Search

Bridgitte Shen Lee,1 Ranjan Malhotra,2 Kenneth Sall,3 Brittany Mitchell,4 James Peace5 1Vision Optique, Houston, TX, USA; 2Ophthalmology Associates, St. Louis, MO, USA; 3Sall Research Medical Center, Inc., Artesia, CA, USA; 4Medical Affairs North America, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA; 5Peace Eyecare, Inglewood, CA, USACorrespondence: Bridgitte Shen Lee, Vision Optique, 5158 Buffalo Speedway, Houston, TX, 77005, USA, Tel +1 713-838-2020, Fax +1 713-838-2030, Email bshenlee@gmail.comPurpose: To evaluate the long-term safety of latanoprost benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-free vs currently marketed latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution containing BAK (referred to as reference), to treat open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).Patients and Methods: This phase 3, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, single group assignment, safety study included patients who previously completed a phase 3 noninferiority study. Patients self-administered 1 drop of latanoprost BAK-free nightly for 36 weeks in the affected eye(s). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), and slit lamp biomicroscopy were assessed predose at baseline and Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, and 168; dilated ophthalmoscopy and visual field (VF) at baseline and Day 168. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study.Results: A total of 161 patients who previously received latanoprost BAK-free (n = 80) or reference (n = 81) were enrolled. Latanoprost BAK-free maintained lowered IOP for both the study and nonstudy eye in all patients relative to baseline throughout the study. Clinically significant retinal or optic nerve changes were identified in 5 patients (1 mild-to-moderate change, prior latanoprost BAK-free; 4 mild changes, prior reference). No clinically important changes were identified for VA, slit lamp biomicroscopy, and VF measurements. Ocular AEs occurred in 66 (82.5%) vs 74 (91.4%) patients on prior latanoprost BAK-free and reference, respectively; the most frequent being eye pain (50.0% vs 64.2%) and ocular hyperemia (47.5% vs 54.3%). Most AEs were mild. There were 5 serious systemic AEs in 5 patients (n = 3, prior latanoprost BAK-free; n = 2, prior reference); all were considered unrelated or not likely related to treatment. One patient (prior reference) discontinued due to follicular conjunctivitis. There were no deaths or serious ocular AEs.Conclusion: Latanoprost BAK-free was well tolerated. These findings support the chronic use of latanoprost BAK-free to treat OAG or OHT.Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00945958.Keywords: adverse events, intraocular pressure, preservative, prostaglandin, safety, tolerability

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Design: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis.Participants: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 μm by optical coherence tomography.Methods: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at ≤40 scheduled visits. Patients who met retreatment eligibility criteria could be retreated no more often than every 6 months.Main Outcome Measures: The predefined primary efficacy endpoint for the United States Food and Drug Administration was achievement of ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP).Results: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P ≤ 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (−111.6 μm) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (−107.9 μm) than sham (−41.9 μm; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy.Conclusions: The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports.

Purpose To evaluate ocular comfort of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% among patients with dry eye disease (DED) in the OPUS-3 trial. Methods OPUS-3 was a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. Adults with DED and recent artificial tear use were randomized 1:1 (lifitegrast:placebo) to ophthalmic drops twice daily for 84 days. On days 0 (baseline), 14, 42, and 84, drop comfort score (scale, 0–10; 0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable) was measured at 0, 1, 2, and 3 minutes postinstillation. If the score was >3 at 3 minutes, assessment was repeated at 5, 10, and 15 minutes until score ≤3. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. Results Overall, 711 participants were randomized (n=357 received lifitegrast; n=354 received placebo). Drop comfort scores for lifitegrast-treated participants improved within 3 minutes of instillation (mean scores on day 84 for both study and fellow eyes: instillation: lifitegrast, 3.4, placebo, 1.0; 3 minutes: lifitegrast, 1.5, placebo, 0.7). The majority (64%–66%) of participants had scores 3 at 3 minutes, the mean score in the lifitegrast group was similar to or better than that in the placebo group at 5, 10, or 15 minutes postinstillation. Lifitegrast appeared to be well tolerated, with ocular TEAEs rarely leading to discontinuation. Conclusion In OPUS-3, lifitegrast appeared to be well tolerated and drop comfort scores approached placebo levels by 3 minutes postinstillation.

This randomized, investigator-masked, multicenter, parallel-design trial compared the IOP-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% and travoprost 0.004% in African Americans with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After a washout of all ocular hypotensive agents, patients were assigned to bimatoprost once daily (n=16) or travoprost once daily (n=15) for 3 months. Study visits were at baseline and at months 1, 2, and 3. Primary outcome measures were the percentage of patients who achieved selected target pressures and the mean reduction in IOP from baseline at month 3. Both drugs comparably lowered IOP, but bimatoprost was more likely than travoprost to allow achievement of every target pressure from 12 to 19 mm Hg at month 3. After 3 months, the mean IOP reduction from baseline was 8.4 mm Hg (34%) in the bimatoprost group and 7.9 mm Hg (30%) in the travoprost group. These results are being evaluated further in a larger clinical trial.