Glycosylation differences of an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody (PRO-169) and its extensive comparison with Bevacizumab.

PRO-169 is an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody developed by Laboratorios Sophia that shares its sequence with Bevacizumab (BVZ); though, PRO-169 is intended for intravitreal administration. In this study, analytical characterization showed that PRO-169 had glycosylation differences in comparison to BVZ reference product (RP); since it had more content of G1F, G2F, sialic acid and high mannose. Further investigation was performed to evaluate if differences between both products would affect the efficacy and safety profile of PRO-169. PRO-169 had no alteration in its in vitro biological activity; moreover, no cytotoxicity or immunogenicity concerns should be expected as demonstrated by different orthogonal methods at analytical, in vitro and in vivo assays. These results support moving to the clinical testing of PRO-169 since no major complications will be expected with its clinical use for the treatment of ophthalmic diseases.

Efficacy and Safety of an Ophthalmic DMPC-Based Nanoemulsion in Patients with Dry Eye Disease: A Phase I/II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Purpose: The goals of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an ophthalmic 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC)-based nanoemulsion (Nanodrop®) in patients with dry eye disease (DED). Methods: This was a randomized phase I/II multicentric, prospective, double-blind clinical trial. Patients (phase I: n = 25 and phase II: n = 101) were assigned to receive either PRO-176 (Nanodrop®) or Systane Balance® (control) for 29 days. Once the visits of the first 25 subjects were completed, if there were less than 20% of unexpected adverse events (AEs), related to PRO-176, recruitment was continued until the sample was completed for noninferiority (efficacy) analysis (phase II, n = 126). Efficacy endpoints were the ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear break-up time (TBUT), epithelial defects, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and the incidence of expected AE. Results: For the phase I portion of the study, there were no differences between groups regarding the incidence of AE. All related-AE symptoms in both groups were mild and expected. For the phase II subset, there was a significant reduction in OSDI scores at day 29 and noninferiority between treatments was confirmed (p=0.650, CI 95% [-8.7, 5.5]). Similar improvement was observed for TBUT although no significant intergroup differences were found (p=0.518, CI 95% [-0.08, 1.6]). There were no significant differences between treatments for epithelial staining or safety parameters. Conclusions: Topical application of PRO-176 is as safe and effective as the controls. Both groups were clinically similar in terms of efficacy and safety. The results support the hypothesis that ophthalmic DMPC-based nanoemulsion may improve clinical parameters and symptoms in patients with DED. This trial is registered with NCT04111965.

Novel therapies for proliferative retinopathies.

Proliferative retinopathies, such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, are a special health issue due to their contribution to irreversible blindness. Although the promoting conditions and physiopathology of proliferative retinopathies are different, these feature a highly detrimental angiogenesis driven by the overproduction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). This article describes the mechanism of action of ocular antiangiogenic therapies currently found in clinical development. Systems classify accordingly as (a) novel anti-VEGF systems, (b) molecules targeting non-VEGF pathways, and (c) gene therapies. Whereas most therapies are designed to neutralize VEGF, there is a significant set of products with diverse complexity and mechanism of action. Anti-VEGF therapies are still the most studied approach to tackle angiogenesis. Therapies targeting non-VEGF pathways, however, are highlighted because they could be an option for patients nonresponsive to anti-VEGF therapies. Finally, gene therapy is a promissory technology platform but still is subject to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Ocular Cyclopentolate: A Mini Review Concerning Its Benefits and Risks.

Cycloplegic and mydriatic agents are essential in ophthalmological clinical practice since they provide the means for diagnosing and treating certain eye conditions. In addition, cyclopentolate has proven to possess certain benefits compared to other available cycloplegics and mydriatics. Still, the incidence of some adverse drug reactions related to this drug, especially in susceptible patients, has created interest in reviewing the literature about the benefits and risks of using cyclopentolate. A literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed and Google Scholar, focusing on identifying cyclopentolate's benefits and risks; the most important benefit was its usefulness for evaluating refractive errors, especially for hyperopic children, pseudomyopia, anterior uveitis, treatment of childhood myopia, idiopathic vision loss, and during examinations before refractive surgery, with particular advantages compared to other cycloplegics. While the risks were divided into local adverse drug reactions such as burning sensation, photophobia, hyperemia, punctate keratitis, synechiae, and blurred vision, which are relatively frequent but mild and temporary; and systemic adverse drug reactions such as language problems, visual or tactile hallucinations and ataxia, but unlike ocular, systemic adverse drug reactions are rare and occur mainly in patients with risk factors. In addition, six cases of abuse were found. The treatment with cyclopentolate is effective and safe in most cases; nevertheless, special care must be taken due to the potential severe ADRs that may occur, especially in susceptible patients like children, geriatrics, patients with neurological disorders or Down's syndrome, patients with a low blood level of pseudocholinesterase, users of substances with CNS effects, and patients with a history of drug addiction. The recommendations are avoiding the use of 2% cyclopentolate and instead employing solutions with lower concentrations, preferably with another mydriatic such as phenylephrine. Likewise, the occlusion of the nasolacrimal duct after instillation limits the drug's absorption, reducing the risk of systemic adverse events.

Underreporting and Triggering Factors for Reporting ADRs of Two Ophthalmic Drugs: A Comparison between Spontaneous Reports and Active Pharmacovigilance Databases.

(1) Aims of the study: calculating the underreporting ratio for two different medications, a fixed combination of 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide (antiglaucoma) and a fixed combination of sodium hyaluronate 0.1% + chondroitin sulfate 0.18% (artificial tears) for characterizing the features influencing the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in spontaneous reporting. (2) Methods: The underreporting ratio was calculated by comparing the adverse drug reactions reported in the spontaneous reporting database for every 10,000 defined daily doses marketed and the adverse drug reactions from an active surveillance study for every 10,000 defined daily doses used for different drugs (antiglaucoma and artificial tears). The factors related to the report in spontaneous reporting through statistical tests were also determined. (3) Results: The underreporting ratio of spontaneous reporting was 0.006029% for antiglaucoma and 0.003552% for artificial tears. Additionally, statistically significant differences were found for severity, unexpected adverse drug reactions, and incidence of adverse drug reactions in females when compared with spontaneous reporting and active surveillance. (4) Conclusions: The underreporting ratio of ADRs related to ophthalmic medications indicates worry since the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance focuses on spontaneous reporting. Additionally, since underreporting seems to b selective, the role of certain aspects, such as gender, seriousness, severity, and unexpected ADRs, must be considered in future research.

Evaluation of the Rheological Properties, Preclinical Safety, and Clinical Effectiveness of a New Dispersive Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Device for Cataract Surgery.

Purpose: To evaluate the rheological properties of the ophthalmic viscoelastic device (OVD) PRO-149, its preclinical safety, and its effectiveness when used during cataract surgery in patients with age-related cataract. Material and Methods: Control (HEC) and test (PRO-149) OVDs were compared through rheological measures, by two preclinical safety studies in rabbits, and under normal-use conditions during cataract removal and lens implantation in a parallel randomized clinical trial. Results: Rheological properties were determined. Preclinical studies did not find any evidence of safety issues or toxicity. In the clinical trial, 36 subjects were included. After 29 days, there were no statistically significant differences in mean percentage of endothelial cell count change or in the postoperative intraocular pressure between groups. There were no significant differences between OVDs for any safety parameter studied. Finally, PRO-149 showed a statistically significant improvement in surgeon rating for ease of use during extraction (p < 0.05). Conclusion: PRO-149 is a dispersive OVD. The rabbit models did not find evidence of clinical alterations or toxicity. The results of the clinical study support that the two studied OVDs were clinically similar in terms of safety and effectiveness for cataract surgery. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at Clinical Trials.gov at NCT04702802 (21-01-11).

Validation of a preclinical dry eye model in New Zealand white rabbits during and following topical instillation of 1% ophthalmic atropine sulfate.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to validate an animal model for dry eye during and after the administration of 1% ophthalmic atropine sulfate (OAS) in New Zealand white (NZW) rabbits. METHODS: OAS (1%) was applied three times per day to 30 eyes of 15 healthy NZW rabbits. Sacrifice, enucleation, and lacrimal gland removal took place on days 15, 21, and 30 (OAS group). A second group (n = 5) was used as control. Clinical evaluations took place on days 3, 10, 15, 18, 21, 24 and 30. The primary endpoints were: Schirmer I test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and corneal fluorescein staining. As secondary endpoints, clinical changes including intraocular pressure, and histopathology were evaluated. RESULTS: While OAS was administered, the Schirmer I test showed a statistically significant reduction for OAS group versus control (p < 0.001), and versus basal production (p < 0.001). TBUT showed statistically significant differences between groups (days 3 and 10; p = 0.001) and versus basal values (day 3; p < 0.001). Fluorescein staining showed a statistically significant difference (day 3; p = 0.001). The most frequent clinical finding was conjunctival hyperemia (76.9% OAS vs. 20% control). For histopathology, all OAS subjects presented some degree of inflammation (86.7% minimal; 13.3% mild) whereas the control presented only 30% minimal inflammation. Goblet cell density showed no difference. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of the OAS dry eye model in NZW rabbits as reported in previous studies was confirmed, provided that the application of the drug is maintained throughout the intervention; it is not a viable model after OAS administration is suspended.

Real-Life Active Surveillance of a Naphazoline/ Hypromellose Fixed Combination's Safety Profile in Peruvian Population.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying the adverse reactions and the possible risks associated with the use of naphazoline 0.1% + hypromellose 0.5% (NAPH), thereby evaluating its tolerability and safety profile. METHODS: A total of 236 Peruvian patients were included in an active pharmacovigilance study drug event monitoring consisting in 2 phone calls conducted in order to register adverse drug reactions (ADRs), the product's tolerability and to assess the risk concerning specific clinical and demographic characteristics using a binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 54 ADRs (one per patient) were reported after the use of NAPH; classified (according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) into two groups of System Organ Class (SOC): eye disorders and nervous system disorders; and four groups of preferred term (PT): eye irritation, vision blurred, eye pruritus and headache. All ADRs were expected, mild and not serious. No risk factors related to the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients were identified. CONCLUSION: The low incidence of ADRs, their short recovery time, and their categorization as "mild" and "not serious" demonstrates the high tolerability in the studied population; therefore, according to the study, the safety profile for NAPH seems to be adequate, with a suitable tolerability.

Reexamining Ophthalmic Drugs, Safety and Tolerability in Phase 1 Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of drugs used for treating common eye disorders when applied to normal healthy volunteers (NHVs) as explored in phase 1 trials. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 166 NHVs were identified in six phase 1 trials, examined in a retrospective analysis. The primary endpoints were visual comfort (by ocular comfort index, OCI) and safety (laboratory evaluations, vital signs (VS), visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), lissamine green and fluorescein staining, conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, and adverse events' incidence (AE)). RESULTS: Compared to baseline, 75.9%, 40.4% and 73.7% of NHV (for lubricant, hypotensive and antibiotic treatments, respectively) improved their OCI score by their final visit. Laboratory evaluations and VS were within normal ranges in 88% of NHV. Similar results were found for VA, corneal and conjunctival staining, and chemosis. IOP decreased significantly in the hypotensive agents' group, trace to mild hyperemia was reported in 32.1%, 27.1%, and 6.8%, respectively. Additionally, lubricant and hypotensive investigational drugs (ID) had a lower risk of incidence of AE than approved drugs (OR 0.856, 95% CI [0.365, 1.999] and 0.636, 95% CI [0.096, 4.197], respectively). Meanwhile, on antibiotic drugs, the risk for ID-related AE was higher (OR 1.313, 95% CI [0.309, 5.583]). CONCLUSION: Phase 1 trials are important in order to ensure the safety and tolerability of ophthalmic medications. This study demonstrates that NHVs do not face a significant risk of harm in these studies, since 98% of the reported AE were mild, and all AE were resolved by the end of the study in which they appeared. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This is a retrospective study of six previously conducted clinical trials, registered on clinicaltrials.gov with the following registration IDs: NCT04081610, NCT03524157, NCT03520348, NCT03966365, NCT03965052 and, NCT03519516.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of an Intravitreal Humanized Anti-VEGF-A Monoclonal Antibody (PRO-169), a Biosimilar Candidate to Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: PRO-169 is a biosimilar candidate to bevacizumab (BEV), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) developed for intravitreal use. The current study demonstrates the intraocular pharmacokinetics (PK) of PRO-169 and its safety using New Zealand white (NZW) rabbits. METHODS: Intraocular concentration was evaluated in thirty-six rabbits at 1h, 1, 2, 5, 14 and 30 days after a single bilateral injection of PRO-169 or BEV (1.25 mg/0.05 mL). In a secondary experiment, safety was evaluated after three consecutive unilateral injections at 30-day intervals in twenty-four rabbits (PRO-169: 1.25 mg/0.05 mL or ranibizumab [RZB]: 0.5 mg/0.05 mL), by liver-associated enzymes (LAE), ophthalmological examination and adverse event (AE) incidence. Primary endpoints were vitreous maximum concentration (Cmax), time to attain maximum concentration (tmax), area under curve (AUC0-t), half-life (t1/2) and LAE. Secondary endpoints included aqueous humor (AH) and plasma pharmacokinetics, clinical examination and AEs. RESULTS: The Cmax in the vitreous was 593.75 ± 45.63 (PRO-169) vs 644.79 ± 62.65 µg/mL (BEV) (p= 0.136). Tmax was 0.53 ± 0.82 vs 0.85 ± 0.73 days (p= 0.330). The AUC0-t was 3837.72 ± 465.91 vs 4247.31 ± 93.99 days*µg/mL (p= 0.052) and the half-life was 4.99 ± 0.89 vs 5.18 ± 0.88 days (p= 0.711). LAEs were normal in 92% of NZW rabbits; no differences between groups were observed (p>0.05). The AH and plasma PKs were also similar. Finally, clinical examinations found no alterations. AEs were observed in 25% of PRO-169 rabbits, without differences vs RZB (p=0.399). CONCLUSION: PRO-169 can be efficiently diffused and distributed in ocular compartments, showing vitreous pharmacokinetics analogous to BEV. The safety experiment did not find evidence of clinical alterations from a repeated injection of PRO-169. These results provide scientific justification supporting that PRO-169 should be evaluated in future clinical trials to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Ophthalmic Solution Safety Profile: Active Surveillance of a Sodium Hyaluronate/Chondroitin Sulfate Combination in Peruvian Population.

BACKGROUND: Sodium hyaluronate/chondroitin sulfate fixed combination plays an essential role in the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca, a multifactorial disease accompanied by ocular symptoms like alteration of the tear film. Despite low or no absorption of such drugs, these can cause secondary effects. An essential tool in the study of medication behavior is active pharmacovigilance. Unlike spontaneous reporting pharmacovigilance, this tool allows an appraisal of adverse drug reactions (ADRs)' real incidence, a higher capacity to identify safety signals, the relationship with concomitant drugs and pathologies prevalent in the study population. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile and identify and/or assess adverse reactions in an uncontrolled population. METHODS: Active pharmacovigilance by Drug Event Monitoring was performed. A total of 3 follow-up calls were made for 30 days for the identification of the ADRs, tolerability (ADR severity, seriousness, long term sequelae, and duration) and the possible risks (safety signals, medical interactions) of sodium hyaluronate and chondroitin sulfate (HUM). RESULTS: Thirty-five ADRs were identified in the 212 patients included in the study (0.17 ADR/patient). The 35 ADRs were classified into 3 System Organ Class (SOC) groups: general disorders and administration site conditions (74.2%), eye disorders (22.9%), and nervous system disorders (2.9%); and 4 Preferred Term (PT) groups: burning sensation (74.2%), followed by blurred vision (20%), ocular pain (2.9%) and headache (2.9%). All the ADRs were categorized as mild and not serious. No statistically significant differences were found in concomitantly medications, posology and age groups. CONCLUSION: Good tolerability to the solution was identified, with a low incidence of ADRs. Just the same, all the associated ADRs were consistent with the information found in HUM's physicochemical profile and the physiopathology of DED. No unknown risks were identified, reinforcing HUM's safety profile.

Active Pharmacovigilance in Peruvian Population: Surveillance of a Timolol/Brimonidine/Dorzolamide Ophthalmic Fixed Combination.

PURPOSE: In this study active pharmacovigilance was used in an uncontrolled population to enrich the safety profile and canvass the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) associated with the use of a fixed combination of 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide (TBD). METHODS: Active pharmacovigilance consisting of 3 follow-up calls within 60 days was used to monitor the product's safety and identify new risks by searching for unexpected ADRs and increased incidence, tolerability, drug interactions and special population-related ADRs. RESULTS: Ninety-four ADRs were reported by a total of 246 patients (0.38 ADRs/patient); all of them were classified as "mild". We found an increased risk of ADRs with a Relative Risk (RR) for simultaneous use of TBD + ophthalmic ciprofloxacin and TBD + oral atorvastatin; 2.0309 (95% CI, 1.2467-3.3083) and 1.8864 (95% CI, 1.0543-3.3754), respectively. Two unexpected ADRs were discovered, both of which presented belonged to the System Organ Class (SOC) of "infections and infestations" and the preferred term (PT) of "nasopharyngitis.". CONCLUSION: Three safety signals were identified, two of them corresponded to an increase in the incidence of ADRs and the last one is associated with 2 unexpected ADR. Nevertheless, we found a good tolerability profile for TBD in the study population.

A Drug Safety Surveillance Study of a Ciprofloxacin/Dexamethasone Ophthalmic Fixed Combination in Peruvian Population.

(1) Background: drugs provide a significant benefit for patients who require medical treatment; however, their use implies an intrinsic potential danger, with the possibility of causing unwanted effects. These effects are known as adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Post-marketing drug safety surveillance detects unknown risks that have not been identified in clinical trials, and it is necessary to monitor marketed medications under real-life practice. Due to the scarce information about fixed combination of ciprofloxacin 0.3%/dexamethasone 0.1% (SDO), we performed a drug safety surveillance study. (2) Methods: A prospective non-controlled drug safety surveillance study was conducted in Peruvian population. A total of 236 patients prescribed SDO were included derived from 12 sites. Patients' standardized information was collected through two phone calls, including demographics, medical history, prescribing patterns of SDO, concomitant medication, and ADRs in detail. The ADRs were classified by causality and severity, followed by outcome measures to identify new risk. (3) Results: 236 patients prescribed with SDO participated in the study and 220 were included. A total of 82 ADRs/220 patients were reported after the use of SDO, presenting a ratio 0.37 ADR/patient. The most frequent ADR with SDO administration was eye irritation (30%). All ADRs were classified as non-serious, and 97.5% (n = 80) were classified as mild while 2.5% as moderate (n = 2). No cases under the severe category were identified. (4) Conclusion: No new risks were found in the population where this study was conducted.

Efficacy and Safety of Sodium Hyaluronate/chondroitin Sulfate Preservative-free Ophthalmic Solution in the Treatment of Dry Eye: A Clinical Trial.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a preservative free sodium hyaluronate/chondroitin sulfate ophthalmic solution (SH/CS-PF) in patients with dry eye disease (DED).Methods: This was a randomized phase IV, multicentric, prospective, double-blind clinical trial. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed. Patients were assigned to receive either SH/CS-PF, Systane® Ultra (PEG/PG) or Systane® Ultra PF (PEG/PG-PF) for 90 days. A total of 326 patients were included in the ITT, and 217 in the PP analysis. Efficacy endpoints were goblet cell density, Nelson's grades (conjunctival impression cytology), tear break-up time (TBUT), Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), and Schirmer's test. Other parameters included were tolerability, measured by the ocular symptomatology; and safety, measured through corneal staining, intraocular pressure, visual acuity and adverse events.Results: In the ITT, there was a significant increase in mean goblet cell density in all treatments compared with their baseline (28.4% vs 21.4% and 30.8%), without difference between arms (p = .159). Eyes exposed to SH/CS-PF, PEG/PG and PEG/PG-PF showed Grade 0-I squamous metaplasia (85.5%, 87.9% and 93.2%, respectively). Similar improvements were observed for TBUT (1.24 ± 2.3s vs 1.27 ± 2.4s and 1.39 ± 2.3s) and OSDI scores at day 90 (-8.81 ± 8.6 vs -7.95 ± 9.2 and -8.78 ± 9.8), although no significant intergroup difference was found. Schirmer's test also presented improvement compared to baseline (1.38 ± 4.9 vs 1.50 ± 4.7 and 2.63 ± 5.9), with a significantly higher variation for PEG/PG-PF. There were no significant differences between treatments for any tolerability and safety parameter, nor between ITT and PP analyses for any outcome.Conclusions: The topical application of SH/CS-PF is as effective, safe and well tolerated as that of PEG/PG or PEG/PG-PF. The results suggest that SH/CS-PF may lead to normalization of clinical parameters and symptom alleviation in patients treated for DED.

Safety and tolerability evaluation after repeated intravitreal injections of a humanized anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody (PRO-169) versus ranibizumab in New Zealand white rabbits.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the retinal toxicity after repeated intravitreal injections of a humanized anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody (PRO-169) versus ranibizumab in New Zealand white (NZW) rabbit eyes. METHODS: NZW rabbits were injected intravitreally with PRO-169 (n = 12), 1.25 mg/0.05 ml or ranibizumab (n = 12), 0.5 mg/0.05 ml into the right eye (OD), whereas the left eye (OS) of each rabbit was used as control. Three consecutive injections were administered at 30-days intervals. An electroretinogram (ERG) was recorded 30 days after each injection. Clinical examination was conducted before and after injections, including intraocular pressure determination and eye fundus exploration. Eyes were enucleated and retina, cornea, conjunctiva, ciliary body and optic nerve were prepared for histopathology assessment. RESULTS: ERG of the experimental and control eyes in PRO-169 and ranibizumab groups were similar in amplitude and pattern throughout the follow-up period. Clinical examination found no alterations of intraocular pressure (IOP). No retinal damage was observed in both, the experimental and control eyes, of all the rabbits. The histopathologic studies showed similar results in both groups, showing no signs of structural damage. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not find evidence of retinal toxicity from a repeated intravitreal injection of PRO-169 or ranibizumab (Lucentis®) in NZW rabbits. These findings support intravitreal PRO-169 as a safe candidate to develop as a future alternative for the treatment of retinal neovascularization diseases.

Difluprednate 0.05% versus Prednisolone Acetate Post-Phacoemulsification for Inflammation and Pain: An Efficacy and Safety Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of difluprednate 0.05% (PRO-145) versus prednisolone acetate 1% (Prednefrin® SF), for management of postoperative inflammation and pain, after cataract surgery. METHODS: This was a Phase III, multicenter, prospective, double-blind, clinical trial. Intent-to-treat population included 178 post-phacoemulsification patients that were assigned to receive either PRO-145, or prednisolone. One day after unilateral eye surgery, patients instilled a drop 4 times a day for 14 days (then tapering the dose downward for 14 days). The primary efficacy endpoints were anterior chamber (AC) cell grade and flare. Other parameters measured included: retinal central thickness (measured via OCT), conjunctival hyperemia, edema, pain and photophobia. Tolerability and safety were assessed through burning, itching, foreign body sensation, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and incidence of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: A total of 171 subjects were randomized (1:1) and completed the study. Compared to day 1, there was a significant improvement in the AC cell count and flare in both groups by the final visit (80.2% vs 88.4%, p=1.000). Conjunctival hyperemia improved in a similar fashion (81.2% vs 79%, p=0.234) in both PRO-145 and prednisolone groups, without differences between them. This was also observed for edema (82.4% vs 82.5%, p=0.246), pain (15.3% vs 7%, p=0.497) and photophobia (16.4% vs 15.1%, p=0.246), respectively. There was no significant difference between treatments for any tolerability parameter studied. Finally, at the 4-week postoperative visit, there were no significant differences between treatments for VA, IOP and AE results (p-values; 0.095, 0.053 and 0.099, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that PRO-145 is as effective and safe as prednisolone acetate in treating postoperative inflammation and pain in patients undergoing phacoemulsification. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03693989.

Comparing The Efficacy Of An Anti-Human VEGF-A Neutralizing Antibody Versus Bevacizumab On A Laser-Induced Choroidal Neovascularization (CNV) Rhesus Monkey Model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a therapy on improving characteristics of laser-induced choroidal neovascularization (CNV) via single intravitreal injection of a humanized anti-human VEGF monoclonal antibody (PRO-169) versus bevacizumab in a rhesus monkey model. METHODS: To induce experimental CNV, small high-energy laser spots were used to treat several areas, around the macula in the retinas of monkeys at Day -21. Eighteen rhesus monkeys were used for CNV induction. The efficacy endpoints were fluorescein leakage by FFA and retinal thickness by OCT. FFA examinations were performed 19 days after induction. Appropriate animals were enrolled for treatment and randomly divided into 3 groups: bevacizumab (n=5, 7 eyes), PRO-169 (n=5, 7 eyes), and vehicle controls (n=4, 7 eyes). RESULTS: In 25 of 36 (69.4%) eyes, CNV lesions were identified. The average percent change of retinal thickness in the eyes of bevacizumab group was -159.3±62.2% and -154.0±45.1% (p<0.01 vs Vehicle) at Day 14 and Day 28, respectively; in the eyes of PRO-169 group it was -131.6±68.7% and -131.5±63.8% (p<0.01 vs Vehicle), respectively. The average percent change of leakage area in the eyes of bevacizumab group was -75.3±49.4% and -78.0±42.6% (p<0.01 vs Vehicle) at Day 14 and Day 28, respectively; in the eyes of PRO-169 group it was -82.0±19.3% and -81.4±21.0% (p<0.01 vs Vehicle), respectively. There were no abnormalities found in behavior, skin and hair, excretion and overall eye appearance before and after treatment in all groups. CONCLUSION: After photocoagulation, the eyes enrolled in this studio showed CNV related characteristics including increased retinal thickness, and fluorescein leakage at laser spots. PRO-169 (1.25 mg per eye) can reduce the retinal thickness and fluorescein leakage area after treatment for 14 and 28 days in this rhesus monkeys model, without toxic effect or adverse events. These findings suggested that PRO-169 can inhibit CNV.

Efficacy and safety of bromfenac 0.09% and sodium hyaluronate 0.4% combination therapy, versus placebo in patients with pterygium I-III for clinical signs on ocular inflammation.

Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of bromfenac 0.09%, sodium hyaluronate 0.4% (SH) combination therapy, versus placebo and SH in a clinical model of pterygium I-III. Methods: A total of 166 eyes (99 patients) with pterygium grade I-III were randomized to bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solution+SH 0.4% or placebo+SH 0.4%. This was a Phase IV, prospective, parallel, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial. One drop of bromfenac or placebo was instilled two times a day (BID) for 20 days, both groups accompanied treatments with one drop of SH three times a day (TID). The primary efficacy endpoints were the conjunctival hyperemia and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score. Other results measured included burning, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. The safety was assessed by the tear break-up time (TBUT), visual acuity (VA), IOP, lissamine green, fluorescein stains, and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Compared with baseline, there was a significant reduction in the conjunctival hyperemia (p=0.0001) and OSDI score in both groups (p=0.0001). There was a significant improvement in ocular symptomatology for both, placebo/SH and bromfenac/SH groups (p=0.0001), the decrement in the ocular burning was 41.1% vs 24.6%, the foreign body sensation was 31.5% vs 36.2% and, for photophobia was 23.3% vs 30.5%, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed in TBUT for bromfenac/SH (p=0.045), at day 20. There were no significant alterations in IOP (p=0.068) or VA (p=0.632). Similar improvements were observed in the fluorescein and green lissamine staining. Finally, the incidence of AE was similar between groups. Conclusion: The treatment with bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solution and SH 0.4% combination therapy for 3 weeks reduced clinical signs, in patients with pterygium I-III. The results suggest that bromfenac 0.09% can improve the symptomatology, reduce the presentation of clinical signs associated with superficial ocular inflammation.

A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of a 0.5% Timolol + 0.2% Brimonidine + 2.0% Dorzolamide Fixed Combination, Preservative-Free Ophthalmic Solution vs. 0.5% Timolol + 0.2% Brimonidine + 2.0% Dorzolamide Fixed Combination in Patients with Controlled Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective crossover study was to evaluate the non-inferiority of PRO-122 (a preservative-free fixed combination) compared with 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide fixed combination (KOF) by evaluating its efficacy, tolerability and safety in subjects with controlled primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) previously treated with KOF for at least 2 months. METHODS: In a prospective, crossover, randomized, double-masked multicenter study, patients previously treated with KOF were randomly assigned to receive either PRO-122 or KOF for 30 days. On day 31, the A sequence changed to KOF, while the B sequence received PRO-122. All patients remained in the protocol for 30 additional days for a total of 60 days. The main efficacy endpoint was maintaining the controlled intraocular pressure (IOP). The safety and tolerability of both products were assessed by the presence of adverse events (AEs), ocular findings, a questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients participated. After application of PRO-122 twice a day, its efficacy was demonstrated through maintenance of the controlled IOP in patients previously controlled with KOF. The crossover between PRO-122 and KOF and vice versa, after 30 days of use, did not affect IOP control. PRO-122 was shown not to be inferior to KOF in maintaining IOP at control levels. The safety of both drugs is similar, as neither presented drug-related AEs or differences regarding safety issues. The tolerability of the two medications-evaluated by ocular findings, the questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index-was also determined to be similar. CONCLUSIONS: The controlled IOP in patients with controlled POAG treated with PRO-122 was maintained both in relation to the initial controlled IOP of the study and when compared with KOF in the B sequence. Finally, the treatment with PRO-122 demonstrated similar safety and tolerability to KOF. FUNDING: Laboratorios Sophia, S.A. de C.V. (Zapopan, Jalisco, México). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03257813 (registered retrospectively).

Efficacy and Safety of 0.6% Pazufloxacin Ophthalmic Solution Versus Moxifloxacin 0.5% and Gatifloxacin 0.5% in Subjects with Bacterial Conjunctivitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel ophthalmic solution of pazufloxacin on the ocular surface of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis after 7 days of intervention. METHODS: This is a phase 2, double-blind, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial of 300 subjects, randomized to either a 3 dosing regimen of pazufloxacin 0.6% ophthalmic solution (twice a day [BID], n = 90; 3 times a day [TID], n = 76; 4 times a day [QID], n = 68), moxifloxacin 0.3% TID (n = 82), or gatifloxacin 0.5% TID (n = 72). Follow-up was set on days 0, 3, and 7. Assessments of ocular signs were performed, both anterior and posterior segments. The primary outcome measures included conjunctival culture and clinical signs. Safety variables included adverse events (AEs), lisamine green, fluorescein ocular surface stains, and clinical signs of tolerability. RESULTS: After intervention, bacterial eradication was reported in all groups: pazufloxacin BID 79%, pazufloxacin TID 84%, pazufloxacin QID 84%, moxifloxacin 80%, and gatifloxacin 82%. There were no significant differences between treatments. Similar results were reported in clinical remission: pazufloxacin BID 89%, pazufloxacin TID 98%, pazufloxacin QID 92%, moxifloxacin 91%, and gatifloxacin 92% (P = 0.03 comparing pazufloxacin BID vs. TID). There were no differences between female and male responses. The AEs were not related to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified dosing regimen was selected to follow the development of ophthalmic pazufloxacin based on its efficacy and safety profile. Pazufloxacin, 1 drop 3 times daily, showed similar rates of bacterial eradication and clinical remission compared with other fluoroquinolones.