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.

Effect of bimatoprost sustained-release intracameral implant on intraocular pressure and medication burden in patients with prior glaucoma surgery.

The present retrospective study evaluated intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication burden after bimatoprost sustained-release (bimatoprost SR, Durysta, Allergan) implantation in patients with glaucoma. A secondary objective was to examine an effect of bimatoprost SR in a subset of patients with prior minimally invasive and incisional glaucoma surgery. A retrospective chart review of 122 eyes that received bimatoprost SR by 6 glaucoma specialists at Wills Eye Hospital between March 2020 and September 2021 was performed. One hundred and eighteen eyes from 84 patients had a reduction in IOP (18.5±5.7mmHg vs. 16.0±5.4mmHg, P<0.01) and required fewer glaucoma medications (2.1±1.4 vs. 1.2±1.2, P<0.01) after bimatoprost SR implantation. In 41 eyes from 31 patients who previously underwent glaucoma surgery (including iStent, goniotomy, trabeculectomy, Xen Gel Stent, or tube shunt surgery), medication burden was decreased after bimatoprost SR implantation (1.9±1.3 vs. 1.0±1.0, P<0.001). These data suggest that bimatoprost SR is an efficacious treatment modality for glaucoma, even in post-surgical patients.

Real-World Analysis of the Efficacy of Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Glaucoma Implant Where American Indians Comprise the Largest Minority Population.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness and safety of bimatoprost sustained release (SR) glaucoma implant as a treatment for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in a real-world private practice setting with a significant American Indian population. Methods: This retrospective study included 156 eyes from adult patients who received a single injection of bimatoprost implant between June 2020 and May 2022 at the Oklahoma Eye Surgeons. Patients were stratified by baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) (≥21 mmHg versus IOP<21 mmHg). The co-primary endpoints were changes in the mean IOP and the number of topical IOP-lowering medications from baseline to Month 6. Results: At 6 months, eyes with baseline IOP≥21 mmHg had a significantly lower mean IOP (19.85±8.01 versus 26.25±4.84 mmHg; p<0.0001) and the mean number of IOP-lowering medications (1.04±1.44 versus 1.38±1.50; p=0.048) compared with baseline. One year after implantation, 73.58% of eyes had a ≥20% reduction in IOP, 41.51% were medication-free and 30.19% were receiving at least one fewer medication. Among eyes with baseline IOP<21 mmHg, there was a significant reduction in the mean number of IOP-lowering medicines by Month 6 (0.61±1.03 versus 1.93±1.21 at baseline; p<0.0001), with no change in IOP. At 12 months, 24.27% of eyes had a ≥20% decrease in IOP, 43.69% of eyes did not require any medications and 63.11% had at least one fewer medication compared with baseline. An analysis using Welch's two-sample t-test showed no significant differences in the outcomes between the overall population and the American Indian population (number of eyes, 23). Conclusion: Bimatoprost SR glaucoma implant lowered IOP in eyes with high, uncontrolled baseline IOP, while it reduced the number of medications in eyes with a controlled baseline IOP. No clinically meaningful and statistically significant differences in the efficacy of bimatoprost were observed in patients of American Indian descent.

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.

Travoprost Intracameral Implant Demonstrates Superior IOP Lowering Versus Topical Prostaglandin Analog Monotherapy in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to analyze and compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) treatment effect of the slow-eluting (SE) travoprost intracameral implant to the IOP treatment effect of topical prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy in a subgroup of subjects who were on pre-study PGA monotherapy prior to enrollment in the two pivotal phase 3 trials of the travoprost intracameral implant. METHODS: A combined study population of 133 subjects from two phase 3 trials, who were on topical PGA monotherapy at screening, subsequently underwent a washout period from their topical PGA, and then were randomized and administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant. The subjects were analyzed for the IOP treatment effects of the pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the in-study SE travoprost intracameral implant. Paired t-tests were used to compare the difference in screening minus post-washout baseline IOP versus month 3 minus post-washout baseline IOP. The IOP-lowering efficacy in eyes administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant was compared to the IOP lowering in the same eyes while on a topical PGA monotherapy prior to study entry. RESULTS: Pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated IOP treatment effects of -5.76 mmHg and -7.07 mmHg, respectively. The IOP-lowering treatment effect was significantly greater by 1.31 mmHg for the SE travoprost intracameral implant relative to pre-study PGA monotherapy (95% confidence interval: -2.01, -0.60; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: The SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated superior IOP-lowering treatment effect versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy with a superiority margin that was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful. The greater IOP reduction from baseline while on the SE implant versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy may be a reflection of the optimized adherence and continuous elution of PGA therapy into the anterior chamber achieved with the SE travoprost intracameral implant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03519386 and NCT03868124.

Intraocular Pressure and Eyedrop Usage Reduction with Intracameral Bimatoprost Implant.

Purpose: Sustained intraocular drug delivery devices are being developed to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) and improve adherence in patients with glaucoma. The purpose of this study was to assess the IOP and eyedrop usage reduction effects of intracameral bimatoprost implants. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 46 eyes from 38 patients who received an intracameral implant containing 10 µg of bimatoprost as a replacement or addition to their existing eyedrop regimen and investigated IOP, eyedrop usage, and adverse effects. Results: Patients were followed for an average of 274 ± 104 (mean ± standard deviation) days after implant. Mean reduction in IOP (mmHg) at 3 months ±30 days, 6 months ±60 days, and 12 months ±90 days postoperation compared to baseline was 1.26 ± 2.53 (P = 0.002), 0.93 ± 4.71 (P = 0.098), and 1.35 ± 5.24 (P = 0.053), respectively. Reduction in eyedrops at 3 months ±30 days, 6 months ±60 days, and 12 months ±90 days postoperation compared to baseline were 0.62 ± 0.49 (P < 0.001), 0.55 ± 0.73 (P < 0.001), and 0.51 ± 0.71 (P < 0.001), respectively. Fifteen eyes (32.6%) experienced implant failure, defined as either restarting IOP-lowering eyedrops or undergoing surgical intervention, at an average of 260 ± 122 days after implant. Conclusions: While some patients eventually experienced implant failure, intracameral bimatoprost implants may result in fewer adverse reactions and successfully lower IOP and eyedrop burden over a longer period than previously reported.