Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Travoprost Intraocular Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of 2 models of the travoprost intraocular implant (fast-eluting [FE] and slow-eluting [SE] types) from 1 of 2 phase 3 trials (the GC-010 trial). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension having an unmedicated baseline mean diurnal IOP (average of 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm time points) of ≥ 21 mmHg, and IOP of ≤ 36 mmHg at each of the 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm timepoints at baseline. METHODS: Study eyes were randomized to the travoprost intraocular implant (FE implant [n = 200] or SE implant [n = 197] model) or to timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5% twice daily (n = 193). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mean change from baseline IOP in the study eye at 8 am and 10 am, at each of day 10, week 6, and month 3. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and ophthalmic assessments. RESULTS: Mean IOP reduction from baseline over the 6 time points ranged from 6.6 to 8.4 mmHg for the FE implant group, from 6.6 to 8.5 mmHg for the SE implant group, and from 6.5 to 7.7 mmHg for the timolol group. The primary efficacy end point was met; the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the implant groups and the timolol group was < 1 mmHg at all 6 time points. Study eye AEs, most of mild or moderate severity, were reported in 21.5%, 27.2%, and 10.8% of patients in the FE implant, SE implant, and timolol groups, respectively. The most common AEs included iritis (FE implant, 0.5%; SE implant, 5.1%), ocular hyperemia (FE implant, 3.0%; SE implant, 2.6%), reduced visual acuity (FE implant, 1.0%; SE implant, 4.1%; timolol, 0.5%), and IOP increased (FE implant, 3.5%; SE implant, 2.6%; timolol, 2.1%). One serious study eye AE occurred (endophthalmitis). CONCLUSIONS: The travoprost intraocular implant demonstrated robust IOP reduction over the 3-month primary efficacy evaluation period after a single administration. The IOP-lowering efficacy in both implant groups was statistically and clinically noninferior to that in the timolol group, with a favorable safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Hydrus and iStent Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery Implants for Standalone Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma: The COMPARE Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of different microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) devices for reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) and medications in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-two eyes from 152 patients aged 45 to 84 years with OAG, Shaffer angle grade III-IV, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 20/30 or better, and IOP 23 to 39 mmHg after washout of all hypotensive medications. Eyes with secondary glaucoma other than pseudoexfoliative or pigmentary glaucoma, angle closure, previous incisional glaucoma surgery, or any significant ocular pathology other than glaucoma were excluded. INTERVENTION: Study eyes were randomized 1:1 to standalone MIGS consisting of either 1 Hydrus Microstent (Ivantis, Inc, Irvine, CA) or 2 iStent Trabecular Micro Bypass devices (Glaukos Inc, San Clemente, CA). Follow-up was performed 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Within-group and between-group differences in IOP and medications at 12 months and complete surgical success defined as freedom from repeat glaucoma surgery, IOP 18 mmHg or less, and no glaucoma medications. Safety measures included the frequency of surgical complications, changes in visual acuity, slit-lamp findings, and adverse events. RESULTS: Study groups were well matched for baseline demographics, glaucoma status, medication use, and baseline IOP. Twelve-month follow-up was completed in 148 of 152 randomized subjects (97.3%). At 12 months, the Hydrus had a greater rate of complete surgical success (P < 0.001) and reduced medication use (difference = -0.6 medications, P = 0.004). More Hydrus subjects were medication free at 12 months (difference = 22.6% P = 0.0057). Secondary glaucoma surgery was performed in 2 eyes in the 2-iStent group (3.9%) and in none of the Hydrus eyes. Two eyes in the Hydrus group and 1 in the 2-iStent group had BCVA loss of ≥2 lines. CONCLUSION: Standalone MIGS in OAG with the Hydrus resulted in a higher surgical success rate and fewer medications compared with the 2-iStent procedure. The 2 MIGS devices have similar safety profiles.

Efficacy and Safety of the Travoprost Intraocular Implant in Reducing Topical IOP-Lowering Medication Burden in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PURPOSE: A randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 2 trial to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of travoprost intraocular implant, an extended-release drug delivery system designed to provide uninterrupted sustained intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering therapy, thereby reducing patient treatment burden and improving adherence with IOP-lowering medication. METHODS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were administered a fast-eluting implant (FE implant, n = 51) and received twice-daily (BID) placebo eye drops, a slow-eluting (SE implant, n = 54) and received BID placebo eye drops, or underwent a sham surgical procedure and received BID timolol 0.5% (n = 49). IOP was measured at baseline, day 1-2, day 10, week 4, week 6, month 3, and every 3 months thereafter through 36 months. Efficacy was evaluated by mean change from 8:00 AM unmedicated baseline IOP through month 36, and the percentage of patients receiving the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications as at screening (pre-study). Safety was evaluated by adverse events and ophthalmic parameters. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically relevant IOP-lowering treatment effects were observed through month 36 after a single administration of the travoprost implant compared with BID timolol with mean IOP reductions ranging from 7.6 to 8.8 mmHg for the FE implant group, from 7.3 to 8.0 mmHg for the SE implant group, and from 7.3 to 7.9 for the timolol group at the 8:00 AM timepoint (P < 0.0001 for all treatment groups at all visits). At months 12, 24, and 36, a greater percentage of FE and SE implant patients versus timolol patients were well controlled on the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications compared with screening with 63 and 69% for the FE and SE implants groups, respectively, versus 45% for the timolol group at month 36. The safety profile of the implant was favorable; there were no dislodgements, no explantations, no adverse events of conjunctival hyperemia or periorbital fat atrophy, no discontinuations due to study eye adverse events, nor any serious adverse events in the study eye. Comparable changes from baseline in corneal endothelial cell counts were observed in the three treatment groups over the 36 months. CONCLUSION: The travoprost intraocular implant demonstrated robust IOP-lowering and substantially reduced topical IOP-lowering medication burden for up to 36 months following a single administration, while maintaining a favorable safety profile. The travoprost intraocular implant promises to be a meaningful addition to the interventional glaucoma armamentarium by addressing the key shortcomings of topical IOP-lowering medications, including low adherence and topical side effects while controlling IOP for up to 36 months. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02754596 registered 28 April 2016.

Travoprost Intracameral Implant for Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: 12-Month Results of a Randomized, Double-Masked Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: The trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8 A.M., 10 A.M., and 4 P.M.) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments. RESULTS: A total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (P < 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group. CONCLUSIONS: The SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.

Comparison of 3-month visual outcomes of a new multifocal intraocular lens vs a trifocal intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of the TECNIS Synergy multifocal (model ZFR00V) intraocular lens (IOL) with that of the AcrySof PanOptix Trifocal (model TFNT00) IOL in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery. SETTING: Multicenter clinical setting. DESIGN: Prospective randomized comparative study. METHODS: Patients aged 22 years or older were randomly assigned (2:1) to bilateral implantation with ZFR00V or TFNT00 IOLs. End points included the mean binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm, photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm, photopic low-contrast corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and mesopic CDVA, nondirected patient responses to an ocular/visual symptoms questionnaire, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients implanted with IOLs, 95 of the 97 patients with ZFR00V IOLs and 52 of the 53 patients with TFNT00 IOLs completed the 3-month follow-up. Most patients in the ZFR00V and TFNT00 groups achieved 20/25 or better binocular CDVA (100% vs 96.2%) and DCNVA measured at 40 cm (88.4% vs 75.0%) and 33 cm (78.9% vs 51.9%). The mean between-group difference in binocular DCNVA at 40 cm favored ZFR00V IOLs (0.5 lines Snellen; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.089; P ≤ .05). Similarly, the mean binocular photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm (0.8 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) and photopic high-contrast and low-contrast CDVA (0.5 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) favored ZFR00V IOLs. Patient-reported ocular/visual symptoms and safety were generally similar between the 2 IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: The ZFR00V IOL showed an extensive range of vision, particularly through near distances, and better mesopic performance than the TFNT00 IOL in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

Evaluation of Intraocular Lens Rotational Stability in a Multicenter Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the postoperative rotational stability of two prototype intraocular lens (IOL) designs (subsequently termed version 1 and version 2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, paired-eye, 6-month study evaluated the version 1 and version 2 IOLs. Results were compared with a control IOL (TECNIS® toric 1-piece monofocal IOL) evaluated in a separate, similarly designed study. Participants aged ≥22 years and scheduled to undergo bilateral cataract extraction were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the version 1 or version 2 IOL in the first operative eye; the alternate test IOL was then implanted in the second operative eye. RESULTS: Mean absolute IOL rotation at postoperative week 1 was the primary effectiveness end point. Additional end points included the percentage of eyes with postoperative IOL rotation >5°/>10°, direction of lens rotation, surgeon-reported ease of IOL handling during implantation, and safety. At postoperative week 1, mean (±standard deviation) absolute IOL rotation was significantly lower for both version 1 and version 2 versus control (0.88° [±0.94] and 0.71° [±0.69] vs 2.24° [±3.21], respectively; both P < 0.001). For both study lenses, absolute rotation was <5° for all eyes at postoperative week 1, and no cases of rotation >10° were observed at any postoperative time point. From postoperative week 1 onward, version 2 had a statistically significant clockwise bias in the direction of rotation (P = 0.03); similar findings were observed for version 1. Surgeons reported acceptable ease of IOL handling during implantation for both version 1 and version 2. No device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Both the version 1 and version 2 IOLs, each with frosted, squared haptics, demonstrated improved postoperative rotational stability compared with a control lens without frosted haptics. Because version 2 had the same overall geometry as the current TECNIS toric IOL, this design was selected for commercialization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015287.

Continuous Curvilinear Capsulorhexis Performed With the VERUS Ophthalmic Caliper.

PURPOSE: To compare size, circularity, and centration outcomes of continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) performed with or without assistance from the VERUS ophthalmic caliper (Mile High Ophthalmics, Denver, CO). METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective consecutive case controlled series review. RESULTS: Data from 40 consecutive cases using the VERUS device for CCC were compared to 40 consecutive cases with standard manual CCC. VERUS-assisted CCC size, circularity, and centration were closer to target compared to that of manual only procedures (P < .05). The average time from initiation to completion of the capsulotomy was shorter with manual (40 ± 11 seconds) compared to VERUS-assisted (71 ± 13 seconds) cases (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The VERUS ophthalmic caliper is effective at improving size, circularity, and centration of the CCC in a time-efficient manner when compared to manual procedures performed without VERUS guidance. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(10):654-658.].