Dale W. Usner

Evaluation of an Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant versus Standard Systemic Therapy in Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis

PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant compared with standard therapy in subjects with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). DESIGN Randomized, controlled, phase 2b/3, open-label, multicenter superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS Subjects with unilateral or bilateral NIPU. METHODS One hundred forty subjects received either a 0.59-mg FA intravitreal implant (n = 66) or standard of care (SOC; n = 74) with either systemic prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid as monotherapy (> or =0.2 mg/kg daily) or, if judged necessary by the investigator, combination therapy with an immunosuppressive agent plus a lower dose of prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid (> or =0.1 mg/kg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to first recurrence of uveitis. RESULTS Eyes that received the FA intravitreal implant experienced delayed onset of observed recurrence of uveitis (P<0.01) and a lower rate of recurrence of uveitis (18.2% vs. 63.5%; P< or =0.01) compared with SOC study eyes. Adverse events frequently observed in implanted eyes included elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) requiring IOP-lowering surgery (occurring in 21.2% of implanted eyes) and cataracts requiring extraction (occurring in 87.8% of phakic implanted eyes). No treatment-related nonocular adverse events were observed in the implant group, whereas such events occurred in 25.7% of subjects in the SOC group. CONCLUSIONS The FA intravitreal implant provided better control of inflammation in patients with uveitis compared with systemic therapy. Intraocular pressure and lens clarity of implanted eyes need close monitoring in patients receiving the FA intravitreal implant.

Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in patients with bacterial conjunctivitis: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, 5-day efficacy and safety study

BACKGROUND Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% is a new topical fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Besifloxacin has potent in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of ocular pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle (the formulation without besifloxacin) in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Patients received either topical besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension or vehicle administered 3 times daily for 5 days. At study entry and on days 4 and 8 (visits 2 and 3), a clinical assessment of ocular signs and symptoms was performed in both eyes, as well as pinhole visual acuity testing, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s). An ophthalmoscopic examination was performed at study entry and on day 8. The primary efficacy outcome measures were clinical resolution and eradication of the baseline bacterial infection on day 8 in culture-confirmed patients. The safety evaluation included adverse events, changes in visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings in all patients who received at least 1 dose of active treatment or vehicle. RESULTS The safety population consisted of 269 patients (mean [SD] age, 34.2 [22.3] years; 60.2% female; 82.5% white) with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The culture-confirmed intent-to-treat population consisted of 118 patients (60 besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 58 vehicle). Significantly more patients receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than vehicle had clinical resolution of the baseline infection at visit 3 (44/60 [73.3%] vs 25/58 [43.1%], respectively; P < 0.001). Rates of bacterial eradication also were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension compared with vehicle at visit 3 (53/60 [88.3%] vs35/58 [60.3%]; P < 0.001). The cumulative frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (69/137 [50.4%] and 70/132 [53.0%]). The most common ocular adverse events were eye pain (20/190 treated eyes [10.5%] and 13/188 [6.9%]), blurred vision (20/190 [10.5%] and 22/188 [11.7%]), and eye irritation (14/190 [7.4%] and 23/188 [12.2%]); these events were of mild or moderate severity. Changes in visual acuity and treatment-emergent events observed on biomicroscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy also were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSION Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% given 3 times daily for 5 days was both efficacious and well tolerated compared with vehicle in the treatment of these patients with bacterial conjunctivitis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00622908.

Phase III efficacy and safety study of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Research design and methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study. A total of 957 patients aged 1 year and older with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% or vehicle applied topically three times daily for 5 days. Main outcome measures: Primary endpoints were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection at Visit 2 (Day 5 ± 1). Secondary endpoints included clinical resolution and microbial eradication at Visit 3 (Day 8 or 9), individual clinical outcomes at follow-up visits, and safety. Clinical trial registration: NCT number, NCT00347932. Results: Three hundred and ninety patients had culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Clinical resolution and microbial eradication were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than with vehicle at Visit 2 (45.2% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.0084; and 91.5% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively) and Visit 3 (84.4% vs. 69.1%, p = 0.0011; and 88.4% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Results for secondary endpoints of individual clinical outcomes were consistent with primary endpoints. Fewer eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension experienced adverse events than those receiving vehicle (9.2% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.0047). Conclusions: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension produces clinical resolution and microbial eradication rates significantly better than vehicle and is safe for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Limitations: A limitation of this study is the lack of a non-treatment control group.

Efficacy and Safety of Besifloxacin Ophthalmic Suspension 0.6% Compared with Moxifloxacin Ophthalmic Solution 0.5% for Treating Bacterial Conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, noninferiority study. PARTICIPANTS Patients 1 year of age or older with clinical manifestations of bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS Eligible patients were randomized to either besifloxacin suspension or moxifloxacin solution, instilled in the infected eye(s) 3 times daily for 5 days, and participated in study visits on days 1, 5 (+/-1 day), and 8 (+1 day). Assessments included clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms, visual acuity, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s) at each visit, as well as direct ophthalmoscopy on days 1 and 8. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary efficacy end points were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection on day 5 in patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Secondary end points included clinical resolution and microbial eradication on day 8, individual clinical outcomes, microbial and clinical outcomes by bacterial species, and safety. RESULTS A total of 1161 patients (533 with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis) were randomized. Based on the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference, besifloxacin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for clinical resolution on day 5 (58.3% vs. 59.4%, respectively; 95% CI, -9.48 to 7.29) and day 8 (84.5% vs. 84.0%, respectively, 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.75%) and for microbial eradication on day 5 (93.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, 95% CI, -2.44 to 6.74) and day 8 (87.3% vs. 84.7%; 95% CI, -3.32 to 8.53). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment groups for either efficacy end points on days 5 or 8 (P>0.05). Besifloxacin and moxifloxacin were well tolerated. The cumulative frequency of ocular adverse events was similar between treatments (12% and 14% with besifloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively). However, eye irritation occurred more often in moxifloxacin-treated eyes (0.3% for besifloxacin vs. 1.4% for moxifloxacin; P = 0.0201). CONCLUSIONS Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension was non inferior to moxifloxacin ophthalmic suspension and provided similar safety and efficacy (clinical and microbiological) outcomes when used for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Effects of loteprednol/tobramycin versus dexamethasone/tobramycin on intraocular pressure in healthy volunteers.

Purpose: To compare the steroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) and other ocular adverse effects of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension with those of dexamethasone 0.1% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension. Methods: Three hundred six healthy volunteers received either loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin (n = 156) or dexamethasone/tobramycin (n = 150) at 4-hour intervals 4 times a day in both eyes for 28 days in this randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group trial. IOP, visual acuity (VA), and ocular health were assessed at all study visits (days 1, 3, 8, 15, 22, and 29), whereas undilated direct ophthalmoscopy was completed at the baseline and final visits. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed at all follow-up visits. Results: The number of subjects experiencing IOP increases of ≥10 mm Hg from baseline at any study visit for the loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin group (3 subjects, 1.95%) was significantly lower than that for the dexamethasone/tobramycin group (11 subjects, 7.48%; P = 0.0280), as were mean changes from baseline IOP (P < 0.05 at all visits). The lowest VA recorded for any subject at any visit was 20/40 and reductions of ≥2 lines at any visit were observed in 14 (4.55%) eyes for loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin and in 23 (7.82%) eyes for dexamethasone/tobramycin (P = 0.1257). Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: Loteprednol/tobramycin was significantly less likely to produce elevations in IOP than was dexamethasone/tobramycin in healthy subjects treated for 28 days. Both loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin and dexamethasone/tobramycin were well tolerated with low risks for systemic AEs and ocular AEs other than elevation in IOP for dexamethasone/tobramycin.

Integrated analysis of three bacterial conjunctivitis trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%: etiology of bacterial conjunctivitis and antibacterial susceptibility profile

Background The purpose of this paper is to report on the bacterial species isolated from patients with bacterial conjunctivitis participating in three clinical trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, and their in vitro antibacterial susceptibility profiles. Methods Microbial data from three clinical studies, conducted at multiple clinical sites in the US and Asia were integrated. Species were identified at a central laboratory, and minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined for various antibiotics, including β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides. Results A total of 1324 bacterial pathogens representing more than 70 species were isolated. The most common species were Haemophilus influenzae (26.0%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (22.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (14.4%), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (8.4%). H. influenzae was most frequently isolated among patients aged 1–18 years, while S. aureus was most prevalent among those >65 years. Drug resistance was prevalent: Of H. influenzae isolates, 25.3% were β-lactamase positive and 27.2% of S. pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-intermediate/ resistant; of S. aureus isolates, 13.7% were methicillin-resistant (MRSA), and of these, 65.4% were ciprofloxacin-resistant, while 45.9% of S. epidermidis isolates were methicillin-resistant (MRSE), and, of these, 47.1% were ciprofloxacin-resistant. Besifloxacin was more potent than comparator fluoroquinolones overall, and particularly against Gram-positive bacteria. Against ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA and MRSE, besifloxacin was four-fold to ≥ 128-fold more potent than other fluoroquinolones. Conclusions While the pathogen distribution in bacterial conjunctivitis has not changed, drug resistance is increasing. Patient age and local antibiotic resistance trends should be considered in the treatment of this ocular infection. Besifloxacin showed broad-spectrum in vitro activity and was particularly potent against multidrug-resistant staphylococcal isolates.

Efficacy and Safety of Besifloxacin Ophthalmic Suspension 0.6% in Children and Adolescents with Bacterial Conjunctivitis

AbstractBackground: Acute conjunctivitis is the most frequent eye disorder seen by primary care physicians and one that often affects children. Besifloxacin is a new topical fluoroquinolone, the first chlorofluoroquinolone, for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in patients aged 1–17 years with bacterial conjunctivitis. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a subgroup of pediatric patients aged 1–17 years who had participated in three previously reported, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter, clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of besifloxacin in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. The studies were conducted in a community setting (clinical centers). All three clinical trials included children (aged ≥1 year) with a clinical diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis in at least one eye, based on the presence at baseline of grade 1 or greater purulent conjunctival discharge and conjunctival injection, and pin-hole visual acuity of at least 20/200 in both eyes for verbal patients. Two trials were vehicle controlled; the third trial was comparator controlled (moxifloxacin hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% as base). In all studies, besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was administered as one drop in the affected eye(s) three times daily, at approximately 6-hourly intervals, for 5 days. The main outcome measures were clinical resolution and microbial eradication at visit 2 (day 4 ± 1 in one study; day 5 ± 1 in the other two studies) and visit 3 (day 8 or 9). Data from the two vehicle-controlled studies were combined for the assessments to provide greater statistical power. Results: This analysis included 815 pediatric patients aged 1–17 years (447 with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis). Clinical resolution was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the besifloxacin group than in the vehicle group at both visit 2 (53.7% vs 41.3%) and visit 3 (88.1% vs 73.0%). Similarly, microbial eradication was significantly higher with besifloxacin than with vehicle at visit 2 (85.8% vs 56.3%) and visit 3 (82.8% vs 68.3%). No significant differences in clinical resolution and microbial eradication were noted between besifloxacin and moxifloxacin. Besifloxacin was well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events in the besifloxacin, vehicle, and moxifloxacin groups. Conclusion: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years.

Safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: data from six clinical and phase I safety studies.

AbstractBackground: Besifloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone, specifically a chlorofluoroquinolone, with potent broad-spectrum bactericidal activity for the topical treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Objective: The objective of this report was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% across clinical and phase I safety studies. Methods: Data were drawn from two phase I safety studies in healthy adults, an open-label, phase II pharmacokinetic study of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis and from integrated data from three randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, safety and efficacy studies of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis (two were vehicle controlled and one was active controlled with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, as base). Safety assessments included changes in visual acuity, ocular assessments with ophthalmoscopy and biomicroscopy, and assessment of adverse events (AEs). Results: Safety data for besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were available for 1350 patients, including 1192 patients (1810 eyes) in the integrated analysis. Systemic exposure following topical administration of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was negligible. No changes were seen in corneal endothelial cell density. In the integrated safety analysis of the three safety and efficacy studies, the most commonly reported ocular AEs in study eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were blurred vision (2.1 %), eye pain (1.8%), eye irritation (1.4%), nonspecific conjunctivitis (1.2%) and eye pruritus (1.1%). Blurred vision, eye irritation and nonspecific conjunctivitis occurred in significantly fewer besifloxacin-treated patients than in vehicle-treated patients (p≤0.05). Headache (1.8%) was the most frequently reported non-ocular AE. Most AEs were mild in severity and there were no treatment-related serious AEs. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% did not significantly affect visual acuity, biomicroscopy or ophthalmoscopy compared with vehicle or moxifloxacin. Conclusion: The results from this comprehensive data set of 1350 patients demonstrate that besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% has a favourable safety profile and is well tolerated.

Post-cataract outcomes in patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis treated with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant

Purpose To describe visual acuity (VA) and inflammation following cataract surgery in eyes with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU) that were being treated with a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant compared with those that were not. Design Post hoc, subgroup analysis of data from a 3-year, dose-masked, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the FA implant for the treatment of NIPU. Participants and controls The subset of eyes that underwent cataract surgery during the 3-year trial. Eyes were either implanted with a 0.59- or a 2.1-mg FA implant, or, in the case of affected fellow eyes, received standard-of-care local treatment. Main outcome measures VA, anterior and posterior chamber inflammation at 1 and 3 months after surgery, and rate of uveitis recurrence and serious postoperative ocular adverse events. Results Of 278 patients enrolled in the main trial, 132/142 phakic implanted eyes and 39/186 phakic non-implanted eyes underwent cataract surgery. Mean improvement in VA was significantly greater in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0047) and 3 months (P = 0.0015) postoperatively; significantly fewer anterior chamber cells were seen in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0084) and 3 months (P = 0.0002). Severity of vitreous haze was less in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.0005). The postsurgical uveitis recurrence rate was lower in implanted than non-implanted eyes (26.5% vs 44.4%; P = 0.0433). Glaucoma was reported in 19.7% of implanted eyes and no non-implanted eyes (P = 0.0008) postoperatively. Conclusion In this post hoc subgroup analysis, eyes with NIPU treated with the FA intravitreal implant demonstrated better vision and less intraocular inflammation following cataract surgery than non-implanted eyes. Recurrent uveitic inflammation did not appear to be triggered by cataract surgery. Glaucoma occurred more frequently in implanted eyes.

Tolerability of loteprednol/tobramycin versus dexamethasone/tobramycin in healthy volunteers: results of a 4-week, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the ocular comfort and tolerability of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T; Zylet*) with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T; TobraDex†) in healthy volunteers. * Zylet is a registered trademark of Bausch &Lomb, Inc., Tampa FL, USA † TobraDex is a registered trademark of Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA Research design and methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study, healthy volunteers (n = 306) were randomized to receive LE/T or DM/T four times per day for 28 days. Subjects recorded subjective ratings for seven comfort/tolerability parameters using an electronic patient diary (EPD). The primary endpoint was the difference at week 4 from the ratings of an artificial tear at baseline in comfort/tolerability parameters between treatment groups, using a noninferiority paradigm. Clinical trials registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00532961. Results: The 97.5% confidence intervals for the lower bound were within –10 for all of the seven comfort/tolerability parameters evaluated (pain, stinging/burning, irritation, itchiness, foreign-body sensation, dryness, and light sensitivity). Secondary analysis revealed small but significant within-treatment differences in pain favoring LE/T over tears and in light sensitivity favoring tears over DM/T (p < 0.01). Small between-treatment differences in the changes from baseline tear ratings to individual study visits favored LE/T for pain, stinging/burning, irritation, itchiness, foreign-body sensation, and light sensitivity at visit 4 (p ≤ 0.04); for pain, stinging/burning, and foreign-body sensation at visit 5 (p ≤ 0.03), and for dryness and light sensitivity at visit 6 (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: LE/T satisfied all conditions of noninferi-ority to DM/T in comfort and tolerability. Subjects receiving LE/T were more likely to report better ocular comfort/tolerability ratings relative to baseline artificial tears than subjects receiving DM/T. Limitations: The study population consisted of healthy volunteers.