodium 0.2.sub.(0.3) hylorunate Without sodium hylorunate 1.sub.(0.3)

(62) The eye irritation was decreased significantly when the shampoo content 0.05 wt % of sodium hylorunate.

Example 8: Haemolysis Test

(63) Haemolysis test (which serves as a model for eye irritation) is conducted in order to determine the safety of the products of the invention in comparison to the commercial surfactant SLES (sodium lauryl ether sulfate).

(64) Preparation of the erythrocyte suspension: erythrocytes of sheep blood is separated by centrifugation at 1250 g, for 15 minutes at room temperature, wash three times with phosphate-buffered saline solution (PBS, pH 7.4), and centrifuge twice under the same condition. The blood volume is completed with PBS. This suspension is maintained at 4 degrees centigrade for up to three days.

(65) The assay procedure: 20 L of each sample are diluted up to ml of the suspension, and are incubated with for 30 minutes in ice. The incubation is terminated by a rapid, high-speed (1800 g) centrifugation for 30 minutes. The extent of haemolysis is determined in spectrophotometrically at 540 nm against a blank (PBS). The extent of haemolysis, expressed as a percentage, is calculated as the absorbance of an erythrocyte suspension incubated with each product, relative to that of a completely haemolysed control (100 percent, at distilled water) at 540 nm. The Hm50 (50 percent haemolysis) is determined from concentration-response curves.

(66) TABLE-US-00016 Hm50