Compounding of Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Control.

OBJECTIVES: Low-concentration atropine is commonly prescribed to slow myopia progression in children but is not Food and Drug Administration-approved for that indication and is only available in the United States from compounding pharmacies. The purpose of this study was to ascertain its reported compounding and labeling in the United States. METHODS: US compounding pharmacies were identified through a survey of eye doctors, social media, conferences, and web search. Twenty-eight pharmacies were identified and contacted through telephone and asked a standard set of questions about their methods to compound and label low-concentration atropine. RESULTS: Twenty-six pharmacies across 19 states provided responses, with 21 answering all nine items (81%) and a mean of 8.7 of nine responses. The most frequently reported bottle size was 5 mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.5-10). For storage, 10 pharmacies (38%) recommended refrigeration and 16 (62%) stated room temperature was sufficient. The median beyond-use date provided was 65 days (IQR: 45-158). For preparation, 12 pharmacies (50%) used commercially available 1% solution, 9 (38%) used powdered atropine, 2 (8%) used both, and 1 (4%) stated their approach was proprietary. For the added excipients, 11 (42%) used artificial tears only, 6 (23%) added 0.9% saline only, 7 (27%) used more than one ingredient, and 2 (8%) were proprietary. Only two pharmacies mentioned adding boric acid and two mentioned "pH-adjusted" saline. CONCLUSIONS: There were a wide variety of formulation methods in the United States, which may affect atropine stability and potency. Similarly, there are a wide variety of storage and beyond-use recommendations. Further research is needed to assess how these variations may affect the efficacy and safety of low-concentration atropine and of myopia control.

Regulatory and Developmental Aspects of Biomarkers in the Treatment of Ocular Surface Disease.

The ideal biomarker would be a simple laboratory or clinical evaluation before treatment, which would predict subsequent therapeutic response. This might include selection of which patients might respond to that treatment. While other disciplines such as neurology and oncology have biomarkers, ophthalmology is limited to one-elevated intraocular pressure as a surrogate for progressive glaucomatous field loss. US law in 2016 required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to set up a system to qualify biomarkers. The system now exists-with most validated or pending biomarkers limited to safety and infection. The American Academy of Ophthalmology selected dry eye disease as one of three diseases in which to standardize outcomes in ophthalmology research. There have been a number of biomarkers proposed for evaluating ocular surface disease and its treatment. None currently meets the scientific or regulatory basis for being a valid biomarker-however, additional research may result in validity. Given the FDA's scientific basis, it is unlikely that an unproven biomarker could be used for regulatory approval, even for a "SubPart H" conditional new drug application. Elsewhere in ophthalmology, we know that even patients who share the same disease gene or mutation may differ substantially in penetrance and clinical expression. Thus, it is not unexpected that ocular surface disease, a heterogeneous disease with a variable presentation of signs and symptoms, has yet to have validated biomarkers that reach the level of evidence that allows their use for diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and for making decisions in drug development.

A Drug to Prevent Pediatric Myopia-What Would it Take?

Because of the epidemic of myopia with both its short-term and long-term effects, we desperately need ways to slow myopic progression. In this study which was part of a myopia prevention symposium, the author answers the following question: Assuming that researchers did come up with a pharmacological treatment to slow myopic progression-what would it take to obtain regulatory approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Previous publicly available information (a 2003 FDA advisory committee on this topic, International Conference on Harmonisation guidances on drug development, and published articles) as well as the author's experience is used. Development pathways including preclinical safety, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and early- and late-stage clinical studies are presented. In particular, challenges for the conduct of multi-year controlled double-masked studies are presented. As any treatment would have to be chronic, prophylactic, and pediatric, there are a host of concerns as to efficacy, safety, and benefit/risk (therapeutic index). Although more challenging than some short-term indications in ophthalmology, nonetheless the pharmaceutical community is investing in seemingly equally challenging conditions such as retinal degeneration. The author looks forward to working with colleagues in academia and industry to evaluate and develop novel therapies to slow the development of myopia.

New classes of glaucoma medications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss recent advances in the medical management of glaucoma and to highlight future medical therapies currently in development. RECENT FINDINGS: In 1996, latanoprost (Xalatan) was approved in the United States as a new chemical entity and new class (prostaglandin analogs) for the topical treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma. In the period from the late 1990s-2010s, while there were additional new chemical entities, fixed dose combinations, and formulation improvements, there were no new classes of ocular hypotensive medications approved worldwide. We summarize new pharmacological treatments that are currently in clinical trials - new classes, new molecules and new delivery systems. SUMMARY: Although challenges in medical treatment of glaucoma exist, particularly in patient adherence, medical therapy remains the first line treatment for almost all glaucoma patients. Few new medications for glaucoma therapy are currently available for our patients, but multiple drugs with novel mechanisms of action, new formulations, and new delivery mechanisms are currently in development.

Cannabinoids for treatment of glaucoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review the current status of cannabis in the treatment of glaucoma, including the greater availability of marijuana in the USA. RECENT FINDINGS: The potency of marijuana, as measured by the concentration of Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol, has increased from ∼2 to 3% in the 1970s to ∼20% today. Many US states have passed laws allowing either medicinal or recreational use of marijuana. SUMMARY: The pharmacology of marijuana and its effect on intraocular pressure has not changed since the research in the 1970s and 1980s. Marijuana is an effective ocular hypotensive agent. However, cardiovascular and neurological effects are observed at the same dose, and may theoretically reduce the beneficial effect of lowering intraocular pressure by reducing ocular blood flow. The clinician must be cognizant of this potential in diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

Double-masked, randomized, dose-response study of AR-13324 versus latanoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.

OBJECTIVE: AR-13324 is a small-molecule inhibitor of Rho kinase and a norepinephrine transporter. The objective of this 28-day study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized study in 22 private practice ophthalmology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT with unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) in the range of 22 to 36 mmHg. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (pm), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (pm), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (pm) for 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within the treatment group at day 28. RESULTS: Randomized and treated were 224 patients, 213 (95.1%) of whom completed the study. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7 mmHg in the AR-13324 0.01%, 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg (P<0.001). The 5.7-mmHg reduction in IOP by AR-13324 0.02% did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The most frequently reported adverse event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52%, 57%, and 16%, respectively. On day 28 at 08:00 hours, the incidence of mild to moderate hyperemia by biomicroscopy was 18%, 24%, and 11%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs of 22 to 35 mmHg. The major safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost.

Ocular Pharmacology.

Treatment of ocular diseases presents unique challenges and opportunities for the clinician and for the clinical pharmacologist. Ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, typically given as liquids, require consideration of solubility, physiological pH, and osmolarity, as well as sterility and stability, which in turn requires optimal pharmaceutics. Ocular tissue levels are challenging to obtain in humans, and the clinical pharmacokinetics is typically blood levels, which are primarily related to safety, rather than efficacy. The eye is a closed compartment with multiple physiological barriers with esterases and transporters, but relatively little cytochrome oxidases. Delivery routes include topical, intravitreal, and systemic. Patient dosing involves not only adherence issues common to all chronic diseases, but also performance requirements on eye drop instillation. Therapeutically, ocular diseases and their pharmacological treatments include both those analogous to systemic diseases (e.g., inflammation, infection, and neuronal degeneration) and those unique to the eye (e.g., cataract and myopia).

Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled, Randomized, Phase II Study of the Ocular Hypotensive Activity and Safety of VVN539 Ophthalmic Solution.

Purpose: To assess safety and ocular hypotensive efficacy of VVN539 ophthalmic solution in a first-in-human study. Design: Multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled, dose-response, parallel-comparison study. Participants: Sixty-eight subjects with ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma enrolled at 5 private practices. Methods: After washout of ocular hypotensive medications as required, the subjects were randomized to receive either VVN539 ophthalmic solution 0.02%, 0.04%, or vehicle once-daily (QD) in the morning (5 days), once-daily in the evening (6 days) and then twice-daily (6 days). Main Outcome Measures: Comparison of VVNM539 to its vehicle in mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at each diurnal time point (8:00am, 10:00am, and 4:00pm) at visit 4 (day 7), visit 5 (day 14), and visit 6 (day 21). Results: Mean IOP decreased throughout dosing in the active groups to between 18 and 20 mmHg in both active groups, to between 22 to 23 mmHg in the vehicle group. VVN539 0.04% was statistically superior to vehicle at all 9 diurnal time points (QD AM, QD PM, and twice daily, P ≤ 0.0109). VVN539 0.02% was statistically superior to vehicle at only 6 of 9 diurnal time points (selected QD times and twice daily). The most common ocular treatment-emergent adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (11 [47.8%], 10 [4.5%], and 1 [4.3%]), followed by ocular hyperemia (3 [13.0%], 5 [22.7%] and 0), respectively. There were no clinically significant changes of note in visual acuity, biomicroscopy, dilated ophthalmoscopy, blood chemistry, hematology, or cardiovascular measures. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this initial phase II study indicate that VVN539 ophthalmic solution showed clinically and statistically significant ocular hypertensive activity and was relatively well tolerated for the treatment of subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma or OHT. Additional studies will be required for a more complete evaluation of the utility of VVN539 ophthalmic solution. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

AG-920 (Articaine) Ophthalmic Solution: A Masked, Active-Controlled Evaluation of Its Local Anesthetic Efficacy and Safety in Pediatric Patients.

Purpose: The safety and efficacy of a novel topical ocular anesthetic (AG-920 sterile ophthalmic solution, 8%) was previously evaluated in adults. For both clinical and regulatory purposes, this new agent was evaluated in children. Methods: This was a Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, single-masked, parallel-group design study in healthy pediatric subjects performed at a private practice retina clinic in the United States. The safety and anesthetic efficacy of AG-920 was compared with proparacaine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% in 60 children undergoing ophthalmic examinations. The primary efficacy endpoint was whether the investigator was able to perform the eye examination. Results: In all subjects in each treatment group, the investigator was able to perform the eye examination without additional local anesthetic. There were no adverse events reported in this study. In both the study eye and fellow eye, there were no notable changes after dosing, and both treatment groups were similar. All external eye exams in all subjects in both treatment groups were normal. Conclusions: In this pediatric population aged 7 months to >11 years, AG-920 was therapeutically equivalent to marketed proparacaine with respect to having an ophthalmic examination performed without needing additional local anesthetic. Further, AG-920 was well tolerated, and there were no clinically significant safety findings.

Two Randomized, Double-masked, Placebo-controlled Studies of the Local Anesthetic Effect of Articaine Ophthalmic Solution.

Background: We wanted to develop a new topical ocular anesthetic with good bioavailability in anterior segment tissues. Given concerns about contamination and sterility in multi-dose products, we selected a unit-dose, nonpreserved presentation of AG-920 (articaine ophthalmic solution) in blow-fill-seal containers (similar to currently marketed pharmacological therapies for dry eye disease). Methods: Consistent with US Food and Drug Administration guidance, two pivotal, Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, parallel design studies conducted at two US private practices in 240 healthy subjects. A single dose of AG-920 or identical looking placebo into one (study) eye (2 drops 30 s apart). Subjects underwent a conjunctival pinch procedure and assessment of the pain associated with the pinch. The main outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with rating of "No pain at 5 minutes". Results: AG-920 provided a rapid onset of local anesthesia (less than one minute) with clinically and statistically significantly greater effect in AG-920 (68% and 83%) than placebo (3% and 18% for Study 1 and Study 2, respectively, P<0.0001). The most frequent adverse event was instillation site pain (27% vs 3%) followed by conjunctival hyperemia (probably related to the pinch, 9% vs 10%) in the AG-920 and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusion: AG-920 was found to be have a rapid onset and useful duration of local anesthesia with no major safety issues, and may be useful for the eye-care professional. Registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04513652 and NCT04829344.

A phase 2a, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled trial of VVN001 in subjects with dry eye disease.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the initial ocular safety and tolerability and efficacy of VVN001 Ophthalmic Solution (VVN001), a small-molecule antagonist of lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1), in subjects with dry eye disease (DED). METHODS: This was a multi-center, double-masked, randomized, dose-response, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study conducted in 170 subjects with DED. Subjects were randomized to receive VVN001 (1% or 5%) or its vehicle, twice-daily in both eyes for 84 days. The primary outcome measure was inferior region corneal fluorescein staining (iCFS, 0-4 scale) at Day 84. Visual Analogue Scale eye dryness (VAS, 0-100 scale) was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The primary and first secondary outcomes were not met. At Day 84 treatment effects in favor of VVN001 5% relative to its vehicle for iCFS were 0.29 units (p = 0.054), and for VAS were 3.18 units (p = 0.533). In other secondary outcomes, treatment effects in favor of VVN001 5% relative to its vehicle were seen in total CFS (1.61 units, 0-20 scale, p = 0.004) and Schirmer score (1.77 and 2.32 mm, p = 0.049 and p = 0.17 at Days 14 and 28 respectively). Adverse events of incidence 5% or greater in either active treatment group were instillation site pain (3/57, 5.3%), dysgeusia (3/56, 5.4%) and urinary tract infection (3/57, 5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no major safety issues of note. Appropriately powered studies will be required with a priori selection of the efficacy endpoints to evaluate VVN001's therapeutic potential.

Phase â /â ¡, Double-Masked, Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled Study of H-1337 Ophthalmic Solution for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.

PURPOSE: To perform a phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ evaluation of an H-1337 ophthalmic solution in subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). DESIGN: This was a phase I/II, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, dose-response study conducted at 6 private practice sites in the United States. The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03452033. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven subjects with bilateral POAG or OHT were enrolled. METHODS: After washout of ocular hypotensive medications as required, the subjects were randomized to receive either the H-1337 ophthalmic solution at 0.06%, 0.2%, and 0.6% or its vehicle twice daily unilaterally in the study eye for the first 3 days and then twice daily in both eyes from day 4 to 28. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was the mean change in intraocular pressure from baseline (day 0) for each group on day 28 at hour 4 compared with the vehicle. RESULTS: In the primary efficacy end point, i.e., mean change from the baseline on day 28 at hour 4, the mean change from the baseline was - 4.45 ± 3.801, - 5.16 ± 3.114, - 4.93 ± 3.110, and - 0.39 ± 2.355 in the 0.06%, 0.2%, and 0.6% H-1337 and vehicle groups, respectively. The difference between each active group and the vehicle group was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 49% of subjects who received H-1337 (range, 41% [0.2% arm]-64% [0.6% arm] across the H-1337 arms) and 18% of subjects who received the vehicle. The majority of TEAEs were mild in severity; 3 subjects who received H-1337 had a TEAE of moderate intensity (instillation site erythema, blurred vision, and muscle strain). CONCLUSIONS: The H-1337 ophthalmic solution showed clinically and statistically significant ocular hypotensive activity and was well tolerated, with a relatively low incidence of hyperemia. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Report of the TFOS/ARVO Symposium on global treatments for dry eye disease: an unmet need.

In September 2010, a Symposium in Florence, Italy, was held to address the unmet need for global treatments for dry eye disease (DED). It was sponsored by The Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS; www.TearFilm.org) and co-sponsored by the Association for Research in Vision & Ophthalmology (www.arvo.org). The Symposium objectives were two-fold: first, to discuss accepted and emerging clinical endpoints of DED with regulatory experts from around the world; and second, to consider how to improve clinical trials of treatments for DED. The Symposium focused on the personal and collective burden of DED, as well as the developmental and regulatory challenges associated with generating new DED therapeutics. This article provides a synopsis of many of the presentations, discussions and recommendations of this Symposium.

Early Nonclinical and Clinical Development of AG-920, a Repurposed Topical Ocular Anesthetic.

Purpose: To evaluate the preclinical effects, and preclinical and clinical ocular and systemic pharmacokinetics of a new topical, non-preserved ocular anesthetic, AG-920 (articaine ophthalmic solution). Methods: Five studies: one in vitro melanin binding study; three studies in rabbits receiving an ocular dose of AG-920 evaluating corneal sensitivity, ocular tolerability, and systemic exposure to articaine and its inactive metabolite, articainic acid; and one clinical study in 14 healthy adult volunteers receiving an ocular dose of AG-920, with blood samples over 24 h. A liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) method was used to detect both parent and metabolite with a lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) of 0.1 and 0.2 ng/mL, respectively. Results: Melanin binding of articaine was up to 7.4%. A decrease in corneal sensitivity was noted for 20 min post-treatment in all active groups, and returned to baseline by 60 min post-dose. No dose-response relationship was observed. Concentrations of articaine in ocular matrices generally peaked early and then decreased over time. Both parent and metabolite were observed in blood at early time points. There were no ocular safety issues with AG-920. Conclusions: These early stage development studies showed that AG-920 was well tolerated in the standard preclinical models and did not cause any toxicity. AG-920 ophthalmic solution elicited a rapid onset and potentially clinically useful duration of corneal anesthesia. The studies supported the clinical evaluation of the 8% strength. Registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04759339.

Ocular Drug Delivery Systems Using Contact Lenses.

The use of contact lenses as ocular drug delivery systems has been considered intuitive for decades. However, at this time, there are no approved products using such systems. In this article, we review the challenges with current therapies, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of different drug classes and the patient population. In addition, we note the relative lack of clinical studies, and list potential products in active development at this time. In particular, we address the alignment of time course of the therapeutic need, the pharmacokinetics of the molecule, and the delivery characteristics of the systems (e.g., pulsatile vs. zero-order). We also discuss the needs of various populations including the elderly (who may have motor and cognitive issues as well as presbyopia) and the young. While a contact lens delivery system may also provide refractive correction, to date, most of the studies have used noncorrective (plano) lenses. We also considered nanotechnology-based carrier systems. We generalize the development of contact lens delivery systems to all ocular delivery systems in which there are relatively few product approvals and long development times.

Peri-Operative Intracameral Antibiotics: The Perfect Storm?

In our University journal club we discussed a large, retrospective study of cataract surgery endophthalmitis rates before and after instituting the use of an intracameral fluoroquinolone antibiotic. We identified several factors involved in the use of off-label, compounded moxifloxacin in intraocular surgery. The introduction of phacoemulsification for cataract surgery led to the potential for smaller incisions. Intraocular lens technology improved to allow for foldable lenses, obviating the requirement to enlarge the incision. This allowed for clear corneal incisions, which unfortunately allow bidirectional passage of liquid. Preservatives were introduced into multi-dose ophthalmic products in the mid 20th century to retard microbial growth. However, more recently, chronic use of benzalkonium chloride has led to concerns about concerns about conjunctival toxicity, especially in patients with ocular surface disease. In the formulation of ocular moxifloxacin, developers were able to develop a "self-preserved", multi-dose product. Other concerns with eyedrops include varying levels of adherence and performance, and the expansion of compounding pharmacies from a named-patient basis to widespread national delivery, with concerns for lower quality. Integrating these factors, use of intracameral moxifloxacin as a prophylactic during cataract and other anterior segment surgery has become a standard of care in much of the U.S. We are concerned that the current position is on a narrow ledge-the standard of care for millions of surgeries each year based upon off-label, compounting use of a single product. We discuss possible ramifications and solutions to this public health issue.