Clinical performance of a hybrid presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of TECNIS Synergy intraocular lens (IOL), model ZFR00V, vs TECNIS IOL, model ZCB00, in cataract patients. SETTING: Multicenter clinical setting. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, subject/evaluator-masked clinical trial. METHODS: Cataract patients aged ≥22 years were randomly assigned 1:1 to bilateral implantation with ZFR00V or ZCB00. Key end points at 6 months postsurgery included monocular and binocular visual acuities at 4 m, 66 cm, 33 cm, and/or 40 cm, binocular distance-corrected defocus testing, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. RESULTS: 272 patients were implanted with ZFR00V (135) or ZCB00 (137). At 6 months, 83/131 (63.4%) ZFR00V patients demonstrated 20/25 or better combined monocular distance-corrected vision at far, intermediate, or near, compared with 5/130 (3.8%) ZCB00 patients. ZFR00V demonstrated excellent binocular uncorrected vision at intermediate (0.022 logMAR) and distance-corrected vision at 40 cm (0.047 logMAR). Strong ZFR00V performance persisted under mesopic conditions (0.244 logMAR or ∼20/32 Snellen), where improvement over ZCB00 with distance-corrected vision at near was 3.5 lines. ZFR00V provided a broad range of functional vision (20/32 or better) through -3.5 diopters of defocus (29 cm). Most ZFR00V patients reported no spectacle wear overall (93.1%) or at all 4 viewing distances combined (87.8%), and 55.7% qualified as completely spectacle independent. Relatively low proportions of ZFR00V patients reported being very/extremely bothered by halos (13.7%), starbursts (11.5%), or night glare (8.4%). The safety profile was similar between IOL groups. CONCLUSIONS: TECNIS Synergy ZFR00V demonstrated improved intermediate and near vision, increased range of vision, and greater spectacle independence vs TECNIS monofocal ZCB00.

Once-daily nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.3% to prevent and treat ocular inflammation and pain after cataract surgery: phase 3 study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate once-daily nepafenac 0.3% to prevent and treat ocular pain and inflammation after cataract surgery. SETTING: Sixty-five centers in the United States and Europe. DESIGN: Randomized double-masked vehicle- and active-controlled phase 3 study. METHODS: Patients received nepafenac 0.3% once daily, nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily, or their respective vehicles from day -1 to day 14 after cataract extraction. An additional drop of study drug was administered 30 to 120 minutes preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a cure for inflammation (score of 0 for both aqueous cells and flare) at day 14. RESULTS: Of randomized patients, 817 received nepafenac 0.3%, 819 received nepafenac 0.1%, and 200 and 206 received the respective vehicles. Significantly more nepafenac 0.3% patients had no inflammation (68.4% versus 34.0%) and were pain free (91.0% versus 49.7%) at day 14 than vehicle patients (both P<.0001). Nepafenac 0.3% was noninferior to nepafenac 0.1% for inflammation (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.73% to 3.17%) and pain-free rates (95% CI, -3.08% to 2.70%). At all postoperative visits, fewer treatment failures (P≤.0012) and more clinical successes (P ≤ .0264) were observed with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle. Nepafenac 0.3% was well tolerated and had a safety profile comparable to that of nepafenac 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily nepafenac 0.3% was noninferior to nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily for prevention and treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. The safety of nepafenac 0.3% was comparable to that of nepafenac 0.1%, with the added convenience of once-daily dosing. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Drs. Modi, Lehmann, Walters, Fong, Christie, Roel, Nethery, and Reiser have been paid consultants to Alcon Research, Ltd. Ms. Sager is an employee of Alcon Research, Ltd. Drs. Tsorbatzoglou, Philipson, and Traverso have no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Evaluation of nepafenac in prevention of macular edema following cataract surgery in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% (Nevanac(®); Alcon Research Ltd) in the prevention of macular edema following cataract surgery in diabetic retinopathy patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study of 263 adult diabetic patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy requiring cataract surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to instill nepafenac or vehicle three times daily beginning 1 day prior to surgery through day 90. Efficacy included the percentage of patients who developed macular edema (≥30% increase in central subfield macular thickness from baseline) and the percentage of patients with decreases of more than five letters in best-corrected visual acuity from day 7 to 90. RESULTS: A significantly lower percentage of patients in the nepafenac group developed macular edema relative to patients in the vehicle group (3.2% versus 16.7%; P < 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of patients in the nepafenac group had best-corrected visual acuity decreases of more than five letters relative to patients in the vehicle group on day 30 (P < 0.001), day 60 (P = 0.002), and day 90 (P = 0.006). The mean central subfield macular thickness and mean percent change from baseline in macular volume were also significantly lower in the nepafenac group versus the vehicle group at days 14 through 90 (P ≤ 0.005). No safety issues or trends were identified when dosing was increased to 90 days that negatively impacted the favorable benefit/risk profile of nepafenac. CONCLUSION: Nepafenac demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant advantages compared with vehicle in preventing macular edema and maintaining visual acuity in diabetic patients following cataract surgery. These advantages were seen at multiple time points over the course of the 90-day therapy period. There was no clinically relevant increase in risk from 90 days dosing compared with 14 days. Therefore, with a similar safety profile and benefit in preventing macular edema and maintaining vision, the risk/benefit to the diabetic patient undergoing cataract surgery appears to be positive.

Visual performance in cataract patients with low levels of postoperative astigmatism: full correction versus spherical equivalent correction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether visual performance could be improved in pseudophakic subjects by correcting low levels of postoperative astigmatism. METHODS: An exploratory, noninterventional study was conducted using subjects who had been implanted with an aspheric intraocular lens and had 0.5-0.75 diopter postoperative astigmatism. Monocular visual performance using full correction was compared with visual performance using spherical equivalent correction. Testing consisted of high- and low-contrast visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reading acuity and speed using the Radner Reading Charts. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 40 subjects completed testing. Visual acuities at three contrast levels (100%, 25%, and 9%) were significantly better using full correction than when using spherical equivalent correction (all P < 0.001). For contrast sensitivity testing under photopic, mesopic, and mesopic with glare conditions, only one out of twelve outcomes demonstrated a significant improvement with full correction compared with spherical equivalent correction (at six cycles per degree under mesopic without glare conditions, P = 0.046). Mean reading speed was numerically faster with full correction across all print sizes, reaching statistical significance at logarithm of the reading acuity determination (logRAD) 0.2, 0.7, and 1.1 (P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences also favored full correction in logRAD score (P = 0.0376), corrected maximum reading speed (P < 0.001), and logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution/logRAD ratio (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of pseudophakic subjects with low levels of postoperative astigmatism, full correction yielded significantly better reading performance and high- and low-contrast visual acuity than spherical equivalent correction, suggesting that cataractous patients may benefit from surgical correction of low levels of preoperative corneal astigmatism.

Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power Randomized multicenter clinical study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter (D) addition (add) power. SETTING: Twelve study centers in the United States. METHODS: This randomized patient-masked parallel-group 6-month follow-up study comprised patients having bilateral cataract extraction with implantation of an AcrySof IQ ReSTOR SN6AD3 IOL with a +4.0 D add power (+4.0 D group) or an AcrySof IQ ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOL with a +3.0 D add power (+3.0 D group) (both IOLs, Alcon, Inc.). Visual acuity, defocus testing, patient-reported outcomes, and safety measures were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 279 patients, 141 were in the +3.0 D group and 138 were in the +4.0 D group. Binocular distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity was statistically significantly better in the +3.0 D group than in the +4.0 D group (P<.0001); there was no difference in binocular near or distance visual acuity. There were no statistically significant differences in visual disturbances between the 2 groups. Patients in both groups reported excellent overall spectacle independence, near visual function, and satisfaction with the IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate vision at a mean reading distance of approximately 40 cm was better with the aspheric IOL with a +3.0 D add than with the aspheric IOL with a +4.0 D add, as shown by the near peak in the mean binocular defocus curve; near and distance acuity were similar between the 2 IOLs. Patients reported excellent overall quality of vision, spectacle independence, and satisfaction.

Nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% for the prevention and treatment of ocular inflammation associated with cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine whether nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% decreases the incidence and severity of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. SETTING: Twenty-one ophthalmology clinics in the United States. METHODS: A randomized double-blind vehicle-controlled trial was conducted in which adult patients were randomly assigned to receive nepafenac 0.1% or vehicle beginning 1 day before surgery and continuing on the day of surgery (day 0) for 14 days. Patients were evaluated on days 1, 3, 7, and 14. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of patients cured at day 14 (cure defined as aqueous cells score + aqueous flare score = 0). Other efficacy variables included percentage of patients who were pain free at all visits and aqueous cells, flare, and cells plus flare scores. RESULTS: The mean age of the 476 patients (243 nepafenac, 233 vehicle) was 70 years (range 27 to 93 years). At day 14, 152 patients (62.6%) in the nepafenac group and 40 (17.2%) in the vehicle group were cured (P<.0001). A higher percentage of patients in the nepafenac group was pain free at all visits (P<.0001). Throughout the study, most nepafenac-treated patients were pain free (83.1% to 93.0%) compared with less than half the vehicle-treated patients (41.6% to 46.4%). The nepafenac group had lower mean aqueous cells, flare, and cells plus flare scores at all visits (P<.0001). No treatment-related ocular adverse events occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% was safe and effective for preventing and treating ocular inflammation and pain associated with cataract surgery.