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.

Efficacy and Safety of the Travoprost Intraocular Implant in Reducing Topical IOP-Lowering Medication Burden in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PURPOSE: A randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 2 trial to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of travoprost intraocular implant, an extended-release drug delivery system designed to provide uninterrupted sustained intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering therapy, thereby reducing patient treatment burden and improving adherence with IOP-lowering medication. METHODS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were administered a fast-eluting implant (FE implant, n = 51) and received twice-daily (BID) placebo eye drops, a slow-eluting (SE implant, n = 54) and received BID placebo eye drops, or underwent a sham surgical procedure and received BID timolol 0.5% (n = 49). IOP was measured at baseline, day 1-2, day 10, week 4, week 6, month 3, and every 3 months thereafter through 36 months. Efficacy was evaluated by mean change from 8:00 AM unmedicated baseline IOP through month 36, and the percentage of patients receiving the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications as at screening (pre-study). Safety was evaluated by adverse events and ophthalmic parameters. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically relevant IOP-lowering treatment effects were observed through month 36 after a single administration of the travoprost implant compared with BID timolol with mean IOP reductions ranging from 7.6 to 8.8 mmHg for the FE implant group, from 7.3 to 8.0 mmHg for the SE implant group, and from 7.3 to 7.9 for the timolol group at the 8:00 AM timepoint (P < 0.0001 for all treatment groups at all visits). At months 12, 24, and 36, a greater percentage of FE and SE implant patients versus timolol patients were well controlled on the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications compared with screening with 63 and 69% for the FE and SE implants groups, respectively, versus 45% for the timolol group at month 36. The safety profile of the implant was favorable; there were no dislodgements, no explantations, no adverse events of conjunctival hyperemia or periorbital fat atrophy, no discontinuations due to study eye adverse events, nor any serious adverse events in the study eye. Comparable changes from baseline in corneal endothelial cell counts were observed in the three treatment groups over the 36 months. CONCLUSION: The travoprost intraocular implant demonstrated robust IOP-lowering and substantially reduced topical IOP-lowering medication burden for up to 36 months following a single administration, while maintaining a favorable safety profile. The travoprost intraocular implant promises to be a meaningful addition to the interventional glaucoma armamentarium by addressing the key shortcomings of topical IOP-lowering medications, including low adherence and topical side effects while controlling IOP for up to 36 months. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02754596 registered 28 April 2016.

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.

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.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Travoprost Intracameral Implant Based on Pooled Analyses from Two Phase III Trials.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to conduct and interpret a pooled 12-month analysis of two prospective, multi-center, randomized, double-masked, controlled trials designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral implant (slow-eluting [SE] implant in development as a new therapeutic and fast-eluting [FE] implant included for masking purposes) in subjects with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: Subjects with OAG or OHT, on 0-3 intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications, baseline unmedicated mean diurnal IOP of ≥ 21 mmHg, and IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each baseline diurnal timepoint, received either a travoprost implant and twice-daily (BID) placebo eye drops or BID timolol 0.5% eye drops and a sham procedure. Subjects were followed through 12 months and assessed for IOP, reduction in topical IOP-lowering medications, and safety parameters including treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). IOP at 8AM was prospectively collected at all study visits through 12 months and diurnal IOP, measured at 8AM, 10AM, and 4PM, was prospectively collected at baseline, day 10, week 6, and months 3 and 12. RESULTS: A total of 1150 subjects were randomized (385 FE implant, 380 SE implant, and 385 sham/timolol) across the two trials. Statistical non-inferiority to timolol and clinically relevant reductions in 8AM IOPs were demonstrated at month 12. In more detail, both implant groups demonstrated statistical non-inferiority to timolol and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at all visits over the 12-month evaluation period when diurnal IOP was collected. Additionally, both implant groups demonstrated robust treatment effect based on 8AM average IOP from day 10 through the specified visit which ranged from day 10 to month 12 from 6.9 to 8.5 mmHg in the FE implant group; 6.8 to 8.5 mmHg in the SE implant group; and 7.3 to 7.5 mmHg in the sham/timolol group. With regards to reduction in topical pharmacotherapy, at month 12, 77.6% of FE and 81.4% of SE implant eyes were completely free of all topical IOP-lowering medications and a significantly greater proportion of FE and SE implant eyes (89.9% and 93.0%) versus sham/timolol eyes (66.9%) were on the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications compared with pre-study (p <  0.0001). Furthermore, of subjects on topical IOP medications at screening, a significantly greater proportion of FE implant (80.2%) and SE implant (85.1%) eyes versus sham/timolol (22.8%) eyes were on fewer topical IOP-lowering medications at month 12 compared with pre-study (p <  0.0001). Lastly, of SE implant eyes on same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications at month 12, the average through month 12 decreased by 0.9 medications, and of those SE implant eyes on fewer topical IOP-lowering medications compared with pre-study, the average through month 12 decreased by 1.4 medications. The most common TEAEs related to study treatment were hyperemia (conjunctival or ocular), iritis, and IOP increased. CONCLUSION: The travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated robust IOP-lowering efficacy that was sustained and statistically non-inferior to timolol over the entire 12 months, resulting in a significant reduction in topical IOP-lowering medication use, with the majority of SE implant eyes remaining completely free of all topical IOP-lowering medications. In addition, the implant demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile based on this pooled 12-month analysis of two pivotal trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT03519386 (registered May 09, 2018) and NCT03868124 (registered March 08, 2019).

A Randomized, Controlled Comparison of NCX 470 (0.021%, 0.042%, and 0.065%) and Latanoprost 0.005% in Patients With Open-angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: The Dolomites Study.

PRCIS: NCX 470 0.042% and 0.065% were statistically superior in intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering to latanoprost 0.005%, and NCX 470 0.021% was noninferior. All NCX 470 concentrations were safe and well tolerated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare varying concentrations of NCX 470 (a nitric oxide-donating bimatoprost) to latanoprost in a dose-response safety and efficacy trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with bilateral open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to NCX 470 0.021% (n=111), 0.042% (n=108), 0.065% (n=107), or latanoprost 0.005% (n=107) once daily in the evening. IOP was measured at 8:00 am, 10:00 am, and 4:00 pm at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at week 4. Secondary efficacy endpoints included reductions from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at weeks 1 and 2, and reductions from baseline in time-matched IOP at 8:00 am, 10:00 am, and 4:00 pm at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: All concentrations of NCX 470 resulted in significant reductions of mean diurnal IOP. The 0.042% and 0.065% concentrations were statistically superior to latanoprost 0.005%, and 0.021% was noninferior to latanoprost for change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at week 4. The 0.065% concentration was also superior to latanoprost by up to 1.4 mm Hg for reduction from baseline at 8:00 am, 10:00 am, and 4:00 pm at week 4. NCX 470 was safe and well tolerated; conjunctival hyperemia was the most frequently reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: NCX 470 demonstrated dose-dependent reductions in IOP. The 0.042% and 0.065% concentrations demonstrated significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean diurnal IOP than latanoprost 0.005% at week 4, suggesting that higher concentrations may show even greater efficacy.

Prostaglandin analogues and nitric oxide contribution in the treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma.

In patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma, all treatments aim to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) by modulating aqueous humour (AH) production and/or uveoscleral and trabecular meshwork/Schlemm's canal AH drainage. PG analogues are considered to be the 'gold standard' treatment and are the most frequently used IOP-lowering agents. Recent data support an important role for NO in regulating IOP. Thus, novel PG analogues carrying a NO-donating moiety were recently advanced. Latanoprostene bunod (LBN) and NCX 470, NO-donating derivatives of latanoprost and bimatoprost, respectively, are examples of such compounds. LBN ophthalmic solution, 0.024% (Vyzulta™), showed greater IOP-lowering efficacy compared with that of Xalatan® (latanoprost ophthalmic solution, 0.005%) or 0.5% timolol maleate in clinical settings. NCX 470 was found to be more effective than bimatoprost in animal models of ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Selective EP2 receptor agonists (i.e. taprenepag isopropyl, omidenepag isopropyl and aganepag isopropyl) and non-selective prostanoid receptor agonists (i.e. ONO-9054, sepetaprost isopropyl) that concomitantly stimulate FP and EP3 receptors have also been shown to hold promise as effective IOP-lowering agents. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Eicosanoids 35 years from the 1982 Nobel: where are we now? To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v176.8/issuetoc.