Tafluprost, the first preservative-free prostaglandin analogue for topical ophthalmic use to lower IOP, was introduced in Germany in 2008. After the approval for ophthalmic use, an open-label, multicentre, observational study was conducted between October 2008 and April 2009. Major objectives of this study were to evaluate the real world efficacy, local tolerability and safety of this first in class preservative-free prostaglandin preparation in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma.
A total of 544 patients were treated with the preservative-free formulation of tafluprost 0.0015%. The majority of these patients had poor IOP control and/or poor local tolerance of their medication prior change of medication. The decision to change the previous therapy or to initiate treatment was made solely by the participating ophthalmologists. IOP readings were recorded at baseline before changing medication or initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients, 4-6 weeks and 12 weeks after change of medication or initiation of treatment with preservative-free tafluprost. In addition, patient demographics, subjective symptoms (i.e. burning, foreign body sensation, itching and stinging) and objective clinical signs such as conjunctival hyperaemia were collected. Subjective symptoms were evaluated using a 4 point scale ranging from 'no symptoms', 'mild symptoms', 'moderate symptoms' to 'severe symptoms'. As a clinical sign severity of conjunctival hyperaemia was evaluated. All adverse events were collected.
Three hundred and sixty patients were switched from monotherapy, 45 patients were naïve to treatment. A total of 139 patients were treated with fixed or non-fixed combinations prior to changing medication. In these patients preservative-free tafluprost was used either as a substitution for the fixed or non-fixed combination, as an add-on to the existing combination therapy or as one agent in a newly initiated treatment regimen. Preservative-free tafluprost provided an IOP decrease in most pre-treatment subgroups, with an overall reduction of IOP in all patients (N = 544) from 19.4 +/- 5.0 mmHg at baseline to 15.7 +/- 4.1 mmHg after 4 to 6 weeks and to 15.3 +/- 3.5 mmHg after 12 weeks. Both values were significantly lower than treated baseline IOP (p < 0.001). An IOP of <or=18 mmHg was achieved in 79.5% of eyes treated with the preservative-free formulation of tafluprost 12 weeks after changing medication. Both subjective symptoms and objective clinical signs improved after changing medication. Only a few adverse events occurred during the follow-up period.
Although this study was limited by its observational design, the results demonstrate that preservative-free tafluprost is an effective, well tolerated, and safe medication in a patient population with poor IOP control and/or tolerability issues with their medication prior used.
To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, poorly controlled with or intolerance to beta-blockers. To record the short-term effect on diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (DOPP).
One hundred and three patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were treated with travoprost 0.004% once daily for 90 days in an open-label, non-controlled study. Efficacy and safety were assessed at baseline, after 45 and 90 days. Clinical registry number IT0301.
The primary outcome measure, IOP, was recorded at 10 am, 12 pm, and 4 pm at each visit. DOPP was evaluated at 10 am, at baseline and visit 3. Safety measures included adverse events, biomicroscopy, visual acuity, heart rate, and blood pressure.
Mean IOP was reduced from 22.2 +/- 1.7 mmHg to 16.5 +/- 2.1 after 45 days (p < 0.0001), and to 16.1 +/- 2.2 after 90 days (p < 0.0001). The DOPP increased by 5.3 +/- 6.3 mmHg after 90 days of treatment (p < 0.0001). No drug related serious adverse events were reported during the study.
The open-label and non-comparative nature of the study represented its principal limitations. The study confirmed the efficacy and tolerability of travoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, in a subset of patients unsuccessfully treated with beta-blockers. In this study, travoprost significantly increased DOPP at short-term follow-up. Further studies to assess the effect of travoprost on DOPP are warranted.
The primary objective of this study was to determine if combined travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% and brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension 1% therapy is superior in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) compared to travoprost monotherapy for patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The secondary objective was to measure the percentage of patients achieving IOP levels of 18 mmHg or less.
Single arm, open-label.
eighty-two patients with inadequate IOP control with travoprost monotherapy.
the addition of brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension 1% twice daily.
The primary endpoint was mean IOP reduction from baseline at 4 and 12 weeks. The percentage of patients who achieved IOP values <or= 18 mmHg was also measured.
The mean age of the patients was 67 years. Ethnic origin was 92.7% Caucasian, 3.7% Black, 2.4% Asian and 1.2% other. The mean duration of travoprost treatment before the trial started was 30 weeks. Compared to the baseline data (IOP = 22.5 mmHg) with travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% monotherapy, IOP was decreased after 4 (n = 78) and 12 (n = 71) weeks of combined travoprost and brinzolamide therapy by an average of 3.9 mmHg (17.4%) and 4.2 mmHg (18.4%), respectively. At baseline 6.3% of patients had an IOP of 18 mmHg or less whereas at 4 and 12 weeks, 53.8% and 60.6% of patients respectively had an IOP of 18 mmHg or less. Common adverse events were mild and included ocular hyperaemia, dysgeusia and eye irritation. Study limitations: this study had a small sample size and was open-label.
Patients receiving combined travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% and brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension 1% therapy had lower IOP values compared to those on travoprost monotherapy (p < 0.0001). Combined therapy resulted in a significantly greater percentage of patients achieving IOPs of 18 mmHg or less (p < 0.0001).
To compare circadian control of intraocular pressure (IOP) after a single drop of bimatoprost 0.03% or travoprost 0.004% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Randomized, investigator-masked, paired-eye, 36-hour clinical comparison. After completing a washout, patients (N = 19) were randomized to a single drop of bimatoprost in one eye and travoprost in the other eye at 8 PM. At night, IOP was measured with patients lying in bed and sitting. IOP was measured every 4 h for 36 h in total.
Mean IOP at 8 PM (prior to drop instillation) was 20.6 mmHg (18.5-24.0 mmHg) with the bimatoprost eye group and 21.1 mmHg (18.5-26.5 mmHg) with the travoprost eye group (p = 0.369). At every measurement, both bimatoprost and travoprost significantly reduced IOP from baseline. During the first 24 h, mean IOP (while sitting) after instillation of a single drop of study medication ranged from 17.8 to 19.7 mmHg with bimatoprost and from 17.2 to 20.0 mmHg with travoprost (p > or = 0.075). While in the supine position, IOP ranged from 21.6 to 24.9 mmHg with bimatoprost and from 21.1 to 25.2 mmHg with travoprost (p > or = 0.351). Both medications continued to control IOP for the remaining 12 h, with IOP approaching baseline after 36 h (mean IOP of 20.5 mmHg with bimatoprost and 21.5 mmHg with travoprost, p = 0.381). Study limitations included single-drop instillation and a short follow-up time.
This marks the first time a single drop has been used for this type of evaluation. These findings suggest that both bimatoprost and travoprost provide comparable and lasting control of circadian IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
The primary objective of this study was to determine the intraocular pressure- (IOP) lowering efficacy over two consecutive 24-h periods of travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution (Travatan) compared to latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan) dosed once daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
This was a double-masked trial conducted at the Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the IOP lowering efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost. During the eligibility visit, patients' IOP was measured throughout two consecutive 24-h periods every 4 h. Patients were then randomized to travoprost or latanoprost (one drop at 8 p.m. daily for 2 weeks). Sixty-two patients were randomized (travoprost n = 32; latanoprost n = 30). IOP was measured at week 2 every 4 h throughout two 24-h periods. All measurements were taken in both supine and sitting positions with the aid of Perkins applanation tonometry. Limitations of the study include a small sample size (due to the difficulty in recruiting patients in a study of this type) which enrolled only Caucasian patients and a short study duration. However, with 25 subjects per group, there was at least 90% power to detect a mean IOP change from baseline of 2.9 mmHg and 80% power to detect a difference of 2.5 mmHg between treatments.
Patients on travoprost therapy showed lower mean IOP levels than those on latanoprost. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) at 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 40, and 48 h after the last dose for the supine position. The mean IOPs in the supine position throughout the first and the second 24-h period of the week 2 visit as well as for the 48-h visit were statistically lower (p < 0.05) for the travoprost group. Adverse events were mild and included hyperemia and corneal staining. Travoprost and latanoprost were both well tolerated.
Mean IOP values were significantly lower for patients on travoprost for the majority of time points in the supine position.
To assess the effects of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) and latanoprost 0.005% on the retrobulbar haemodynamics and intraocular pressure (IOP) of open-angle glaucoma patients.
22 consecutive subjects with newly diagnosed, open-angle glaucoma were included in this prospective, examiner masked, randomized, crossover study. The patients were randomized into two different arms. Peak systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity (EDV), Pourcelot's resistance index (RI) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were determined at baseline and after 1 month of medical treatment with DTFC or latanoprost 0.005% in both groups. A 4-week washout period, without medical treatment, between study arms was carried out. Primary efficacy variables were the PSV, EDV and RI in the ophthalmic artery (OA) and short posterior ciliary artery (SPCA) and intraocular pressure (IOP). Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed with a one-way ANOVA test and two-tailed paired Student's t-test respectively.
Intraocular pressure (IOP) and colour Doppler imaging (CDI) measurements were similar at baseline. Compared to baseline and washout measurements, only the fixed combination dorzolamide/timolol significantly increased the EDV in the OA and in the SPCA, p = 0.00012 and p = 0.00012, respectively and decreased the resistance index in the ophthalmic and short posterior ciliary arteries, p = 0.00011 and p = 0.00031, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the IOP lowering effect of either treatment.
Over a treatment period of 1 month, only the fixed combination dorzolamide/timolol seems to have a vascular effect on retrobulbar vessels. Further research is necessary to confirm these results.
A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effect of brinzolamide 1.0% ophthalmic suspension as an adjunctive therapy with latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Fourteen patients with open angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OH) who had been using latanoprost 0.005% for more than 6 months were initiated on adjunctive brinzolamide therapy. The IOP values at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months were compared with those measured immediately before adding brinzolamide to the regimen (baseline). The incidence of adverse events such as conjunctival hyperemia and corneal epithelial defect were also examined.
The baseline IOP was 21.1 +/- 4.8 mmHg (mean +/- standard deviation). After 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months of therapy IOP was 16.9 +/- 4.5 mmHg, 16.6 +/- 4.0 mmHg, and 15.9 +/- 3.1 mmHg, respectively, showing significant reductions in IOP at all the measuring time-points during the study compared with the baseline value (p < 0.01). Conjunctival hyperemia developed in one patient after 1 month and in another after 2 months; however, both were mild, and therapy was continued. Corneal epithelium defect was observed in 3 patients. One of them had mild defect before brinzolamide was added to the regimen. Increase of eye discharge was seen in one patient. No serious side effects were otherwise observed.
The addition of brinzolamide to a latanoprost 0.005% regimen may further lower intraocular pressure in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Estimate the long-term direct medical costs and clinical consequences of improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared to bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma.
A cost-consequence model was constructed from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. The model structure included three adherence levels (high, moderate, low) and four mean deviation (MD) defined health states (mild, moderate, severe glaucoma, blindness) for each adherence level. Clinical efficacy in terms of IOP reduction was obtained from the randomized controlled trial comparing bimatoprost 0.01% with bimatoprost 0.03%. Medication adherence was based on observed 12 month rates from an analysis of a nationally representative pharmacy claims database. Patients with high, moderate and low adherence were assumed to receive 100%, 50% and 0% of the IOP reduction observed in the clinical trial, respectively. Each 1 mmHg reduction in IOP was assumed to result in a 10% reduction in the risk of glaucoma progression. Worse glaucoma severity health states were associated with higher medical resource costs. Outcome measures were total costs, proportion of patients who progress and who become blind, and years of blindness. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain model parameters.
The percentage of patients progressing, becoming blind, and the time spent blind slightly favored bimatoprost 0.01%. Improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% led to higher costs in the first 2 years; however, starting in year 3 bimatoprost 0.01% became less costly compared to bimatoprost 0.03% with a total reduction in costs reaching US$3433 over a lifetime time horizon. Deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust, with the majority of analyses favoring bimatoprost 0.01%. Application of 1 year adherence and efficacy over the long term are limitations.
Modeling the effect of greater medication adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared with bimatoprost 0.03% suggests that differences may result in improved economic and patient outcomes.
To compare patient adherence and persistence with bimatoprost 0.01%, a new formulation that offers equivalent intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy to bimatoprost 0.03% and improved tolerability, with that of the original bimatoprost 0.03% formulation.
Pharmacy claims from a longitudinal database of prescription and medical claims for >115 million patients were analyzed. Patients with an initial (index) prescription for bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% between April and June 2011, and with no claim for ophthalmic prostaglandin or prostamide analogs during the preceding 18 months, were identified. Treatment adherence was expressed as the proportion of days covered (PDC) with study medication over the first 365 days after the index prescription. Treatment persistence over the first 12 months following the index prescription was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses, assuming a 30 day grace period for prescription refill. Treatment status (on/off study medication) was determined monthly for 12 months post-index.
In total, 6150 patients were assessed for treatment adherence and 7660 for persistence. Adherence was significantly better with bimatoprost 0.01% than bimatoprost 0.03% (mean PDC 0.540 vs. 0.438; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients had high adherence (PDC > 0.80) with bimatoprost 0.01% than 0.03% (29.1% vs. 17.3%; p < 0.001). Persistence was also significantly better with bimatoprost 0.01%, with 29.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.3%, 30.8%) versus 18.3% (95% CI: 16.8%, 19.9%) of patients remaining on continuous treatment for 12 months (p < 0.001). At 12 months, significantly more patients were 'on treatment' (continuing/restarting treatment) with bimatoprost 0.01% than 0.03% (48.8% vs. 33.9%; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar findings in cohorts of ocular hypotensive treatment-naïve and elderly (≥65 years) patients.
Bimatoprost 0.01% offers adherence and persistency advantages over bimatoprost 0.03% in patients requiring ocular hypotensive therapy. Study limitations included the observational design, lack of control for imbalances in patient characteristics, and assumption that prescription refill is synonymous with medication use.
Fifty-seven patients suffering from acne vulgaris were treated for 12 weeks with 0.025% wjw retinoic acid lotion. At the end of this period, 55% of patients showed good to excellent clinical improvement, with 95% showing some overall benefit. The early lesions (comedones, papules and pustules) showed a marked reduction in numbers. Irritant side-effects were slight and did not present a problem.
Glaucoma is generally managed by decreasing the intraocular pressure (IOP) to a level believed to prevent further damage to the optic disc and loss of visual field. This may be achieved medically or surgically. The objective of this pharmacoeconomic analysis was to investigate the 4-year costs of bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan) eye drops as an alternative to filtration surgery (FS) for glaucoma patients on maximum tolerable medical therapy (MTMT).
A Markov model was designed using effectiveness and resource use data from a randomized clinical trial and expert statements (Delphi panel). The RCT covered 83 patients on MTMT. The Model compared bimatoprost with FS. In the bimatoprost model arm patients began treatment with bimatoprost. If target IOP (-20%) was not reached using medical therapy the patient proceeded with FS. In the FS model arm, FS was performed after the first ophthalmologist visit. Unit costs were obtained from an Italian chart and tariffs review (healthcare sector perspective).
The RCT showed that 74.7% of the patients delayed the need for FS by 3 months. The Markov model forecasted that 64.2% of the patients could delay the need for FS by 1 year, and forecasted 34.0% could avoid FS after 4 years. The 4-year cost per patient in the bimatoprost and FS arms was E3438 and E4194, respectively (incremental costs of E755). The major cost drivers for the bimatoprost arm were patients who needed combination therapy or FS if the target IOP was not reached. In the FS arm, the major cost drives were the initial surgery costs and pressure-lowering medications used as add-on therapy after FS.
The analysis shows that in a 4-year perspective bimatoprost is cheaper compared to FS. In addition, the postponement of FS associated with bimatoprost may have important implications for waiting list planning.
To evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the fixed combination of bimatoprost 0.03% and timolol 0.5% (Ganfort) among German patients.
Multicenter, observational, open-label study of patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (n = 606). As determined by participating physicians, patients had insufficient IOP control and required a medication change. They were switched to once-daily fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol with no wash-out period. IOP was recorded at treated baseline, 4-6 weeks and 12 weeks after switching. Tolerability was measured using a 4-step scale (excellent, good, moderate, poor) and all adverse events were recorded.
A total of 405 patients switched from monotherapy, 97 switched from other fixed combinations, and 104 switched from non-fixed combinations. Among all patients, 32.5% had used prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy, 8.7% had been using a fixed combination that included a PGA, and 6.9% had been using an adjunctive combination of a PGA and a beta-blocker. Mean treated baseline IOP (+/-SD) for all patients was 20.7 +/- 3.5 mmHg. Overall, changing medication to fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol lowered IOP to 16.6 +/- 2.7 mmHg (p < 0.001 vs. baseline) after 4-6 weeks and to 16.1 +/- 2.6 mmHg (p < 0.001) after 12 weeks; reductions of 19.8% and 22.2%, respectively. Combined bimatoprost/timolol provided an additional IOP reduction versus baseline in most subgroups based on prior treatment. At week 12, patients who had previously used a beta-blocker achieved an additional 25.8% decrease from baseline and IOP was reduced by 22.6% in former PGA monotherapy patients. At week 12, 84.6% of all eyes reached a target pressure less than or equal to 18 mmHg. Tolerability of bimatoprost/timolol was rated excellent or good by the physicians for 98.7% of patients and by 96.7% of the patients themselves. Few adverse events occurred during the treatment period.
Although this study was limited by its observational design, our results show that the fixed combination of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% was effective, well tolerated, and safe in a broad patient population.
To quantitatively determine, in a Pseudomonas keratitis model, the anti-inflammatory and bactericidal properties of a new formulation of tobramycin (0.3%) and dexamethasone (0.05%) that utilizes a xanthan gum vehicle.
In a randomized and masked fashion, rabbit corneas (n>/=16 eyes per group) were intrastromally injected with 10(3) colony-forming units (CFU) of P. aeruginosa. Eyes were untreated or were administered a single drop every 15 min between 16 and 17 h postinfection (PI) and then a single drop every 30 min between 17 and 22 h PI, a total of 15 drops of either 0.1% dexamethasone and 0.3% tobramycin (TobraDex; Tdex) or a new formulation 0.3% tobramycin and 0.05% dexamethasone with xanthan gum (TobraDex ST; ST). Slit lamp examination scores (SLE+/-SEM) were derived from grading seven parameters at 22 h PI. Rabbits were sacrificed at 23 h PI and the log CFU+/-SEM per cornea was determined.
Untreated eyes had SLE scores of 11.11+/-0.43 and had log CFU of 7.27+/-0.06. Eyes treated with Tdex, as compared to the untreated eyes, had significantly lower SLE scores (7.39+/-0.21, p<0.0001) and significantly fewer bacteria (6.32+/-0.29 log CFU, p=0.0213). Eyes treated with ST had a SLE score (6.56+/-0.19) that was significantly lower than both the untreated eyes (p<0.0001) and the eyes treated with Tdex (p=0.0124). Furthermore, eyes treated with ST had significantly fewer log CFU (5.78+/-0.30) than untreated eyes (p=0.0001) or eyes treated with Tdex (p=0.0434).
The ST formulation with xanthan gum demonstrated statistically superior anti-inflammatory and bactericidal properties as compared to Tdex.
Variations in inoculation procedures produced limited eye-to-eye differences in the infection.
A 4-week, bilateral, controlled study was carried out in 53 patients with various acute and chronic dermatoses to compare the effectiveness of 0.1% halcinonide in a water-miscible base, applied once daily, with 0.05% betamethasone dipropionate cream applied twice daily. Patients' response to treatment was assessed at the end of each week. Halcinonide proved to be equally as effective as betamethasone dipropionate in most and superior in some patients with psoriasis, lichen chronicus simplex, and atopic and neurodermatitis. There was also a prompt response to once daily treatment with halcinonide in patients with contact dermatitis, eczema of the hands, and more serious cases of eczema nummulare and allergic skin reactions, many of whom had failed to respond to previous topical steroid therapy. Both preparations were well tolerated and side-effects were noted in only 1 patient with psoriasis whose condition was aggravated by halcinonide. Only 3 patients had a relapse during the 1-month follow-up period after treatment was stopped.
To compare the efficacy of olopatadine and levocabastine in reducing ocular allergic itching and vascular hyperemia (redness) induced by conjunctival allergen challenge.
The study was a randomized, double-masked, contralateral study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. At Visit 1, subjects with a positive allergen skin test and a history of allergic conjunctivitis were administered increasing concentrations of allergen until at least a moderate grade 2 ocular itching and conjunctival redness response was obtained in both eyes. Allergic signs were graded on standardized 0-4 scales. Subjects who reacted positively were re-challenged at Visit 2 with the pre-determined concentration of allergen. Subjects who again responded with at least a grade 2 bilateral ocular itching and conjunctival redness score at Visit 2 were eligible for drug evaluation. At Visit 3, subjects received olopatadine in one eye and levocabastine in the contralateral eye according to a computer-generated randomization scheme generated prior to commencement of the study. Ocular discomfort was then graded in both eyes. Subjects were bilaterally challenged with the predetermined concentration of allergen 27 min after topical drug administration, such that the first post-challenge assessment was made 30 min post-drug instillation. Allergic signs and symptoms were evaluated at 3 min, 10 min, and 20 min postchallenge and safety and efficacy analyses were performed.
Sixty-eight subjects received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Ocular itching scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at 3 min and 10 min post-challenge (p < 0.001). Ocular redness scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at all time points post-challenge (p < 0.0001). Of all subjects, 4.41% reported ocular discomfort in the olopatadine eye and 26.5% in the levocabastine treated eye.
Olopatadine treated eyes had significantly less itching and redness than levocabastine treated eyes after conjunctival allergen challenge. Olopatadine was also associated with less discomfort upon instillation than levocabastine.
A new steroid, halcinonide, was compared with clobetasol propionate cream in 100 patients with a variety of skin disorders. The study was conducted as a double-blind, paired comparison with the preparations being given twice daily. Results obtained over a 14-day period of therapy showed remarkably similar efficacy for both preparations.
Olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and epinastine 0.05% (Elestat, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) are topical ocular anti-allergic agents. Both are H(1) antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.
To compare the efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% with epinastine 0.05%, in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis following conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC).
This was a 7 week, four visit, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled CAC study. Visit 1 screened subjects for positive ocular allergic responses and Visit 2 confirmed those responses. At Visit 3, 92 subjects were randomized into one of four treatment groups to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine 0.2%/placebo, (2) epinastine 0.05%/placebo, (3) olopatadine 0.2%/epinastine 0.05%, (4) placebo/placebo. Subjects were challenged 12 h after drop instillation to evaluate duration of action. At Visit 4, subjects were challenged 5 min after drop instillation to evaluate onset of action. Drop comfort was assessed at Visit 4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;
This article focuses on the results of the onset-of-action challenge (Visit 4). At Visit 4, ocular itching was assessed at 3, 5, and 7 min and redness was assessed at 7, 15, and 20 min post-challenge. Drop comfort was assessed upon instillation, at 30s, and at 1, 2, and 5 min post-instillation. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean ocular itching scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at 5 (p = 0.024) and 7 min (p = 0.003) post-challenge. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean redness scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at all time points post-challenge (ciliary: p < or = 0.013, conjunctival: p < or = 0.015, episcleral: p < or = 0.006). Olopatadine 0.2% was rated as significantly more comfortable than epinastine 0.05% at 1 min post-drop instillation (p = 0.003). All adverse events were non-serious and unrelated to study medication. Although the CAC model reproduces allergic responses that are not environmentally-induced, patients experience varying severities of responses as are seen in real-world situations.
Olopatadine 0.2% was superior to epinastine 0.05% in preventing ocular itching and redness at onset when induced by the CAC model.
To assess patients' experiences with topical cyclosporine A (tCSA) 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis) to treat keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS) in a real-world setting.
A total of 4504 ophthalmologists, optometrists and primary care physicians from throughout the United States participated in the study. Individual physicians identified patients from their practice who were appropriate candidates for treatment with tCSA and provided them with free sample medication and study materials. Patients voluntarily enrolled in the program by following the instructions provided in the study materials. Data for this study were obtained from patient surveys that included questions related to patients' experiences using topical cyclosporine A 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion (tCSA). Using automated surveys at baseline, 30-days and 60-days post-medication initiation, patients rated symptom severity, symptom impact on daily activities, and use of artificial tears pre- and post-treatment with study medication. Participants also reported on the rapidity of symptom relief and satisfaction with tCSA.
A total of 5884 patients completed the study. The vast majority (84%) was female; average age was 63 years. Patients who completed the study (n = 5884) achieved significant reductions (p < 0.001) of 30% in symptom severity and 31%-36% in activity impairments relative to baseline. A positive association (p < 0.001) was observed between number of years with dry eye and the average ratings for symptom severity and impact on everyday activities. Onset of relief was noted within 1 week by 32% of patients and within 3 weeks by 73%. More than 60% reported decreased use of artificial tears at both 30 days and 60 days post-treatment initiation.
Results suggest that in a real-world setting tCSA is an effective treatment for patients suffering from KCS. Onset of relief may be more rapid than in previously published reports.
A double-blind comparative trial was carried out in 56 patients with psoriasis to assess the effectiveness of 0.25% desoxymethasone and 0.05% fluocinonide ointments. All patients showed marked improvement in their condition with twice daily application of the ointments during the 2-week period of the trial. Erythema, scaling and induration on the desoxymethasone-treated side showed a significantly better improvement than on the fluocinonide-treated side.
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of tobramycin/dexamethasone (TobraDex ST ; 'ST') ophthalmic suspension 0.3%/0.05% compared to azithromycin (Azasite) ophthalmic solution (1%) in the treatment of moderate to severe blepharitis/blepharoconjunctivitis.
The study was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, and active-controlled, 15-day study. Enrolled in the study were 122 adult subjects (at least 18 years of age) diagnosed with moderate to severe blepharitis/blepharoconjunctivitis, defined by a minimum score of at least '1' for one of the lid signs, one of the conjunctival signs, and one of the symptoms in at least one eye and a minimum global score (total signs and symptoms score) of '5' in the same eye. One group of 61 subjects received ST with instructions to dose 1 drop four times daily (QID) for 14 days. The other group of 61 subjects received azithromycin and dosed with 1 drop twice daily (BID) for 2 days followed by once daily (QD) dosing for 12 days. Visits were conducted at Day 1 (baseline), Day 8 and Day 15. The a priori primary outcome parameter of the study was the seven-item global score defined as the total score of lid margin redness, bulbar conjunctival redness, palpebral conjunctival redness, ocular discharge (0-3 scale), and lid swelling, itchy eyelids, and gritty eyes (0-4 scale). The study utilized standardized, validated photograph control scales developed by Ora, Inc. (Andover, MA). Clinical trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the registry number NCT01102244.
A statistically significant lower mean global score (p = 0.0002) was observed in subjects treated with ST compared to subjects treated with azithromycin at Day 8. No serious adverse events were reported during the course of the study in either group.
ST provides a fast and effective treatment of acute blepharitis compared to azithromycin. Initial therapy with the combination of tobramycin/dexamethasone provides faster inflammation relief than azithromycin for moderate to severe blepharitis/blepharoconjunctivitis.
To compare the peak to-aqueous penetration of three nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: ketorolac tromethamine 0.45%, bromfenac 0.09%, nepafenac 0.1%, and amfenac (the active metabolite of nepafenac) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification.
A single center, double-masked study randomized 122 patients to receive one of three treatment arms. On-label dosing of ketorolac (BID), bromfenac (BID), and nepafenac (TID) was instructed for 1 day prior to surgery. Patients were instructed to instill one drop the morning of surgery. The patients received four additional doses 1 hour prior to phacoemulsification. After completion of the paracentesis site with a superblade, aqueous humor (0.15 cc) was collected through the peripheral clear cornea with a 30-gauge needle attached to a TB syringe. Following collection, aqueous samples were stored at -40°C prior to analysis. Drug concentrations were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry using positive turbo-ion spray ionization and multiple reaction monitoring mode for quantification. An independent sample Student's t-test was used to detect between-group differences.
The peak aqueous concentration of ketorolac 0.45% was 10 times the concentration of bromfenac 0.09%, and five times the concentration of and 54% greater than the metabolically inactive nepafenac 0.1%. The mean peak aqueous concentration of ketorolac 0.45% was 688.87 ± 749.6 ng/ml. Bromfenac achieved a mean peak aqueous concentration of 67.64 ± 62.4 ng/ml. The mean peak aqueous concentrations of nepafenac and amfenac were 447.10 ± 225.7 ng/ml and 140.37 ± 56.6 ng/ml, respectively. The peak concentration of ketorolac was statistically significantly greater than bromfenac (P ≤ 0.0005), nepafenac (P ≤ 0.05), and amfenac (P ≤ 0.005). A limitation of this study is that aqueous samples were collected just prior to surgery and not during the postoperative period due to ethical considerations.
Ketorolac 0.45% achieved significantly greater aqueous concentrations when compared to bromfenac 0.09% and the active metabolite of nepafenac 0.1% (amfenac) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification.
To evaluate the efficacy and ocular safety of bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% dosed once daily for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation.
A total of 455 subjects (455 study eyes: 230 bromfenac, 225 placebo) were enrolled in two randomized double-masked, placebo-controlled, clinical trials at 64 ophthalmology clinics in the United States. Subjects were randomized to receive either bromfenac 0.09% or placebo dosed once daily. Dosing began 1 day before cataract surgery (Day -1), continued on day of surgery (Day 0), and for 14 days following surgery. Evaluations were completed on Days 1, 3, 8, 15 and 22. The primary efficacy endpoint was cleared summed ocular inflammation score (SOIS) by Day 15. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of subjects who were pain-free at Day 1.
The bromfenac 0.09% group was significantly higher compared to the placebo group in the primary endpoint of the proportion of subjects who had cleared ocular inflammation by Day 15 (P < 0.0001). The mean SOIS for the bromfenac 0.09% group was lower than the placebo group at Days 3, 8, 15, and 22 (P < 0.0001). More bromfenac 0.09% subjects were pain free at Days 1, 3, 8, and 15 (P < 0.0001). Fewer subjects in the bromfenac 0.09% group withdrew from the clinical trials due to lack of efficacy at Day 15 (P < 0.0001). Fewer adverse events were reported in the bromfenac 0.09% group than the placebo group. Limitations included advanced age, female predominance, and surgical nuances among cataract surgeons, making cross-trial comparisons difficult.
Bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% dosed once daily is clinically safe and effective for the treatment of ocular inflammation and the reduction of ocular pain associated with cataract surgery.
Seborrhoeic dermatitis (SD) is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the skin. Topical steroid creams and/or antifungal agents are commonly used in SD, but no resolutive therapies have been available up to now. Furthermore, little data have been available regarding clinical outcomes after cessation of topical treatments. A new formulation of betamethasone valerate 0.1% in a thermophobic, low-residue, foam vehicle (Bettamousse) (BVM) has become available for the topical treatment of scalp dermatoses. No data have been published hitherto regarding efficacy, safety and patient acceptability of this new formulation for the treatment of SD of the scalp. Study aim: To assess in an open-label, prospective, multicentre trial, the efficacy, safety and patient acceptability of BVM, as compared to baseline, in SD subjects with scalp involvement.
A total of 180 patients with moderate-to-severe SD of the scalp were enrolled in the trial. Efficacy was evaluated by analysing SD lesions for erythema, scaling and itching using a five-point grading score (0 = lesion completely cured; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = severe and 4 = very severe lesion). The clinical global (sum) score was obtained adding the score of each item. Efficacy and safety were assessed at baseline, after 4 weeks of active treatment, followed by an 8-week follow-up period with no treatment.
In comparison with baseline, BVM significantly improved SD lesions. The sum score was reduced from 6.3 +/- 1.8 to 1.4 +/- 1.4 at the end of the active treatment period, (p < 0.0001) and to 1.7 +/- 1.8 at the end of the 8-week follow-up period (p < 0.0001). After active treatment, 93% of the patients had a sum score of </=3). At the end of 8-week of follow-up, 88% of patients maintained a sum score </=3. In addition, 85% of patients considered BVM foam to be a better topical formulation both in terms of efficacy and acceptability compared with previous treatments used.
BVM is an effective and well-tolerated topical treatment of scalp SD. Its clinical effect is also maintained after a 2-month wash-out period.
To compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effects of brimonidine-purite 0.1% with the marketed formulation of brimonidine-purite 0.15% (Alphagan P 0.15%) when used twice daily (BID) by patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension previously treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15% for at least 6 weeks.
In a 12-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel group, non-inferiority study, patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15% BID were randomly assigned to continue brimonidine-purite 0.15% (n=102) or to administer brimonidine-purite 0.1% (n=105) BID for 12 months. IOP was measured at approximately 8 a.m. (hour 0) and 10 a.m. (hour 2).
Mean change from baseline IOP and adverse events.
Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Treated-baseline mean IOPs at both timepoints were similar between groups (p > or = 0.606). Brimonidine-purite 0.1% provided IOP-lowering that was non-inferior to brimonidine-purite 0.15% at each of the 12 follow-up timepoints, and there were no statistically significant between-group differences at any timepoint. The most commonly reported adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (13.5% for brimonidine-purite 0.1%; 10.8% for brimonidine-purite 0.15%). No significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were noted between the two formulations.
Brimonidine-purite 0.1% BID is as effective as brimonidine-purite 0.15% BID in lowering IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were previously treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15%, and both formulations are well tolerated. Limitations of the study include enrollment of only patients who were already on treatment with brimonidine-purite 0.15%. The 0.1% formulation of brimonidine-purite allows for decreased exposure to brimonidine while providing an IOP-lowering effect comparable to that of the 0.15% formulation. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT00168363.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brimonidine purite 0.1% in comparison to brinzolamide 1% when used as adjunctive therapy to latanoprost 0.005% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Randomized, single-center, investigator-masked, parallel-group clinical study. Patients with IOP >or= 18 mmHg while on once-daily latanoprost were randomized to adjunctive treatment with brimonidine purite TID (n = 20) or brinzolamide TID (n = 20) for 3 months. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 4 p.m. at latanoprost-treated baseline and after 1 and 3 months of latanoprost and adjunctive therapy. A patient questionnaire was administered to evaluate the tolerability of eye drop instillation.
Baseline mean diurnal IOP (+/- standard deviation, mmHg) on latanoprost was comparable between groups (brimonidine purite: 19.6 +/- 2.94; brinzolamide: 19.8 +/- 3.25; p = 0.846). Mean diurnal IOP at Month 3 was 16.3 +/- 2.63 mmHg with brimonidine purite and 17.8 +/- 2.19 mmHg with brinzolamide (p = 0.028). Adjunctive use of brimonidine purite provided greater IOP lowering than brinzolamide at 10 a.m. (p < 0.001) and 4 p.m. (p = 0.050) and equivalent IOP lowering to brinzolamide at 8 a.m. (p = 0.716). Blurred vision at Month 1 and bitter taste at Months 1 and 3 were more common upon instillation of brinzolamide eye drops.
Brimonidine purite 0.1% provided significantly lower IOP compared with brinzolamide 1% when used as adjunctive therapy to latanoprost. Both adjunctive therapies were well tolerated. Limitations of this study include the use of a single site and the sample size. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate these drugs as adjunctive therapy to prostaglandin analogs.
A double-blind controlled trial was carried out over a period of 3 weeks to assess the effectiveness of 1% hydrocortisone, in a specialized carbamide drug delivery system, compared with 0.1% betamethasone 17-valerate cream in the treatment of 21 patients with bilateral, symmetrical, non-infective inflammatory dermatoses. The trial preparations were applied topically twice daily, each to one side only during the trial. Although overall patient preference tended to favour betamethasone 17-valerate, the physician's assessment of clinical improvement, based on severity rating scores, indicated that both preparations were equally effective and there were no significant differences between the calculated mean percentage clinical improvements at the end of each week.
An open study was carried out in 41 children with mild to moderate psoriasis to assess the effectiveness and tolerance of treatment with a 0.1% dithranol plus 17% urea preparation applied twice daily. Thirty-four patients completed 6-weeks' treatment and 8 of them continued for a further 4 to 6 weeks. The results showed considerable improvement in lesions and, in general, the preparation was well-tolerated and considered to be highly or very acceptable by the majority of the patients. Only 3 patients had to be withdrawn for treatment-related reasons which involved soreness or burning of the skin due to the dithranol.
This study compared the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T; Zylet) with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T; Tobradex) in the treatment of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Research design and methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group study. Subjects with clinically diagnosed blepharokeratocon-junctivitis in at least one eye were randomized to LE/T (n = 138) or DM/T (n = 138) administered four times per day, for 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to Day 15 (+/- 1 day) in the signs and symptoms composite score using a non-inferiority metric to compare LE/T to DM/T. Safety endpoints included visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP) assessments, and adverse events.
At Day 15, the mean (SD) change from baseline in the signs and symptoms composite score was -15.2 (7.3) for LE/T-treated subjects and -15.6 (7.7) for DM/T-treated subjects. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in change from baseline was less than the non-inferiority margin not only at Day 15 but also at Day 7 and Day 3 for both the intent-to-treat and per protocol populations. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced a significant increase in IOP versus those treated with LE/T at Day 7, Day 15, and overall (mean [SD] of 0.6 [2.3] vs, -0.1 [2.2], p = 0.03, 1.0 [3.0] vs. -0.1 [2.4], p = 0.01, and 2.3 [2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.7], p = 0.02, respectively).
LE/T satisfied the condition of non-inferiority to DM/T in decreasing the signs and symptoms of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced more of an increase in IOP. Limitation: Although the single-masked design of this study could be considered a limitation, care was taken to ensure that the investigator was masked.
To compare the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T) and dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T) ophthalmic suspensions in a Chinese population with ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC).
This study was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients aged ≥18 years with a clinical diagnosis of BKC in at least one eye received LE/T or DM/T administered 4 times daily for 2 weeks. At baseline and on days 3, 8, and 15 (visits 2, 3, and 4), clinical assessments of ocular signs and symptoms, visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were performed in both eyes.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) to visit 4 in the signs and symptoms composite score in designated study eyes using a non-inferiority metric to compare LE/T to DM/T. Safety evaluation included adverse events, biomicroscopy findings, and changes in VA and IOP.
NCT number, NCT01028027.
A total of 308 patients were included in the per protocol population (n = 156 LE/T, n = 152 DM/T). A significant CFB in composite signs and symptoms was seen with both treatments at each follow-up visit (p < 0.0001). The mean (SD) CFB at visit 4 was -11.63 (4.56) and -12.41 (4.71) in the LE/T and DM/T groups, respectively, and the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Comparable results were found for secondary efficacy outcomes. Patients treated with DM/T experienced a significantly greater increase in mean CFB in IOP compared to those treated with LE/T at all follow-up visits (p ≤ 0.0186) and nearly twice as many IOP elevations ≥5 mmHg (p = 0.0020).
Treatment with LE/T was at least as effective as DM/T in Chinese patients with BKC and had a better safety profile with respect to change in IOP.
A double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in 60 patients with varicose (hypostatic) eczema to compare the efficacy and tolerance of treatment with 0.25% desoxymethasone in an oily cream base, the oily cream base alone, and 0.1% hydrocortisone 17-butyrate cream. The creams were applied twice daily and patients' progress followed for up to 38 days. Clinical ratings based on an assessment of individual signs and symptoms, the area of skin involved and the physician's overall impression demonstrated a significant difference from the oily cream base in favour of both active treatments within the first 10 days. No significant difference between the two active treatments was shown. All three treatments were well tolerated by the patients.
To compare the safety and tolerability of two formulations of brimonidine ophthalmic solution, brimonidine Purite (P) 0.1% and brimonidine P 0.15%, for reducing intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OHT).
Meta-analysis of safety and tolerability results from two previously reported prospective, randomized, 12-month, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group clinical studies with similar entry criteria and protocols. In study 1 (two clinical trials), after washout of previous medications, patients with glaucoma or OHT were randomized to thrice-daily treatment with brimonidine P 0.15% (n = 381), brimonidine P 0.2% (n = 383), or brimonidine 0.2% (n = 383). In study 2 (one clinical trial), the treatment arms were thrice-daily brimonidine P 0.1% (n = 215) and brimonidine 0.2% (n = 218).
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs.
Treatment-related AEs were significantly reduced with brimonidine P 0.15% compared with brimonidine 0.2% in study 1 (p < 0.001). Treatment-related AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were significantly reduced with brimonidine P 0.1% compared with brimonidine 0.2% in study 2 (p < or = 0.014). In the meta-analysis of study 1 and study 2, the overall incidence of treatment-related AEs was lower with brimonidine P 0.1% than with brimonidine P 0.15% (41.4 vs. 49.7%; p = 0.050). Although the incidence of treatment-related ocular AEs was similar with brimonidine P 0.1% and 0.15% (p = 0.461), treatment-related systemic AEs were less frequent with brimonidine P 0.1% than with brimonidine P 0.15% (4.7 vs. 14.2%; p < 0.001), and there were fewer discontinuations due to systemic AEs with brimonidine P 0.1% than with brimonidine P 0.15% (p = 0.025).
Brimonidine P 0.1% has improved systemic safety and tolerability compared with brimonidine P 0.15%. The ocular safety and tolerability of the formulations are similar. The present meta-analysis is based on only two clinical studies, and additional studies further evaluating the safety and tolerability of these medications are warranted.
A preliminary double-blind controlled trial was carried out in 8 patients with active chronic psoriasis, whose lesions were more or less bilaterally symmetrical, to assess the efficacy of topical treatment with 0.1% dithranol in a specialized carbamide (17% urea) base. The trial preparation was applied twice daily to one side only over a period of 3 weeks, and lesions on the other side of the body were treated in a similar manner with the base alone. Assessments of clinical improvement, based on severity rating scores, were carried out at weekly intervals. The results showed that, although use of the base alone led to some improvement, the preparation including dithranol was twice as effective, and this finding was supported by the patients' preference. It was easy to apply and remove and was well tolerated, the only side-effects reported being stinging and/or smarting.
The efficacy of 0.5% timolol was compared with that of the prostaglandin derivative unoprostone in maintaining control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in subjects with chronic open angle glaucoma (COAG) or ocular hypertension (OH) already responding satisfactorily to beta-blocker monotherapy. In a two-centre, double-masked, randomised parallel group study, 40 subjects were placed on 0.5% timolol eyedrops twice daily for two weeks. They were then randomised either to continue with 0.5% timolol or to switch to 0.12% unoprostone, applied twice daily for six weeks. IOP was measured at two-weekly intervals. The status of the conjunctiva, iris, cornea and anterior chamber was kept under observation. Ocular safety was monitored by measurements of visual acuity, and any systemic adverse events were recorded. After six weeks' treatment, there were no statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline IOP within or between treatment groups. For the subjects treated with unoprostone, mean IOP increased by 0.69 mm Hg (p = 0.368) while that of the timolol-treated subjects fell by 0.47 mm Hg (p = 0.287). The difference in mean IOP between groups was 1.16 mm Hg (p = 0.211, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.69 to 3.02). The most common complaint was a mild and transient burning sensation on instillation which occurred more frequently in the unoprostone group. In conclusion, an aqueous solution of 0.12% unoprostone isopropyl, applied topically to the eye twice daily for six weeks, was as effective as 0.5% timolol in maintaining control of IOP in subjects with chronic open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated.
Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% (Pataday, Alcon, Fort Worth, USA) is a topical ocular anti-allergic agent that has shown high rates of efficacy in treating ocular itching, the primary symptom of allergic conjunctivitis, and allows for once-daily dosing. Since some patients suffer from signs or symptoms of dry eye in addition to ocular allergy, this study was designed to evaluate the safety of olopatadine 0.2% in a population of patients with both allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye.
This was a single-center, 3-visit, double-masked, randomized study. Fifty-two patients diagnosed with ocular allergy and mild-to-moderate dry eye were evaluated. After a run-in period, patients were randomized to receive either olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% or a tear saline, and self-dosed once-daily for 1 week. Outcome measures included tear film break-up time, corneal and conjunctival staining, tear volume and flow as measured by fluorophotometry, Schirmer's test, injection, and symptom evaluations.
No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed (p > 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred during the trial. Variability in the presentation of dry eye can hinder the observation of treatment effects. Although the study design facilitated the comparison of olopatadine 0.2% against an agent that was certain to not exacerbate dry eye, future comparison of olopatadine 0.2% against other agents in its drug class would provide useful information about relative drug tolerabilities.
As there were no significant changes in the signs and symptoms of dry eye, olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% is safe to use in ocular allergy patients with mild-to-moderate dry eye.
Elevated serum cholesterol level is a key risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cerivastatin is a highly effective lipid-lowering agent currently licensed at doses of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg. This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing the efficacy and safety of cerivastatin 0.4 mg/day with that of cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. There was a six-week placebo run-in phase followed by a 24-week active treatment phase. A total of 494 patients were randomised to receive cerivastatin 0.4 mg (n = 332) or 0.2 mg (n = 162). Per-protocol (PP) analysis revealed that mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level decreased by 38.4 +/- 0.7% from baseline in the 0.4 mg group, compared with a decrease of 31.5 +/- 0.9% in the 0.2 mg group (p < 0.0001). There was a significant gender difference in the 0.4 mg group: LDL-C decreased by 44.4 +/- 8.9% in women, compared with a decrease of 37.0 +/- 0.9% in men (p < 0.046). In the PP group as a whole, total cholesterol decreased by 26.0 +/- 0.5% from baseline in the 0.4 mg group, compared with a decrease of 21.6 +/- 0.7% in the 0.2 mg group (p < 0.0001). Both doses were well tolerated; only eight (2.4%) patients in the 0.4 mg group and five (3.1%) patients in the 0.2 mg group withdrew owing to adverse events. Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day and 0.4 mg/day was found to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol levels in a dose-dependent manner, with both doses exhibiting a good safety profile.
To evaluate the incidence of ocular allergy in glaucoma patients prospectively treated with 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed combination (Combigan) compared with the incidence of ocular allergy in patients treated with 0.2% brimonidine (Alphagan) monotherapy.
This was a comparative, non-randomized, single-site, interventional study involving patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or exfoliation syndrome who had not previously used brimonidine in any formulation and had no history of ocular allergy. In one study arm, 102 patients were prospectively treated with twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed combination. In the other study arm, medical charts at the same center were reviewed to identify a control group of 102 patients who had been treated with twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine monotherapy. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 months of treatment.
Ocular allergy defined as the presence of follicles and redness severe enough to warrant discontinuation of the medication.
The incidence of ocular allergy over 18 months of treatment was 8.8% (9/102) in the fixed-combination group compared with 17.6% (18/102) in the brimonidine group (p=0.097). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis suggested that ocular allergy may be reduced or delayed in patients treated with the brimonidine-timolol fixed combination (p=0.066).
The brimonidine-timolol fixed combination was associated with a 50% lower incidence in ocular allergy compared with 0.2% brimonidine monotherapy. This difference between treatments was not statistically significant (p=0.097) but is likely to be clinically important. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the incidence of ocular allergy associated with brimonidine-timolol fixed combination treatment.
At the introduction of the fixed-combination of brimonidine/timolol in Germany in 2006, a non-interventional, multicenter, observational, open-label study was initiated to evaluate efficacy, tolerability, and safety of this preparation in a broad patient population.
The study population comprised patients with bilateral primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with insufficient intraocular pressure (IOP) control who participating physicians determined required a change of medication, and who switched to exclusive use of the new fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5%. Patient demographics and information on specific risk factors were collected. IOP readings were recorded for each eye at treated baseline (previous therapy), 4 to 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after changing to twice-daily brimonidine/timolol. Tolerability was measured using a four-step scale ranging from excellent to poor. All adverse events were recorded.
Mean treated baseline IOP (+/-SD) for all patients (N = 861) was 20.8 +/- 3.5 mmHg. Five hundred sixty-five patients switched from monotherapy, 138 patients switched from other fixed combinations, and 158 patients had been using non-fixed combinations of up to four different active agents. The brimonidine/timolol fixed combination provided an additional IOP decrease in most pretreatment subgroups, with an overall reduction to 16.9 +/- 2.6 mmHg after 4 to 6 weeks and to 16.5 +/- 2.7 mmHg after 12 weeks. Both of these values were significantly lower than baseline IOP (p < 0.001). A target pressure of <18 mmHg was achieved in 79.5% of all eyes at week 12. Tolerability of fixed-combination brimonidine/timolol was rated excellent or good by the physicians for 97.1% of patients, and by 93.4% of the patients themselves. Few adverse events occurred during the treatment period.
Although this study was limited by its observational design, our results show that the fixed combination of brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% was effective, well tolerated, and safe in a broad POAG patient population.
To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% to polymyxin B-neomycin-hydrocortisone (PNH) otic solution in the treatment of acute diffuse otitis externa in children, adolescents, and adults.
This was a randomized, parallel-group, evaluator-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, noninferiority study. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical cure of otitis symptoms at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Clinical cure at the end-of-treatment (EOT) visit and percentages of patients with clinical improvement and resolution and/or improvement of otalgia at EOT and TOC visits were secondary efficacy endpoints.
A total of 630 patients were randomized to ciprofloxacin twice daily (n = 318) or PNH 3 times daily (n = 312) for 7 days. Ciprofloxacin was shown to be noninferior to PNH. The percentage of patients with clinical cure at the TOC visit was 86.6% with ciprofloxacin and 81.1% with PNH; the treatment difference was 5.6% in favor of ciprofloxacin (95% CI: -0.9 to 12.1). At the EOT visit, clinical cure was achieved in 70.0% and 60.5% of patients, respectively, with a treatment difference in favor of ciprofloxacin (9.5%, 95 CI: 1.2 to 17.9). In all secondary efficacy variables, ciprofloxacin and PNH showed similar results, including pain duration and resolution. The clinical cure rate for patients with baseline cultures showing P. aeruginosa was 87.5% in the ciprofloxacin group and 78.6% in the PNH group, a treatment difference of 8.9% in favor of ciprofloxacin (95% CI: 0.6 to 17.3); for patients with baseline cultures showing S. aureus, the clinical cure rate was 72.7% for the ciprofloxacin group and 75.9% for the PNH group (treatment difference of 3.1% in favor of PNH, 95% CI: -21.1% to 27.4%). Most adverse events were mild and unrelated to study medication in both treatment groups. A limitation of this study is the assessment of signs and symptoms at baseline and after treatment, which does not provide data to evaluate the interim response.
Ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% was found to be noninferior to PNH. This efficacy, good tolerability, and ease of administration make ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% without a topical steroid an attractive option for the treatment of acute otitis externa.
A comparison between the acute effects of rimiterol (0.5 mg) and salbutamol (0.2 mg.) has been made using metered dose aerosols. In this dosage it was found that the peak effect of the two drugs was the same but that the effect of rimiterol was less prolonged than that of sulbutamol. No increase in blood pressure occurred and heart rate changes were minimal after both drugs. Rimiterol is an acceptable alternative to the short-acting isoprenaline but lacks the cardiovascular effects of isoprenaline and is an alternative to salbutamol where very prolonged action is unnecessary.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, a new topical anti-allergic agent for the prevention of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis induced by conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC).
This two-arm, double-masked, multi-center, placebo-controlled Phase III study (NCT00889330) enrolled healthy volunteers (N = 58) with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects ≥10 years of age with a reproducible, positive reaction to a CAC were randomized to receive either one drop of alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution bilaterally or vehicle bilaterally. After 16 hours (Visit 3) and 15 minutes (Visit 4), a CAC was performed and ocular and nasal symptoms of allergy were graded over a 20-minute period. Clinical and statistical significance were evaluated.
The primary endpoints were ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The secondary endpoints were all other signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Visual acuity, slit lamp biomicroscopy and adverse event reporting were the predetermined safety measures.
Alcaftadine was effective in the prevention of ocular itching based on both clinically relevant and statistically significant differences compared with vehicle (placebo). Alcaftadine significantly reduced conjunctival redness, and almost all other allergic signs and symptoms at both 15 minutes and 16 hours after drug administration. No significant safety issues were reported. Between-group differences in ocular itching were higher 16 hours after drug administration than at 15 minutes after drug administration.
With an onset of action within 3 minutes and a duration of action of at least 16 hours, the statistically and clinically significant effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on itching make it an important addition to therapy for ocular allergy. Additional studies are warranted to better understand the mechanisms affording a fast onset and prolonged duration of action.
A study was carried out in 12 healthy volunteers to determine the effects of 0.25% and 0.5% pindolol eye drops on intraocular pressure. The results showed that both concentrations produced similar and highly significant falls in intraocular pressure after single instillation into the conjunctival sacs, the effect being measured with a non-contact tonometer. No significant changes were found in resting heart rate.
In Asian countries, low-dose tamsulosin (0.2 mg) is used widely but this dose has been less popular than 0.4 mg tamsulosin or other types of alpha blockers. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose tamsulosin by systematic review and meta-analysis.
We conducted a meta-analysis of improvements of lower urinary tract symptoms using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-voided residual volume (PVR), and quality of life (QOL). Relevant studies were found using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Final inclusion was determined by randomized controlled trials (RCT) and performance of IPSS.
A total of fourteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 2147 subjects (1044 experimental and 1103 controls). Study durations ranged from 4 to 52 weeks. The mean change of IPSS improvement from baseline for tamsulosin was -7.18 (95% CI: -7.83, -6.54). The mean change of QOL improvement from baseline was -1.34 (95% CI: -1.46, -1.22). The overall Qmax improvement from baseline was 2.32 ml/sec (95% CI: 1.95, 2.70). The mean change of PVR improvement from baseline was -11.12 ml (95% CI: -17.61, -4.64). Regarding safety, four studies did not report any adverse events while others reported that adverse events were all tolerated.
Although this study did not consider placebo effect and has high IPSS baseline scores, this study clarifies that low-dose tamsulosin has generally positive effect and safety in treatment of LUTS and could be a suitable option as an initial treatment, especially for patients with low body mass index, as is typical of Asian people.
A prospective, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study (n = 25) was conducted to examine the ocular penetration of moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution and gatifloxacin 0.3% solution into the aqueous humor following topical administration prior to routine cataract surgery. One drop of antibiotic was instilled every 10 min for four doses beginning 1 h prior to surgery. Preliminary results showed aqueous humor concentrations for moxifloxacin that were significantly greater (p < 0.01) than those for gatifloxacin.
To compare corneal tissue and aqueous humor concentrations of levofloxacin 1.5% and gatifloxacin 0.3% ophthalmic solutions after topical dosing.
This was a randomized, observer-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study. Fifty-nine subjects undergoing planned penetrating keratoplasty were randomly assigned to receive either levofloxacin 1.5% or gatifloxacin 0.3% as follows: one drop 15 min prior to surgery and a second drop 10 min before surgery. Corneal button and aqueous humor samples were collected during surgery and immediately stored at -70 degrees C. Levofloxacin and gatifloxacin concentrations were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry.
Corneal tissue and aqueous humor concentrations of levofloxacin and gatifloxacin.
Levofloxacin achieved statistically significantly higher concentrations in both corneal tissue and aqueous humor compared to gatifloxacin in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty. In corneal tissue the mean concentration of levofloxacin was 64.8 +/- 123.4 mug/g vs. 7.0 +/- 9.3 mug/g for gatifloxacin (p < 0.0001). Mean aqueous humor concentration of levofloxacin was 0.976 +/- 2.215 mug/mL vs. 0.0523 +/- 0.143 mug/mL for gatifloxacin (p = 0.0002).
The high concentrations of levofloxacin achievable in corneal tissue with topical dosing suggest that levofloxacin 1.5% should be a useful agent in the treatment of ocular bacterial infections. However, the corneal concentrations achieved in this study may not be representative of concentrations in patients using less frequent dosing.
To compare the efficacy and safety of To compare the efficacy and safety of gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% (Zymar) administered BID versus QID in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
In a randomized, investigator-masked clinical trial, patients diagnosed with bacterial conjunctivitis (based on signs and symptoms) received gatifloxacin either BID or QID for 5 days. Visits were scheduled at day 0, day 3, and day 5. Conjunctival cultures were taken at each visit. The clinical cure rate at day 5 was determined for the entire patient population (primary endpoint). Additionally, clinical cure at day 5 was evaluated for a population of patients defined a priori (per protocol) as being culture positive at baseline and with no substantial protocol deviations. Safety was determined through recording of adverse events. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) and susceptibility of isolates to gatifloxacin were determined using a broth dilution method.
Patient characteristics in both the BID and QID groups (N = 104) were similar in terms NN of baseline demographics and disposition. The clinical cure rate on day 5 in the entire, intentto-treat (ITT) population was 86.5% (45/52) in the gatifloxacin BID group and 71.2% (37/52) in the gatifloxacin QID group (95% CI: [-0.03, 30.80]; p = 0.096). In both treatment groups, 5/52 patients (9.6%) reported adverse events. The most common adverse event was conjunctivitis. No serious adverse events were reported. In the a priori-defined per-protocol (PP) population, the clinical cure rate on day 5 was 95.5% (21/22) in the gatifloxacin BID group and 85.7% (18/21) in the gatifloxacin QID group (95% CI: [-7.57, 21.05]; p = 0.294). At baseline, 96.1% (98/102) of the isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin. The overall MIC(90) (mean +/- standard error of the mean) was 0.5 +/- 1.3 microg/mL.
In this study, gatifloxacin 0.3% administered BID was as effective and as safe as gatifloxacin 0.3% administered QID for 5 days for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
To evaluate efficacy, safety and comfort of a 0.3% hypromellose (HM) eye gel (GenTeal Lubricant Eye Gel), with a sodium perborate preservative system and carbomer gelling agent, in patients with dry eye.
Patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye syndrome were enrolled in this open label study and assessed at three visits; a screening consultation (baseline) and two follow-up visits on day 14 (+/- 4 days) and day 28 (+/- 4 days). All screening, evaluation and follow-up visits were carried out at the Tauber Eye Center (formerly the Hunkeler Eye Center), Kansas City. Patients were treated with the product over a 4-week period. They were instructed to use the product at least two times daily, more if necessary, with one drop instilled into the conjunctive sac of both eyes.
Efficacy was measured by ocular symptoms (burning, stinging, foreign body sensation, dryness, pain/soreness and photophobia), ocular signs (eyelid erythema, bulbar conjunctival injection and corneal superficial punctate keratitis score), tear breakup time and global assessment of ocular comfort. Tolerability measures were change from baseline in best corrected Snellen visual acuity and monitoring of adverse events.
Thirty-seven patients completed this study. The mean sum symptom score at each visit was significantly lower compared with baseline with approximately 30% reduction in the sum symptom score at 2 weeks and approximately 33% at 4 weeks after treatment initiation (p < 0.001). Mean individual symptom scores for dryness, stinging and foreign body sensation decreased by approximately 40% at the end of the study (p < 0.02). Tear breakup time increased from baseline by 53% and 59% at 2 and 4 weeks, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients reporting a global evaluation of slightly better or much better was approximately 74% at 2 weeks and 78% at 4 weeks after treatment initiation. The product was well tolerated, with one related adverse event reported.
In a small, open-label study, this 0.3% HM eye gel showed statistically significant effects in relieving ocular symptoms and provides a well-tolerated formula that effectively reduced symptoms and improved ocular comfort in patients with dry eye syndrome.
To compare the ocular tolerability of the commercially available ophthalmic solutions of the fourth-generation fluoroquinolones, gatifloxacin 0.3% (Zymar, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) with benzalkonium chloride (BAK) and moxifloxacin 0.5% (Vigamox) without BAK.
A baseline evaluation was conducted on 30 healthy volunteers for conjunctival hyperemia, conjunctival vascularity, pupil size, and anterior chamber (AC) cell and flare. Pupils were measured under scotopic conditions with a Colvard pupillometer. Conjunctival hyperemia and vascularity, and AC reaction were measured on a Likert-like scale of 0-3. Subjects then received drops in both eyes from masked bottles of gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% with BAK (in one eye determined randomly) and moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% without BAK (in the contralateral eye) in a double-masked fashion. Subjects graded pain and ocular irritation in each eye on a scale of 1-10 after 5 min with their eyes closed. The examination was then repeated.
The average age of this study population was 34.4 years. The groups of eyes receiving moxifloxacin 0.5% demonstrated an increase in mean conjunctival hyperemia (0.21 [range: 0-1] at baseline to 1.52 [range: 0-3] at 5 min.) that was significantly greater (p = 0.0005) compared with that of the group receiving gatifloxacin 0.3% (0.22 [range: 0-1] at baseline to 0.45 [range: 0-2] at 5 min). The group receiving moxifloxacin 0.5% showed an increase in conjunctival vascularity (0.55 [range: 0-1] at baseline to 1.61 [range: 0.5-3] at 5 min.) that was significantly greater (p = 0.0005) compared with that of the group receiving gatifloxacin 0.3% (0.52 [range: 0-1] at baseline to 0.68 [range: 0-2] at 5 min.). Significantly less pain (1.2 vs. 3.2, p = 0.001) and irritation (0.64 vs. 3.42, p = 0.001) occurred with gatifloxacin 0.3% than with moxifloxacin 0.5%. Pupil size was significantly reduced (5.65 mm-5.05 mm) in eyes receiving moxifloxacin 0.5% (p = 0.004) and no significant change occurred in pupil size (5.60 mm-5.65 mm) in eyes that received gatifloxacin 0.3% (p = 0.878). No AC reaction was noted with either medication.
The group of eyes receiving gatifloxacin 0.3% with BAK demonstrated greater ocular tolerability in comparison to the group receiving moxifloxacin 0.5% without BAK. Moxifloxacin-induced pupillary miosis may be due to prostaglandin release in the anterior chamber. A limitation of this study is the relatively young age of the study population.
503 women were given continuous treatment with norethisterone 0.35 mg. (‘Noriday’)† daily for 2,555 cycles. One pregnancy occurred due to method failure, and 4 due to pill omissions. The patients found continuous daily tablet taking easy to remember. During treatment they felt well and many recovered from side-effects experienced during previous medication on the conventional ‘pill’. Changes occurred in cycle characteristics during treatment, but the incidence of unwanted effects fell rapidly after the initial cycles. The inconvenience only caused a 5.2% withdrawal. Medical adverse reactions were notably absent and less than observed on the combined oestrogen/progestogen pill, and 10% discontinued for purely social and unrelated causes.
*‘Noriday’ is a trade mark of Syntex Pharmaceuticals Limited.
To evaluate the efficacy of ketorolac 0.4% ophthalmic solution for control of pain and discomfort associated with cataract surgery.
This was a single-center, double-masked, randomized, fellow-eye placebo-controlled clinical study of 25 patients (mean age 72 years; 76% female) requiring bilateral cataract surgery. Patients received either ketorolac tromethamine 0.4% ophthalmic solution (Acular LS *) or placebo, 1 drop QID for 3 days prior to and 1 day following phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation on their first eye, and the other treatment for surgery on the second, fellow eye 1 week-4 weeks later. The physician rated patient cooperation and ocular pain or discomfort during surgery, and patients rated ocular pain or discomfort immediately and 24 h after surgery.
Patients reported significantly less ocular pain during the 24 h following surgery when treated with ketorolac 0.4% than with placebo (p = 0.02). Ocular pain was reported for only a single ketorolac 0.4%-treated eye (4%) during that period, compared with 39% of placebo-treated eyes (p = 0.004). No significant differences between eyes treated with ketorolac 0.4% and placebo were observed in patient cooperation, and ocular pain or discomfort during or immediately after surgery. No adverse events occurred during the study.
Evaluation of pain is subjective, and the severity of pain experienced in the control, vehicle-treated eyes was low.
The reduction in pain associated with cataract surgery afforded by ophthalmic ketorolac 0.4%, together with its favorable safety profile, make it an important tool to help surgeons meet the high expectations of today's cataract and refractive surgery patients.