David T. Wells

Travoprost 0.004% with and without benzalkonium chloride: a comparison of safety and efficacy.

PurposeTo compare the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004% without benzalkonium chloride (BAC) to that of the marketed formulation of travoprost 0.004% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. MethodsThe study was a double-masked, randomized, parallel group, multicenter, noninferiority design. Adult patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with qualifying intraocular pressure (IOP) on 2 eligibility visits received either travoprost 0.004% with BAC (n=346), or travoprost 0.004% without BAC (n=344) dosed once-daily each evening. Patients were followed for a period of 3 months. IOP measurements at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM were taken at study visits on week 2, week 6, and month 3. ResultsMean IOP reductions, across all 9 study visits and times ranged from 7.3 to 8.5 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% without BAC and from 7.4 to 8.4 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% with BAC. Statistical equivalence was also demonstrated for the comparison of mean IOP changes; 95% confidence limits were within ±0.8 mm Hg at 9 of 9 study visits and times in both the per protocol and intent-to-treat data sets. Adverse events and the number of patients discontinued owing to adverse events were similar for both treatment groups. Adverse events due to hyperemia occurred in 6.4% and 9.0% of patients treated with travoprost 0.004% without BAC and travoprost 0.004% with BAC, respectively. ConclusionTravoprost 0.004% without BAC is equivalent to travoprost 0.004% with BAC in both safety and efficacy.

Clinical efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% compared with placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked environmental study

BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested that olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% administered once daily is effective for up to 24 hours after instillation and is well tolerated in adults and children aged > or =3 years. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of olopatadine 0.2% compared with placebo in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS This was a 10-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked environmental study conducted during the spring allergy season (April-August) of 2003. Patients assessed their ocular signs and symptoms in terms of frequency (whole-unit scale from 0 to 5) and severity (half-unit scale from 0 to 4), and grass pollen counts were obtained daily for each investigative site. Responder analyses were conducted by pollen level (frequency based) and pollen period (severity based) to evaluate the clinical significance of differences in ocular itching and redness between treatment groups. RESULTS Two hundred sixty patients (137 females, 123 males) were enrolled in the study, including 28 children aged between 11 and 17 years; the overall population was 74% white, 11% black, 4% Hispanic, and 11% other. The frequency-based responder analyses of ocular itching and redness showed that when grass pollen counts were high (>20 gr/m(3) air), a respective 21% and 14% of patients in the olopatadine 0.2% group assessed the frequency of ocular itching and redness as >2, compared with 47% and 31% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.001 for ocular itching; P < 0.003 for redness). The results of the severity-based responder analyses by peak pollen period were consistent with those of the frequency-based analyses. Compared with placebo, olopatadine 0.2% was associated with significant reductions in calculated mean scores for ocular itching and redness by pollen level and by pollen period. No patient was discontinued from the study because of a treatment-related adverse event, and no patient experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event. CONCLUSION In the patients studied, olopatadine 0.2% appeared to be effective and well tolerated when administered once daily for the treatment of the ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis.

Effects of a new formulation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution on nasal symptoms relative to placebo in two studies involving subjects with allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis

ABSTRACT Background: A new formulation of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution (olopatadine 0.2%) was evaluated in two separate, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, hybrid environmental studies intended to determine efficacy and safety in subjects with histories of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. Design and methods: In these 10- and 12-week trials (conducted April–August 2003 and July–December 2001, respectively), subjects assessed their ocular signs and symptoms. Additionally, subjects in the 10-week trial evaluated the frequency of their nasal symptoms while subjects in the 12-week trial evaluated both the frequency and severity of their nasal symptoms. The two trials had a combined enrollment of 500 subjects (217 males, 283 females) including 44 children aged 10–17 years; the combined population was 81.4% Caucasian, 9.2% Black, 2% Hispanic, and 7.4% other. Daily throughout these studies, either ragweed (fall study) or grass (spring study) pollen counts were obtained from each investigative center. Slope analyses were conducted on the nasal symptom assessments by pollen count. Results: The nasal results from the two clinical trials are presented herein. In the fall study, relative to placebo, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0355) and itchy nose (p = 0.0032), and reduced the severity of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0451), itchy nose (p = 0.0178), and runny nose (p = 0.0327). In the spring study, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0017) and runny nose (p = 0.0031) relative to placebo. In the fall trial, 2 subjects discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events (tachycardia and dry eye), while in the spring study, no subject discontinued due to a treatment-related adverse event. No subject in either study suffered a treatment-related serious adverse event. Conclusions: For the subjects enrolled in these studies, olopatadine 0.2% appeared to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective in significantly reducing the frequency and/or severity of some effects of pollen on nasal symptoms.