Effects of Punctal Occlusion on Ocular Itching and Conjunctival Redness Associated with Allergic Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: Punctal occlusion using punctal plugs has been successfully used to treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. However, the effects of punctal occlusion on the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis (AC) have been less well documented. There is some concern among clinicians that punctal occlusion may make signs/symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis worse by trapping allergens on the eye. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to address this question and thus assess the effect of punctal occlusion alone on ocular itching and conjunctival redness associated with AC. METHODS: This was a pooled post hoc analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo insert-controlled clinical trials in subjects with AC. Enrolled subjects were generally healthy adults with ocular allergies and a positive skin test reaction to perennial and/or seasonal allergens. The study used a modified version of the traditional conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model, which included multiple, repeated allergen challenges following placement of the intracanalicular insert. Subjects were rechallenged on Days 6, 7 and 8; Days 13, 14 and 15; and Days 26, 27 and 28. RESULTS: The data set included 128 subjects that were administered placebo. Baseline mean (SD) ocular itching and conjunctival redness scores were 3.52 (0.44) and 2.97 (0.39), respectively. On post-insertion Days 7, 14 and 28, mean itching scores were 2.62, 2.26 and 1.91, respectively, representing 26%, 36% and 46% itching reductions, respectively (p < 0.001). On Days 7, 14 and 28, mean conjunctival redness scores were 1.98, 1.90, and 2.08, respectively, representing 33%, 36%, and 30% redness reductions, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this post hoc pooled analysis, punctal occlusion with a resorbable hydrogel intracanalicular insert did not worsen ocular itching or conjunctival redness in this patient population.

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing Omidenepag Isopropyl 0.002% Once and Twice Daily in Subjects With Primary Open-angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension (SPECTRUM-6).

PRCIS: No significant difference was found between the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering of omidenepag isopropyl 0.002% once daily (QD) and twice daily (BID). However, adverse events (AEs) were higher in the BID arm; thus, QD dosing is the preferred dosing frequency for further investigation. PURPOSE: This phase 2, randomized, double-masked, parallel-arm, multicenter study (NCT03858894) was conducted in the United States to examine whether the efficacy and safety of omidenepag isopropyl 0.002% BID dosing was superior to QD dosing in subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Randomized subjects (1:1) received omidenepag isopropyl 0.002% QD (n=50) or BID (n=48) for 6 weeks (after a ≤4-week washout period). IOP was measured at 8:00 am, 12:00 pm, and 4:00 pm at baseline and weeks 2 and 6. The primary efficacy endpoint was IOP at each timepoint at weeks 2 and 6. AEs were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline mean diurnal IOP (±SD) post washout was 25.4±2.9 mm Hg (BID) and 24.6±1.9 mm Hg (QD). At weeks 2 and 6, clinically significant IOP reductions from baseline were observed for omidenepag isopropyl BID and QD treatments. Least-squares mean (±SE) IOP differences (BID versus QD) were not statistically significant (week 2: 0.44±0.68 to 1.08±0.65 mm Hg; week 6: 0.36±0.63 to 0.68±0.68 mm Hg) at any timepoint (all P > 0.05). AEs were 3-fold greater in the BID arm (41.7%; QD: 14.0%); the most frequently reported AE was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia (BID: 22.9%; QD: 2.0%). Five subjects discontinued omidenepag isopropyl prematurely, 4 of 5 owing to AEs (BID: 4; QD: 0). CONCLUSION: In this study, the benefit-risk profile of omidenepag isopropyl 0.002% QD was more favorable than the benefit-risk profile of BID. This difference was driven by a higher incidence of local tolerability issues in the BID arm.

Phase 3 Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Patients With Allergic Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone intracanalicular ocular insert for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to receive a dexamethasone insert or a placebo insert in both eyes and were evaluated using a modified version of the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. After inserts were placed in office, a series of 4 closely spaced post-insertion CACs were conducted at weeks 1, 2, and 4 across approximately 30 days. Primary efficacy endpoints, assessed at week-1 CAC-day 8, were reported by subjects of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post CAC and investigator-evaluated conjunctival redness at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post CAC. RESULTS: For the primary endpoints, dexamethasone inserts showed statistically significantly lower mean ocular itching scores than placebo at all time points (P <.001), with differences favoring dexamethasone inserts over placebo (0.86, 0.98, and 0.96 units at 3, 5, and 7 minutes, respectively) and statistically significantly lower conjunctival redness scores at 20 minutes (P <.05) but not at 7 or 15 minutes (P ≥.05). Results also showed statistically significantly less itching and conjunctival redness at 31 and 29 of 33 other time points, respectively (P <.05). There were no serious adverse events; 1 subject had elevated intraocular pressure in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Data presented in this study demonstrate the potential for a single, physician-administered dexamethasone intracanalicular insert to provide relief of ocular itching for up to 4 weeks in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.