Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% for treatment of presbyopia after laser vision correction: pooled analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials (GEMINI 1 and 2).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of topical pilocarpine HCl 1.25% (Pilo) in treating presbyopia in individuals with or without a history of laser vision correction (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]). SETTING: Multiple clinical sites. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 2 identically designed prospective, randomized, vehicle-controlled studies (GEMINI 1 and 2). METHODS: Adults aged 40 to 55 years with presbyopia received once-daily Pilo or vehicle bilaterally for 30 days. Responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) were determined on day 30. RESULTS: Among participants with a history of LASIK/PRK (n = 39 in the Pilo group, n = 41 in the vehicle group), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.7%, 38.9%, 41.7%, 37.8%, 16.2%, 13.9%, and 8.3% with Pilo and 0.0%, 2.6%, 10.5%, 5.1%, 7.7%, 2.6%, and 0.0% with vehicle. Responder rates in the LASIK/PRK subgroup were significantly higher with Pilo than vehicle at hours 0.25 ( P = .0087), 0.5 ( P = .0001), 1 ( P = .0022), and 3 ( P = .0005). In contrast, there were no significant differences in responder rates between Pilo-treated participants with and without LASIK/PRK. Among non-LASIK/PRK participants in the Pilo group (n = 336), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.8%, 32.7%, 39.0%, 28.0%, 17.4%, 12.6%, and 10.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Pilo treatment effectively and similarly improved DCNVA in presbyopes with or without a history of laser vision correction.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Twice-Daily Pilocarpine HCl in Presbyopia: The Virgo Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Masked, Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of pilocarpine hydrochloride 1.25% (Pilo hereafter) compared with vehicle when administered bilaterally, twice daily (6 hours apart) for 14 days in participants with presbyopia. DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized (1:1), controlled, double-masked, multicenter study. METHODS: Participants (40-55 years of age) had objective and subjective evidence of presbyopia affecting daily activities with mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) of 20/40 to 20/100. The primary/key secondary endpoint was the proportion of participants gaining ≥3 lines in mesopic/photopic, high-contrast, binocular DCNVA on day 14 (last study visit), hour 9 (3 hours after the second dose), with no more than a 5-letter loss in mesopic/photopic corrected distance visual acuity with the same refractive correction. Key safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and some ocular measurements. Pilocarpine plasma levels were assessed in approximately 10% of enrolled participants. RESULTS: Overall, 230 participants were randomized to Pilo twice daily (N = 114) and vehicle (N = 116). The proportion of participants achieving the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints was statistically significantly greater with Pilo twice daily than vehicle, with between-treatment differences of 27.3% (95% CI = 17.3, 37.4) and 26.4% (95% CI = 16.8, 36.0), respectively. The most common TEAE was headache, reported in 10 participants (8.8%, Pilo group) and 4 participants (3.4%, vehicle group). Pilocarpine's accumulation index on day 14 was ≤1.11 after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: Near-vision improvements were statistically greater with Pilo twice daily than with vehicle, without compromising distance acuity. The safety profile of Pilo twice daily was consistent with that of Pilo once daily, and systemic accumulation was minimal, supporting twice daily administration.

Safety and Efficacy of AGN-190584 in Individuals With Presbyopia: The GEMINI 1 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: AGN-190584 (Allergan, an AbbVie company) is an optimized topical formulation of pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.25%, designed for managing presbyopia and enhanced with a proprietary vehicle. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.25%, in individuals with presbyopia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This vehicle-controlled, participant- and investigator-masked, randomized, phase 3 clinical study, GEMINI 1, enrolled individuals with presbyopia, aged 40 to 55 years, at 36 sites in the United States from December 21, 2018, to October 31, 2019. Analysis took place between February 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: AGN-190584 or the AGN-190584 formulation vehicle was administered bilaterally, once daily for 30 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of participants with improvement of 3 or more lines in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at hours 3 and 6 on day 30 were the primary and key secondary efficacy end points, respectively. Safety measures included adverse events. RESULTS: Of 323 participants who were randomized, 235 (72.8%) were female and 292 (90.4%) were White. The mean (SD) age was 49.6 (3.5) years, and the baseline mean (SD) mesopic DCNVA was 29.2 (6.3) letters. A total of 163 individuals were randomized to AGN-190584 and 160 were randomized to vehicle. GEMINI 1 met its primary and key secondary efficacy end points. On day 30, hour 3, the percentage of participants with improvement of 3 or more lines in mesopic DCNVA was 30.7% (50 of 163) in the AGN-190584 group and 8.1% (13 of 160) in the vehicle group (difference, 22.5% [95% CI, 14.3%-30.8%]; adjusted P < .001). At hour 6, those percentages were 18.4% (30 of 163) and 8.8% (14 of 160), respectively (difference, 9.7% [95% CI, 2.3%-17.0%]; adjusted P = .01). At hour 8, the between-group difference in 3 or more lines of mesopic DCNVA gains was not statistically significant, but clinically relevant prespecified outcome measures demonstrated AGN-190584 superiority to vehicle in least-squares mean (SE) mesopic DCNVA change from baseline at hour 8 (5.4 [0.51] vs 3.6 [0.52] letters; P = .009) and photopic distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity at hour 8 (3.9 [0.44] vs 2.4 [0.45] letters; P = .01) and hour 10 (3.5 [0.46] vs 1.7 [0.47] letters; P = .004). No participants with mesopic DCNVA improvement of 3 or more lines at hour 3 had losses of more than 5 letters in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular-corrected distance visual acuity. The onset of effect was at 15 minutes. AGN-190584 demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: AGN-190584 demonstrated superiority over vehicle in mesopic DCNVA on day 30, hours 3 and 6, with an acceptable safety profile. AGN-190584 is a safe and efficacious topical therapy for presbyopia through 30 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03804268.

Alcaftadine 0.25% versus Olopatadine 0.1% in Preventing Cedar Pollen Allergic Conjunctivitis in Japan: A Randomized Study.

Purpose: To compare alcaftadine and olopatadine ophthalmic solutions, and vehicle for preventing allergen-mediated conjunctivitis in Japanese subjects. Methods: Japanese cedar pollen-sensitive subjects were randomized to alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.1%, or vehicle. Ocular itching was assessed at 3, 5 (primary outcome), 7, and 15 min post-conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) and conjunctival hyperemia assessed at 7, 15 (secondary outcome), and 20 min post-CAC. Adverse events were monitored. Results: Overall, 240 subjects were randomized. Alcaftadine 0.25% (challenged 8 h post-dose) was significantly more effective than vehicle for prevention of itching and conjunctival hyperemia (p < 0.001) and noninferior to olopatadine 0.1% (challenged 4 h post-dose). Significantly lower hyperemia scores were observed in alcaftadine-treated than olopatadine-treated eyes at 7 and 15 min post-CAC (p ≤ 0.027). Alcaftadine and olopatadine were well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Alcaftadine 0.25% is effective in preventing signs and symptoms of Japanese cedar pollen-induced allergic conjunctivitis.

Brimonidine-purite 0.1% versus brimonidine-purite 0.15% twice daily in glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effects of brimonidine-purite 0.1% with the marketed formulation of brimonidine-purite 0.15% (Alphagan P 0.15%) when used twice daily (BID) by patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension previously treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15% for at least 6 weeks. METHODS: In a 12-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel group, non-inferiority study, patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15% BID were randomly assigned to continue brimonidine-purite 0.15% (n=102) or to administer brimonidine-purite 0.1% (n=105) BID for 12 months. IOP was measured at approximately 8 a.m. (hour 0) and 10 a.m. (hour 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change from baseline IOP and adverse events. RESULTS: Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Treated-baseline mean IOPs at both timepoints were similar between groups (p > or = 0.606). Brimonidine-purite 0.1% provided IOP-lowering that was non-inferior to brimonidine-purite 0.15% at each of the 12 follow-up timepoints, and there were no statistically significant between-group differences at any timepoint. The most commonly reported adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (13.5% for brimonidine-purite 0.1%; 10.8% for brimonidine-purite 0.15%). No significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were noted between the two formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Brimonidine-purite 0.1% BID is as effective as brimonidine-purite 0.15% BID in lowering IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were previously treated with brimonidine-purite 0.15%, and both formulations are well tolerated. Limitations of the study include enrollment of only patients who were already on treatment with brimonidine-purite 0.15%. The 0.1% formulation of brimonidine-purite allows for decreased exposure to brimonidine while providing an IOP-lowering effect comparable to that of the 0.15% formulation. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT00168363.