Rhett M. Schiffman

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for Noninfectious Intermediate or Posterior Uveitis

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) for treatment of noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. METHODS In this 26-week trial, eyes with noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis were randomized to a single treatment with a 0.7-mg DEX implant (n = 77), 0.35-mg DEX implant (n = 76), or sham procedure (n = 76). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The main outcome measure was the proportion of eyes with a vitreous haze score of 0 at week 8. RESULTS The proportion of eyes with a vitreous haze score of 0 at week 8 was 47% with the 0.7-mg DEX implant, 36% with the 0.35-mg DEX implant, and 12% with the sham (P < .001); this benefit persisted through week 26. A gain of 15 or more letters from baseline best-corrected visual acuity was seen in significantly more eyes in the DEX implant groups than the sham group at all study visits. The percentage of eyes with intraocular pressure of 25 mm Hg or more peaked at 7.1% for the 0.7-mg DEX implant, 8.7% for the 0.35-mg DEX implant, and 4.2% for the sham (P > .05 at any visit). The incidence of cataract reported in the phakic eyes was 9 of 62 (15%) with the 0.7-mg DEX implant, 6 of 51 (12%) with the 0.35-mg DEX implant, and 4 of 55 (7%) with the sham (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS In patients with noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis, a single DEX implant significantly improved intraocular inflammation and visual acuity persisting for 6 months. Application to Clinical Practice Dexamethasone intravitreal implant may be used safely and effectively for treatment of intermediate and posterior uveitis. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00333814.

Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine assessed using the conjunctival antigen challenge model in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND Epinastine hydrochloride is a nonsedating antihistamine with a high affinity for histamine H(1) receptors, together with mast cell-stabilizing and anti-inflammatory activities. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of topically administered ophthalmic epinastine using the conjunctival antigen challenge (CAC) model in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS This prospective, single-center, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, Phase III clinical trial was conducted at the Ophthalmic Research Associates study center (North Andover, Massachusetts) from November 2000 to January 2001. Eligible participants were asymptomatic but had a history of allergic conjunctivitis and had positive CAC reactions at the initial screening (week 0) and at a confirmation visit (week 1). Patients were randomly assigned by eye to receive epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution in 1 eye and vehicle in the contralateral eye. Each eye received 1 drop of study medication 15 minutes before antigen application (onset challenge; week 3) or 8 hours before antigen application (duration challenge; week 5). Primary end points were ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia. Itching was recorded 3, 5, and 10 minutes after antigen challenge. Hyperemia was recorded 5, 10, and 20 minutes after antigen challenge, as were secondary end points, which included eyelid swelling, episcleral and ciliary hyperemia, chemosis, tearing, and ocular mucous discharge. Tolerability was assessed by patient interview and slit-lamp biomicroscopy. RESULTS Sixty-seven patients (37 females, 30 males; mean [SD] age, 38.4 [14.2] years [range, 12-67 years]) were included in the study. Mean severity scores for the following signs and symptoms were significantly lower with epinastine compared with vehicle at all time points after onset and duration challenges: ocular itching (P<0.001); eyelid swelling (P<0.001); conjunctival ( P<0.001), episcleral ( P<0.001), and ciliary hyperemia (P<0.001); and chemosis (P<or=0.009). The percentage of eyes with tearing was significantly lower with epinastine compared with vehicle at all time points (P<or=0.021), except at 5 minutes after the duration challenge. Adverse events (AEs), reported for 7.5% (5/67) of patients, included only symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection. No ocular or treatment-related AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS In this CAC model, multiple signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis were significantly reduced by instillation of epinastine compared with vehicle. Epinastine showed prompt onset (3 minutes) and long duration of action (>or=8 hours). The tolerability of epinastine was similar to that of vehicle.

Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine: a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active- and vehicle-controlled environmental trial in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND Epinastine hydrochloride is an antihistamine with mast cell-stabilizing and anti-inflammatory activity. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) exposed to environmental allergens. METHODS This randomized (age-stratified), double-masked, parallel-group, active- and vehicle-controlled, environmental, Phase III clinical trial was conducted at 6 ophthalmology clinics in the United States. Patients aged >or=9 years diagnosed with SAC and who had a positive reaction in a conjunctival allergen challenge were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive 1 drop/eye BID of epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution, levocabastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic suspension, or vehicle of epinastine, respectively, for 8 weeks. The primary end point was ocular itching, and secondary end points included ocular hyperemia, chemosis, ocular mucous discharge (all assessed on a 5-point scale), eyelid swelling (assessed on a 4-point scale), and tearing (present or absent). Efficacy analyses used assessments from the two 1-week periods with the highest pollen counts. For tolerability assessment slit-lamp biomicroscopy and visual acuity examinations were conducted at each study visit (weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8). RESULTS Two-hundred ninety-eight patients (159 females, 139 males; mean [SD] age, 32.7 [14.6] years [range, 9-71 years]) entered the study; 118 received epinastine, 118 received levocabastine, and 62 received vehicle. Epinastine-treated patients reported significantly less ocular itching than those receiving vehicle (P=0.045); scores for hyperemia were similar between these 2 groups. Ocular itching and hyperemia scores were similar between the epinastine and levocabastine groups. No clinically or statistically significant between-group differences were seen in slit-lamp biomicroscopy findings, changes in visual acuity from baseline, or the incidence of treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS In this study of patients with SAC, ophthalmic epinastine instilled twice daily was more effective than vehicle for the control of ocular itching and was similar in efficacy to levocabastine for control of ocular itching and hyperemia. Epinastine was well tolerated.