Search

Ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used by clinicians to manage ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. Over the past decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved multiple topical NSAIDs for these purposes, including several reformulated products. One of these medications, bromfenac ophthalmic solution, has a long and extensive history, with proven efficacy and safety in patients following cataract surgery. The evolution of bromfenac ophthalmic solution over the years has involved either lowering the concentration of the active ingredient or extending the dosing interval to improve patient adherence/compliance. This review will focus on the history and progression of bromfenac ophthalmic solution and report the available patient preference and adherence data regarding this ocular NSAID throughout its evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the efficacy and safety of a new gel formulation loteprednol etabonate 0.5% in the treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. Setting: Seventeen United States clinical sites. Design: Prospective double-masked parallel-group study. Methods: Patients with anterior chamber cell (ACC) grade 2 or higher after cataract surgery were randomized to loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel or vehicle 4 times a day for 14 days. Primary outcome measures included the proportion of patients with complete resolution of ACC and grade 0 (no) pain on postoperative day 8. Safety measures included adverse events, intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, biomicroscopy and funduscopy findings, and tolerability (ocular symptoms and drop comfort). Results: The intent-to-treat population included 406 patients (203 per treatment). On day 8, 30.5% of patients in the loteprednol etabonate group and 16.3% of patients in the vehicle group had complete resolution of ACC, whereas 72.9% and 41.9%, respectively, had grade 0 pain (both P<.001). Significant treatment differences for complete resolution of ACC and grade 0 pain favoring loteprednol etabonate were also found on day 15 and day 18. One patient in each treatment group had a significant increase in IOP (≥10 mm Hg). Analyses of pain, photophobia, and tearing favored loteprednol etabonate at different time points beginning on day 3. More than 85% of patients in each treatment group reported no discomfort on drop instillation. Conclusion: Loteprednol etabonate gel 0.5% was efficacious and safe in treating postoperative inflammation and pain. Financial Disclosure: Dr. Rajpal is a consultant to Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Allergan, Inc., and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. Dr. Siou-Mermet and Ms. Erb are employees of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Dr. Roel has no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Ocular corticosteroids can cause elevations in intraocular pressure (IOP). The purpose of this study was to characterize the timing and severity of IOP elevations in patients receiving loteprednol etabonate 0.5% or loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3%. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at 5 academic and private practices. Any patient who experienced an elevation in IOP ≥5 mm Hg while using loteprednol etabonate or loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin was eligible for inclusion in the study. Data collected included patient demographics, medical and ophthalmic history, concomitant medications, reason for treatment, IOP, and medical and surgical interventions. Results: Fifty patients experienced IOP elevations after use of topical loteprednol etabonate and were included in the study. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) patient age was 58.8 (20.3) years and 66% were women. The most common reasons for prescribing loteprednol etabonate were dry eye (30%), postoperative therapy (22%), and allergic conjunctivitis (16%). Before treatment, 28% of patients had a history of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Mean (SD) IOP before treatment was 15.5 (3.2) mm Hg and increased to a mean (SD) of 24.7 (6.5) mm Hg, a statistically significant increase of 9.2 (SD: 5.8; range: 5-29) mm Hg ( P<0.0001). The median duration of treatment with loteprednol etabonate at the time of observed IOP elevation was 55 days (range: 3 days to 3 years). Twenty-four percent of patients required IOP-lowering medications and 8% required surgery to control the elevated IOP. Conclusions: Alternatives to corticosteroids should be considered when long-term treatment is required for an ocular surface condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) for the treatment of corneal ectasia after laser refractive surgery. Design Prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled clinical trial. Participants One hundred seventy-nine subjects with corneal ectasia after previous refractive surgery. Methods The treatment group underwent standard CXL, and the sham control group received riboflavin alone without removal of the epithelium. Main Outcome Measures The primary efficacy criterion was the change over 1 year of topography-derived maximum keratometry (K), comparing treatment with control groups. Secondary outcomes evaluated were corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), manifest refraction spherical equivalent, endothelial cell count, and adverse events. Results In the crosslinking treatment group, the maximum K value decreased by 0.7 diopters (D) from baseline to 1 year, whereas there was continued progression in the control group (1.3 D difference between treatment and control, P < 0.0001). In the treatment group, the maximum K value decreased by 2.0 D or more in 14 eyes (18%) and increased by 2.0 D or more in 3 eyes (4%). The CDVA improved by an average of 5.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) letters. Twenty-three eyes (32%) gained and 3 eyes (4%) lost 10 or more logMAR letters. The UDVA improved 4.5 logMAR letters. Corneal haze was the most frequently reported crosslinking-related adverse finding. Conclusions Corneal collagen crosslinking was effective in improving the maximum K value, CDVA, and UDVA in eyes with corneal ectasia 1 year after treatment, with an excellent safety profile. CXL is the first approved procedure to diminish progression of this ectatic corneal process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) for the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Design Prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled clinical trial. Participants Patients with progressive keratoconus (n = 205). Methods The treatment group underwent standard CXL and the sham control group received riboflavin alone without removal of the epithelium. Main Outcome Measures The primary efficacy criterion was the change over 1 year of topography-derived maximum keratometry value, comparing treatment with control group. Secondary outcomes evaluated were corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), manifest refraction spherical equivalent, endothelial cell count, and adverse events. Results In the CXL treatment group, the maximum keratometry value decreased by 1.6 diopters (D) from baseline to 1 year, whereas keratoconus continued to progress in the control group. In the treatment group, the maximum keratometry value decreased by 2.0 D or more in 28 eyes (31.4%) and increased by 2.0 D or more in 5 eyes (5.6%). The CDVA improved by an average of 5.7 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units. Twenty-three eyes (27.7%) gained and 5 eyes lost (6.0%) 10 logMAR or more. The UDVA improved 4.4 logMAR. Corneal haze was the most frequently reported CXL-related adverse finding. There were no significant changes in endothelial cell count 1 year after treatment. Conclusions Corneal collagen crosslinking was effective in improving the maximum keratometry value, CDVA, and UCVA in eyes with progressive keratoconus 1 year after treatment, with an excellent safety profile. Corneal collagen crosslinking affords the keratoconic patient an important new option to decrease progression of this ectatic corneal process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily, preservative-free ketorolac 0.45% (Acuvail; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California, USA) administration for treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. Design: Prospective, randomized trial. Methods: Two multicenter, double-masked studies randomized 511 cataract surgery patients (2:1) to receive twice-daily ketorolac 0.45% or vehicle in the operative eye for 16 days, beginning 1 day before surgery. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with a summed ocular inflammation score of 0 for anterior chamber cell and flare on postoperative day 14. The main secondary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with no pain on postoperative day 1. Results: On day 14, 52.5% of ketorolac patients and 26.5% of vehicle patients had an summed ocular inflammation score of 0 (P < .001). On day 1, 72.4% of ketorolac patients and 39.7% of vehicle patients had a pain score of 0 (P < .001). Median time to pain resolution was 1 day in the ketorolac group and 2 days in the vehicle group (P < .001). The percentage of ketorolac and vehicle patients who had a +3-line or more improvement in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was 60.5% versus 44.0% on day 14 (P = .002). Overall, adverse events were more prevalent in the vehicle group than in the ketorolac group (48.5% vs 35.2%; P = .004). Burning or stinging (per a composite Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) was reported by 1.5% of ketorolac patients and 0.6% of vehicle patients. Conclusions: Twice-daily ketorolac 0.45% was well tolerated and effectively treated inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]