Understanding Perspectives on Presbyopia and Use of Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% Twice Daily from Participants of the Phase 3 VIRGO Study.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 14-day VIRGO study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily dosing of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 1.25% (Pilo) in presbyopia. On VIRGO exit, a companion study was conducted to assess the patient experience with presbyopia and satisfaction with Pilo. METHODS: Recruited individuals completed the Presbyopia Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PPSQ) plus a three-part exit survey, or a live interview. The PPSQ evaluated respondents' experience with Pilo. Survey parts 1 and 2 evaluated experience managing presbyopia before and during VIRGO, respectively; part 3 assessed future possibilities of using Pilo in real-world situations. The interview further informed the interviewees' experience with presbyopia and Pilo. The primary endpoint was responders (%) in each rating category of the PPSQ items 1-7; the secondary endpoints were summary of categorical (survey) and qualitative (interviews) responses. RESULTS: The PPSQ and survey included 62 participants who received Pilo (N = 28) or vehicle (N = 34) in VIRGO; the interview included ten participants (Pilo, N = 4; vehicle, N = 6). Per the PPSQ, 64.3% of Pilo users reported vision improvement, including 17.9% with complete improvement; ≥ 46.4% were satisfied/very satisfied with their ability to perform daily activities, see up close unaided, and read in dim light. Among vehicle users, these percentages were 35.3%, 0%, and ≤ 23.5%, respectively. In both subgroups, ≥ 67.9% were interested in using Pilo or Pilo and eyeglasses/contact lenses in the future. Per the interview, vehicle users (n = 6/6) found the eyedrop easy to use but none experienced meaningful near-vision improvements, stopped using other correction method(s) part of the day, were satisfied with the eyedrop, preferred it over their previous correction method(s), or would continue using it if prescribed. Conversely, 75% (n = 3/4) of Pilo users responded positively to each of these six criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Findings validate the VIRGO results and improve our understanding of the patient experience, demonstrating improved vision and satisfaction with Pilo (vs. vehicle) when performing daily activities.

Impact of presbyopia treatment pilocarpine hydrochloride 1.25% on night-driving performance.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients prescribed pilocarpine ophthalmic solution are advised to be cautious when driving at night, but studies evaluating the effects of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 1.25% (pilo), approved to treat presbyopia, on driving at night are lacking. BACKGROUND: This double-masked, crossover, phase 3b study evaluated night-driving performance with pilo or the placebo once daily. METHODS: Forty-three adults (40-55 years) with presbyopia impacting daily activities and mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near vision 6/12-6/30 were randomised to bilateral treatment with pilo followed by placebo or placebo followed by pilo (with a ≥7-day washout between interventions). Night-driving performance was evaluated at twilight at a closed-circuit course. Primary efficacy endpoint: overall composite night-driving performance Z score at the end of the 7-14-day intervention period, 1 hour post-instillation. Pilo was considered non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares mean difference (LSMD, pilo minus placebo) was >-0.25. Other efficacy endpoints: individual components of the night-driving performance test (hazard avoidance rate; road sign recognition rate and distance; pedestrians recognition distance; overall driving and lane-keeping times) and night-driving experience questionnaire. Safety included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The mean overall composite Z scores were -0.121 (pilo) and 0.118 (placebo). The LSMD (pilo minus placebo) was -0.224 (95% CI, -0.346, -0.103), with 3 of the 7 individual tasks being significantly better with the placebo. The questionnaire did not reveal significant differences between pilo and the placebo. There were no serious or severe TEAEs and no TEAE-related discontinuations. The most common ocular TEAEs were headache and visual impairment with pilo (both 27.9%), and dry eye (7.0%) with the placebo. CONCLUSION: The overall performance of night driving was inferior with pilo, compared with placebo. The study findings are consistent with the current class labelling and provide evidence to inform regulators and assist clinicians considering prescribing pilo to adults who seek treatment of presbyopia symptoms and drive at night.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04837482.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of cosmetics on the ocular surface.

In this report the use of eye cosmetic products and procedures and how this represents a lifestyle challenge that may exacerbate or promote the development of ocular surface and adnexal disease is discussed. Multiple aspects of eye cosmetics are addressed, including their history and market value, psychological and social impacts, possible problems associated with cosmetic ingredients, products, and procedures, and regulations for eye cosmetic use. In addition, a systematic review that critically appraises randomized controlled trial evidence concerning the ocular effects of eyelash growth products is included. The findings of this systematic review highlight the evidence gaps and indicate future directions for research to focus on ocular surface outcomes associated with eyelash growth products.

OC-01 (Varenicline Solution) Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease Signs and Symptoms in Subjects with Autoimmune Disease: Integrated Data from ONSET-1 and ONSET-2.

Purpose: We evaluate the treatment effect of OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray (VNS) in dry eye disease (DED) subjects from two randomized trials who self-reported autoimmune disease (AID). Patients and Methods: Post hoc subgroup analysis of subjects reporting a history of AID from the integrated OC-01 VNS 0.03 or 0.06 mg and vehicle control (VC) treatment groups of the ONSET-1 and ONSET-2 trials. Mean change in Schirmer test with anesthesia score (STS, mm) and Eye Dryness Score (EDS) from baseline to 28 days was compared between OC-01 VNS and VC groups. Consistency of treatment effect in subjects with and without AID was evaluated using treatment-subgroup interaction terms in ANCOVA models for mean changes from baseline STS and EDS, and in a logistic regression model for proportion achieving ≥10 mm STS improvement. Results: Of the 891 participants, 31 reported comorbid AID. In all models, the treatment-subgroup interaction terms were not significant (p>0.05), indicating consistency of therapeutic effect of OC-01 VNS in subjects with and without AID. In subjects with AID, the treatment difference for STS was 11.8 mm and -9.3 for EDS and difference for proportion of subjects with ≥10 mm STS improvement was 61.1%. The most common adverse event was sneeze (82-84%), graded as mild by 98% of subjects. Conclusion: OC-01 VNS demonstrated consistency in improving both tear production and patient-reported symptoms in subjects with AID, consistent with pivotal ONSET-1 and 2 trial results. Further investigation is warranted, and results may further support use of OC-01 VNS for DED in AID patients.