Kenneth Sall

Two multicenter, randomized studies of the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in moderate to severe dry eye disease1☆

Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of cyclosporin A ([CsA] 0.05% and 0.1% ophthalmic emulsions) to vehicle in patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease. Design Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, 6-month, vehicle-controlled. Participants A total of 877 patients with defined moderate to severe dry eye disease (292 to 293 in each treatment group). Methods Two identical clinical trials; patients were treated twice daily with either CsA, 0.05% or 0.1%, or vehicle. The results of these two trials were combined for analysis. Main outcome measures Efficacy: corneal and interpalpebral dye staining, Schirmer tear test (with and without anesthesia), tear break-up time, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), facial expression, patient subjective rating scale, symptoms of dry eye, investigators evaluation of global response to treatment, treatment success, and daily use of artificial tears. Safety: occurrence of adverse events, best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, biomicroscopy, and blood trough CsA concentrations. Results Treatment with CsA, 0.05% or 0.1%, gave significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) greater improvements than vehicle in two objective signs of dry eye disease (corneal staining and categorized Schirmer values). CsA 0.05% treatment also gave significantly greater improvements ( P Conclusions The novel ophthalmic formulations CsA 0.05% and 0.1% were safe and effective in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease yielding improvements in both objective and subjective measures. Topical CsA represents a new pharmacologically based treatment for dry eye disease that may provide significant patient benefits.

Improvement of Glycemic Control, Triglycerides, and HDL Cholesterol Levels With Muraglitazar, a Dual (α/γ) Peroxisome Proliferator–Activated Receptor Activator, in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Metformin Monotherapy

OBJECTIVE—We sought to evaluate the effects of muraglitazar, a dual (α/γ) peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) activator within the new glitazar class, on hyperglycemia and lipid abnormalities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed in 1,159 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Patients received once-daily doses of either 5 mg muraglitazar or 30 mg pioglitazone for a total of 24 weeks in addition to open-label metformin. Patients were continued in a double-blind fashion for an additional 26 weeks. RESULTS—Analyses were conducted at week 24 for HbA1c (A1C) and at week 12 for lipid parameters. Mean A1C at baseline was 8.12 and 8.13% in muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups, respectively. At week 24, muraglitazar reduced mean A1C to 6.98% (−1.14% from baseline), and pioglitazone reduced mean A1C to 7.28% (−0.85% from baseline; P < 0.0001, muraglitazar vs. pioglitazone). At week 12, muraglitazar and pioglitazone reduced mean plasma triglyceride (−28 vs. −14%), apolipoprotein B (−12 vs. −6%), and non-HDL cholesterol (−6 vs. −1%) and increased HDL cholesterol (19 vs. 14%), respectively (P < 0.0001 vs. pioglitazone for all comparisons). At week 24, weight gain (1.4 and 0.6 kg, respectively) and edema (9.2 and 7.2%, respectively) were observed in the muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups; at week 50, weight gain and edema were 2.5 and 1.5 kg, respectively, and 11.8 and 8.9%, respectively. At week 50, heart failure was reported in seven patients (five with muraglitazar and two with pioglitazone), and seven deaths occurred: three from sudden death, two from cerebrovascular accident, and one from pancreatic cancer in the muraglitazar group and one from perforated duodenal ulcer in the pioglitazone group. CONCLUSIONS—We found that 5 mg muraglitazar resulted in greater improvements in A1C and lipid parameters than a submaximal dose of 30 mg pioglitazone when added to metformin. Weight gain and edema were more common when muraglitazar was compared with a submaximal dose of pioglitazone.

Evaluation of nepafenac in prevention of macular edema following cataract surgery in patients with diabetic retinopathy

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% (Nevanac®; Alcon Research Ltd) in the prevention of macular edema following cataract surgery in diabetic retinopathy patients. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study of 263 adult diabetic patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy requiring cataract surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to instill nepafenac or vehicle three times daily beginning 1 day prior to surgery through day 90. Efficacy included the percentage of patients who developed macular edema (≥30% increase in central subfield macular thickness from baseline) and the percentage of patients with decreases of more than five letters in best-corrected visual acuity from day 7 to 90. Results A significantly lower percentage of patients in the nepafenac group developed macular edema relative to patients in the vehicle group (3.2% versus 16.7%; P < 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of patients in the nepafenac group had best-corrected visual acuity decreases of more than five letters relative to patients in the vehicle group on day 30 (P < 0.001), day 60 (P = 0.002), and day 90 (P = 0.006). The mean central subfield macular thickness and mean percent change from baseline in macular volume were also significantly lower in the nepafenac group versus the vehicle group at days 14 through 90 (P ≤ 0.005). No safety issues or trends were identified when dosing was increased to 90 days that negatively impacted the favorable benefit/risk profile of nepafenac. Conclusion Nepafenac demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant advantages compared with vehicle in preventing macular edema and maintaining visual acuity in diabetic patients following cataract surgery. These advantages were seen at multiple time points over the course of the 90-day therapy period. There was no clinically relevant increase in risk from 90 days dosing compared with 14 days. Therefore, with a similar safety profile and benefit in preventing macular edema and maintaining vision, the risk/benefit to the diabetic patient undergoing cataract surgery appears to be positive.

Absorption of Topical Moxifloxacin Ophthalmic Solution Into Human Aqueous Humor

Purpose: To investigate the absorption of moxifloxacin into human aqueous humor after administration of moxifloxacin hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, 0.5% as base. Methods: Cataract patients were randomly allocated to receive 1 drop every 15 minutes for 4 doses before surgery (group 1) or 1 drop 4 times per day on the day before surgery plus the same preoperative regimen as group 1 (group 2). The last dose was administered 0.25, 0.50, 1, 2, or 3 hours before aqueous humor sampling. Samples from 30 patients per group were analyzed by a validated HPLC/MS/MS method. Results: For group 1, the mean ± SD Cmax was 1.50 ± 0.75 μg/mL and occurred at 0.5 hour after dosing. The mean Cmax for group 2 was 1.74 ± 0.66 μg/mL and was reached at 1 to 2 hours. Mean AUC0-3h for groups 1 and 2 were 3.16 ± 0.29 and 4.41 ± 0.48 μg·h/mL, respectively. The difference in AUC0-3h was statistically significant (P = 0.04), but the difference in Cmax was not. Conclusions: Topical moxifloxacin was well absorbed. Maximum moxifloxacin concentrations were approximately 30 times higher than the median MICs for common pathogens in bacterial endophthalmitis, indicating that either regimen may provide sufficient concentrations to prevent postoperative endophthalmitis.

Dorzolamide/timolol combination versus concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol ☆: Six-month comparison of efficacy and tolerability

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol combination ophthalmic solution twice daily to the concomitant administration of 0.2% brimonidine ophthalmic solution twice daily and 0.5% timolol ophthalmic solution twice daily. DESIGN Randomized, multicenter, observer-masked, parallel-group study. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred ninety-three patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION After an open-label 3-week 0.5% timolol run-in period, patients with an hour 2 intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or = 22 mmHg were randomly assigned to receive either the dorzolamide/timolol combination twice daily or the concomitant use of brimonidine twice daily and timolol twice daily (brimonidine + timolol) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The IOP-lowering effects at hour 0 and hour 2 were collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. We hypothesized that both treatment regimens would have comparable hour 2 IOP-lowering effects at month 3. The treatments were considered comparable if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Tolerability data were also collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS The primary efficacy analysis was based on the modified intent-to-treat population. At month 3, hour 2, the dorzolamide/timolol group had an adjusted mean (standard error) change in IOP of -5.04 (0.30) mmHg versus -5.41 (0.30) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.36 (0.40) mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] of -0.42-1.14 mmHg). At month 3, hour 0, the dorzolamide/timolol group had a change in IOP of -3.66 (0.29) mmHg versus -4.15 (0.28) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.49 (0.39) mmHg (95% CI of -0.27-1.25 mmHg). Likewise, at all other observed time points, the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Ninety-three patients (64%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 88 patients (60%) in the brimonidine + timolol group had adverse experiences that were deemed drug related by the investigator, for which 7 patients (5%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 8 patients (5%) in the brimonidine + timolol group were discontinued from the study. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol combination and the concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol were comparable. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences and the incidence of discontinuations caused by drug-related adverse experiences were similar between groups.

Effects of carteolol and timolol on plasma lipid profiles in older women with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma

PURPOSE To determine the effect on serum lipid levels of carteolol hydrochloride 1.0% or timolol maleate 0.5% given twice a day to women age 60 years and older with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHOD We included 112 patients in this double-masked, randomized, multicenter trial. Fasting clinical laboratory studies were evaluated at baseline and at 12 weeks. Patients were instructed not to change their dietary, alcohol consumption, or exercise habits during the study. RESULTS For the carteolol group, the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL) ratio at baseline of 50.1 +/- 1.5 mg/dl and 4.7 +/- 0.2 changed by the 12-week visit to 51.3 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P = .25) and 4.6 +/- .02 (P = .47), respectively. For the timolol maleate group, the baseline HDL and TC/HDL ratio of 53.6 +/- 2.2 mg/dl and 4.4 +/- 0.2 changed to 50.2 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P < .001) and 4.7 +/- 0.2 (P = .001), respectively, at the 12-week visit. Carteolol patients showed no significant change from baseline, whereas the HDL (P < .001) and TC/HDL ratio decreased (P = .001) significantly in the timolol maleate group. There also was a significant difference in the change from baseline at 12 weeks between carteolol and timolol maleate groups for the HDL and TC/HDL ratio (P = .01 and .012, respectively). No differences in TC, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or triglycerides (TG) or in changes from baseline were observed between groups at 12 weeks (P > .05). At 12 weeks, no differences were observed between carteolol and timolol maleate groups in intraocular pressure or safety (P > .05), except that patients given carteolol demonstrated fewer solicited ocular symptoms (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS Carteolol appears to be neutral in its effect on serum lipid levels, whereas timolol maleate adversely affects the HDL and TC/HDL ratio in women age 60 years and older with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

Aqueous Humor Concentrations of Bimatoprost Free Acid, Bimatoprost and Travoprost Free Acid in Cataract Surgical Patients Administered Multiple Topical Ocular Doses of LUMIGAN® or TRAVATAN®

PURPOSE To quantify the aqueous humor (AH) concentrations of bimatoprost (amide), travoprost (isopropyl ester), and their hydrolysis products, bimatoprost free acid (BFA) and travoprost free acid (TFA), after multiple topical ocular doses of LUMIGAN and TRAVATAN, respectively, in patients awaiting cataract surgery. METHODS In 2 separate open-label, sparse-sampling trials, glaucoma patients with cataracts received LUMIGAN (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution, 0.03%) or TRAVATAN (travoprost ophthalmic solution, 0.004%) bilaterally once daily for at least 21 days prior to cataract surgery. Anterior chamber paracentesis was performed at selected times up to 5 h after the last dose and an AH sample was collected. AH samples were assayed by an independent bioanalytical laboratory using a sensitive and validated tandem LC-MS/MS method. The assay lower limits of quantitation were 0.59 nM for bimatoprost, 0.29 nM for BFA, and 0.44 nM for TFA. RESULTS AH concentrations of BFA (17-phenyl-trinor PGF(2alpha)) were quantifiable in all but one sample at 0.5 h. The maximum concentration achieved (C(max)) of BFA was 30.9 + or - 16.41 nM (n =5), observed at 2 h postdose. AH concentrations of bimatoprost amide were lower than BFA at all time points, with a C(max) of 6.81 + or - 1.36 nM (n = 7) at 1 h postdose. For TFA, measurable AH concentrations were obtained at all time points with a TFA C(max) of 3.91 + or - 2.27 nM (n = 5), which was observed at 3 h after the dose (all data are mean + or - SEM). CONCLUSIONS Once daily topical ocular administration of LUMIGAN or TRAVATAN for 3 weeks resulted in significant concentrations of BFA and TFA in the AH. Quantifiable levels of bimatoprost amide were also measured. Maximum concentrations of BFA (30.9 nM) and TFA (3.91 nM) in the anterior chamber are sufficient to fully activate the FP prostanoid receptors in the target cells of the ciliary muscle and trabecular meshwork. Both bimatoprost in LUMIGAN and travoprost in TRAVATAN are essentially prodrugs that are rapidly hydrolyzed to their respective free acids that induce the IOP-lowering effect observed with both drugs in vivo.

Three-Month Randomized Trial of Fixed-Combination Brinzolamide, 1%, and Brimonidine, 0.2%

IMPORTANCE This study evaluates the contribution of the individual components of an investigational non-β-antagonist fixed combination of brinzolamide, 1%, and brimonidine, 0.2%. This study and its sister study provide the first randomized data showing the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering activity and the toxicity profile of this novel topical antihypertensive fixed combination. OBJECTIVE To compare IOP-lowering efficacy of fixed-combination brinzolamide, 1%, and brimonidine, 0.2%, with that of its components in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. DESIGN In this phase 3, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study, eligible patients were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with fixed-combination brinzolamide, 1%, and brimonidine, 0.2%; brinzolamide, 1%; or brimonidine, 0.2%, 3 times daily for 3 months. SETTING Sixty-six academic and private practice study sites throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS A total of 660 adults with a clinical diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension from a referred sample were enrolled. Thirty-four patients discontinued participation due to treatment-related nonserious adverse events. INTERVENTION Topical administration of study medication (fixed-combination brinzolamide, 1%, and brimonidine, 0.2%; brinzolamide, 1%; or brimonidine, 0.2%) 1 drop 3 times daily for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mean IOP at the 3-month visit at all time points (8 AM, 10 AM, 3 PM, and 5 PM). RESULTS A total of 660 patients were enrolled. Baseline mean IOP values were similar among treatment groups at all 4 time points. At 3 months, the mean IOP of the brinzolamide-brimonidine group (16.3-19.8 mm Hg) was significantly lower than that of either the brinzolamide group (19.3-20.9 mm Hg; P ≤ .002) or the brimonidine group (17.9-22.5 mm Hg; P < .001) across all time points. One of 10 serious adverse events (chest pain, brinzolamide group) was judged as treatment related. A total of 129 patients experienced at least 1 treatment-related adverse effect (brinzolamide-brimonidine, 22.9%; brinzolamide, 18.6%; and brimonidine, 17.3%; P = .31), most of which were ocular. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This registrational study provides evidence that the fixed combination of brinzolamide, 1%, and brimonidine, 0.2%, can safely and effectively lower IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, showing significantly superior IOP-lowering activity compared with either brinzolamide or brimonidine monotherapy while providing a safety profile consistent with that of its individual components. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01297517.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients with dry eye disease using lubricant eye drops containing polyethylene glycol or carboxymethylcellulose

Background The purpose of this study was to compare changes in corneal staining in patients with dry eye after 6 weeks of treatment with Systane® Gel Drops or Refresh Liquigel® lubricant eye drops. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years with a sodium fluorescein corneal staining sum score of ≥3 in either eye and best-corrected visual acuity of 0.6 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better in each eye who were using a lubricant eye gel or ointment for dry eye were included in this randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, double-blind trial. Patients were randomized to four times daily Systane® Gel Drops (polyethylene glycol 400 0.4% and propylene glycol 0.3%) or Refresh LiquiGel® Drops (carboxymethylcellulose sodium 1%) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline to week 6 in sodium fluorescein corneal staining. Supportive efficacy outcomes included conjunctival staining, tear film break-up time, Patient Global Assessment of Improvement, Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) Treatment Satisfaction/Treatment Bother Questionnaire, Single Symptom Comfort Scale, and Ocular Symptoms Questionnaire. The safety analysis comprised recording of adverse events. Results In total, 147 patients (Systane group, n=73; Refresh group, n=74; mean ± standard deviation age, 57±16 years) were enrolled and included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Corneal staining was significantly reduced from baseline to week 6 for Systane and Refresh (−3.4±2.5 and −2.5±2.6 units, respectively; P<0.0001, t-test), with a significantly greater improvement with Systane versus Refresh (P=0.0294). Results for conjunctival staining, tear film break-up time, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires were not statistically different between groups. No safety issues were identified; adverse events were reported by 19% of patients with Systane and 30% of patients with Refresh eye drops. Conclusion Systane Gel Drops were associated with significantly better corneal staining scores versus Refresh Liquigel eye drops in patients with dry eye. Supportive efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Abstract Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed. Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100). Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p = 0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p = 0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p = 0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p < 0.0001). Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed. Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.