Phentolamine Mesylate Ophthalmic Solution Provides Lasting Pupil Modulation and Improves Near Visual Acuity in Presbyopic Glaucoma Patients in a Randomized Phase 2b Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Phentolamine mesylate ophthalmic solution (PMOS), applied to the eye topically, was shown previously to have beneficial effects in patients with dim light vision disturbances (DLD), including decreased pupil diameter (PD), improved best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), as well as lower intraocular pressure (IOP). The ORION-1 trial evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of PMOS in a glaucomatous, presbyopic population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-masked, multi-center, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose Phase 2b trial, 39 patients with elevated IOP were randomized to receive one evening dose of study medication or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome measure was mean change in diurnal IOP, and the key secondary outcome measures included changes in PD, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and conjunctival hyperemia. RESULTS: Use of 1% PMOS did not lead to a statistically significant decrease in diurnal IOP compared to placebo (P = 0.89) but trended toward a greater decrease in patients with lower IOP baselines. PMOS produced a statistically significant mean 20% PD reduction under both photopic and mesopic conditions that was sustained for 36 hours post-dosing. A statistically significant number of patients with PMOS compared to placebo demonstrated ≥1 line of improvement in photopic DCNVA at day 8 (P = 0.0018), day 15 (P = 0.0072), and day 16 (P = 0.0163), with a trend for 2- and 3-line improvements at all time points. There was no statistical difference in conjunctival hyperemia compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Although mean IOP was not lowered significantly, daily evening dosing of 1% PMOS was found to be well tolerated with no daytime conjunctival redness and demonstrated improvement in DCNVA with sustained PD reduction in a glaucomatous and presbyopic population. Smaller pupil size can have beneficial effects in improving symptoms of presbyopia and DLD, which will be the focus of further studies.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in healthy subjects with asymptomatic eyes: data from 2 independent clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.77% olopatadine from 2 independent (Phase I and Phase III, respectively) clinical studies in healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Phase I, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥18 years old (N=36) to assess the systemic pharmacokinetics of olopatadine 0.77% following single- and multiple-dose exposures. The Phase III, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥2 years old (N=499) to evaluate long-term ocular safety of olopatadine 0.77%. Subjects received olopatadine 0.77% or vehicle once daily bilaterally for 7 days in the pharmacokinetic study and 6 weeks in the safety study. RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic study, olopatadine 0.77% was absorbed slowly and reached a peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of 1.65 ng/mL following single-dose and 1.45 ng/mL following multiple-dose exposures in 2 hours (time to reach maximum plasma concentration [Tmax]). After reaching peak concentrations, olopatadine showed a similar mono-exponential decay following single and multiple doses with mean elimination half-life ranging from 2.90 to 3.40 hours. No accumulation in olopatadine exposure (Cmax and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours) was evident after multiple doses when compared to single dose. In the safety study, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 26.7% and 31.4% of subjects with olopatadine 0.77% and vehicle, respectively. Blurred vision was the most frequent ocular treatment-emergent adverse event in both treatment groups (olopatadine 0.77% vs vehicle, 4.8% vs 4.1%). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% had minimal systemic exposure or accumulation in healthy subjects and was well tolerated in both adult and pediatric subjects.

Double-masked, randomized, dose-response study of AR-13324 versus latanoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.

OBJECTIVE: AR-13324 is a small-molecule inhibitor of Rho kinase and a norepinephrine transporter. The objective of this 28-day study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized study in 22 private practice ophthalmology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT with unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) in the range of 22 to 36 mmHg. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (pm), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (pm), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (pm) for 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within the treatment group at day 28. RESULTS: Randomized and treated were 224 patients, 213 (95.1%) of whom completed the study. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7 mmHg in the AR-13324 0.01%, 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg (P<0.001). The 5.7-mmHg reduction in IOP by AR-13324 0.02% did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The most frequently reported adverse event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52%, 57%, and 16%, respectively. On day 28 at 08:00 hours, the incidence of mild to moderate hyperemia by biomicroscopy was 18%, 24%, and 11%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs of 22 to 35 mmHg. The major safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost.

Late-day intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and tolerability of travoprost 0.004% versus bimatoprost 0.01% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Medications to control intraocular pressure (IOP) are frequently preserved using benzalkonium chloride (BAK), which can negatively affect the ocular surface. Data are needed to assess efficacy and safety of prostaglandin drugs preserved with and without BAK. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of BAK-free travoprost 0.004% (TRAV) and BAK 0.02%-preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (BIM) during late-day time points in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a 12-week, phase 4, randomized, investigator-masked, crossover study. 84 patients with IOP ≥24 and <36 mmHg were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily TRAV or BIM for 6 weeks followed by an additional 6-week crossover period. IOP was measured at the end of each treatment period at 4, 6, and 8 pm. TRAV was considered noninferior to BIM if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the between-group difference in mean IOP was ≤1.5 mmHg. Adverse events were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: One patient discontinued due to allergic conjunctivitis, and 2 patients with missing data were excluded; 81 patients were included in the per-protocol population (mean ± SD age, 58.3 ± 11.4 years; TRAV/BIM, n = 41; BIM/TRAV, n = 40). After 6 weeks, mean IOP with TRAV (17.4 ± 2.7 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.0 mmHg) was similar to BIM (17.2 ± 2.6 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.3 mmHg); the between-group difference was 0.22 mmHg (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.67). Thus, noninferiority of TRAV versus BIM was demonstrated. Mean IOP at each time point and mean and percentage IOP change from baseline were not significantly different between treatments. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate. The incidences of mild ocular hyperemia with TRAV and BIM were 31% and 39%, respectively; moderate hyperemia was observed in 2% of patients receiving BIM. CONCLUSION: Late-day IOP-lowering efficacy of BAK-free TRAV was noninferior to that of BAK 0.02%-preserved BIM; both reduced baseline IOP by 25%. Both treatments were well tolerated, although a higher incidence of moderate ocular hyperemia was observed with BIM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01464424; registered November 1, 2011.

Sustained intraocular pressure reduction throughout the day with travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction throughout the day with travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening. METHODS: The results of seven published, randomized clinical trials including at least one arm in which travoprost 0.004% was dosed once daily in the evening were integrated. Means (and standard deviations) of mean baseline and on-treatment IOP, as well as mean IOP reduction and mean percent IOP reduction at 0800, 1000, and 1600 hours at weeks 2 and 12 were calculated. RESULTS: From a mean baseline IOP ranging from 25.0 to 27.2 mmHg, mean IOP on treatment ranged from 17.4 to 18.8 mmHg across all visits and time points. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.6 to 8.4 mmHg across visits and time points, representing a mean IOP reduction of 30%. Results of the safety analysis were consistent with the results from the individual studies for travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%, with ocular hyperemia being the most common side effect. CONCLUSION: Travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening provides sustained IOP reduction throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in subjects with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. No reduction of IOP-lowering efficacy was observed at the 1600-hour time point which approached the end of the dosing interval.

A new system, the LipiFlow, for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LipiFlow System compared to the iHeat Warm Compress (WC) for adults with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). METHODS: This was a non-significant risk, prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover multicenter clinical trial. One hundred thirty-nine subjects were randomized between LipiFlow (n=69) and WC control (n=70). Subjects in the LipiFlow group received a 12-minute LipiFlow treatment and were reexamined at 1 day, 2 weeks and 4 weeks. Control subjects received a 5-minute iHeat treatment with instructions to perform the same treatment daily for 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, they crossed over (LipiFlow Crossover) and received the LipiFlow treatment. Effectiveness parameters: meibomian gland (MG) assessment, tear break-up time (TBUT) and dry eye symptoms. Safety parameters: adverse events, ocular health exam, ocular surface staining, intraocular pressure, visual acuity and discomfort. RESULTS: LipiFlow resulted in significant improvement (P < 0.05) in MG secretion at 2 and 4 weeks (mean ± standard deviation at baseline = 6.3 ± 3.5; 2 weeks = 14.3 ± 8.7; 4 weeks = 16.7 ± 8.7); and TBUT at 2 and 4 weeks: (at baseline = 5.5 ± 2.9; 2 weeks = 6.9 ± 5.0; 4 weeks = 7.4 ± 5.5). There was no significant change in MG secretion or TBUT in the control group. LipiFlow resulted in a greater significant reduction in dry eye symptoms than the iHeat WC. The crossover group demonstrated similar significant improvement 2 weeks post-treatment with the LipiFlow. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of non-serious, device-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: The LipiFlow System was significantly more effective than iHeat WC. These results support its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of MGD and dry eye symptoms.

Duration of IOP reduction with travoprost BAK-free solution.

PURPOSE: To compare the duration of action of travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% (Travatan Z) formulated without benzalkonium chloride (BAK) to travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% formulated with BAK (Travatan). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked study. Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive 2 weeks of once-daily therapy with travoprost BAK-free or travoprost with BAK. Patients received the last dose of medication on day 13 and then intraocular pressure (IOP) was assessed every 12 hours for 60 hours. Statistical analysis included change in IOP from baseline for each group and comparison of mean IOP between groups. RESULTS: Of the 109 patients enrolled, 106 patients completed the study. Untreated mean baseline IOP at 8 AM was 26.9 mm Hg in the travoprost BAK-free group and 27.1 mm Hg in the travoprost with BAK group. At 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours after the last dose, mean IOP in the travoprost BAK-free group was 18.7, 17.2, 19.5, 18.7, and 20.8 mm Hg, respectively; whereas mean IOP in the travoprost with BAK group was 18.5, 16.8, 19.7, 18.0, and 20.8 mm Hg, respectively. Mean IOP at all time points after the last dose of medication was >6 mm Hg lower than the 8 AM baseline in both groups. Between-group differences were within +/-0.6 mm Hg at all postdose time points. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment groups at baseline or at any postdose time point. Drug-related side effects were uncommon, mild in intensity, and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost without BAK has similar IOP-lowering efficacy and safety compared with travoprost preserved with BAK. Both formulations of travoprost have a prolonged duration of action, with statistically and clinically significant reductions from baseline persisting up to 60 hours after the last dose.

Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed-combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 0.2% brimonidine tartrate and 0.5% timolol maleate (fixed brimonidine-timolol) compared with the component medications. METHODS: In 2 identical, 12-month, randomized, double-masked multicenter trials, patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma were treated with fixed brimonidine-timolol twice daily (n = 385), 0.2% brimonidine tartrate 3 times daily (n = 382), or 0.5% timolol maleate twice daily (n = 392). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Mean change from baseline IOP and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The mean decrease from baseline IOP during 12-month follow-up was 4.4 to 7.6 mm Hg with fixed brimonidine-timolol, 2.7 to 5.5 mm Hg with brimonidine, and 3.9 to 6.2 mm Hg with timolol. Mean IOP reductions were significantly greater with fixed brimonidine-timolol compared with timolol at all measurements (P< or =.002) and brimonidine at 8 am, 10 am, and 3 pm (P<.001) but not at 5 pm. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events in the fixed-combination group was lower than that in the brimonidine group (P = .006) but higher than that in the timolol group (P<.001). The rate of discontinuation for adverse events was 14.3% with the fixed combination, 30.6% with brimonidine, and 5.1% with timolol. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily fixed brimonidine-timolol therapy provides sustained IOP lowering superior to monotherapy with either thrice-daily brimonidine or twice-daily timolol and is better tolerated than brimonidine but less well tolerated than timolol. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Fixed brimonidine-timolol is an effective and convenient IOP-lowering therapy.

Comparison of the diurnal ocular hypotensive efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost over a 44-hour period in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin analogues are effective ocular hypotensive agents and are being used increasingly in the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). These agents are typically dosed once daily. OBJECTIVES: A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the duration of travoprost's IOP-lowering efficacy up to 84 hours after the final dose in patients with open-angle glaucoma. A follow-up study was conducted to compare diurnal IOP control with travoprost and latanoprost over a 44-hour period. METHODS: In the open label pilot study, patients received 0.004% travoprost in both eyes at 8 pm daily for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, IOP was measured before administration of the last daily dose, every 4 hours thereafter for 36 hours, and 60 and 84 hours after the last dose, with no additional ocular hypotensive medication given. In the controlled, double-masked, parallel-group, follow-up study, patients were randomized to self-administer 1 drop of the marketed doses of 0.004% travoprost or 0.005% latanoprost in both eyes at 8 pm daily for 2 weeks. At the end of this period, patients returned to the facility at approximately 8 pm for IOP measurement and administration of the final dose of study medication. IOP was then measured at 4-hour intervals for 44 hours after the last dose, with no additional ocular hypotensive medication given. RESULTS: The pilot study included 21 patients (67% female, 33% male; age range, 35-81 years) with open-angle glaucoma. IOP values were significantly below baseline at all time points up to 84 hours after the final dose of travoprost ( P<0.001). The follow-up study enrolled 35 patients, 1 of whom was excluded for missing data; thus, the intent-to-treat analysis included 34 patients (68% female, 32% male; age range, 36-72 years). At the unmedicated eligibility visit, mean IOP over 24 hours ranged from 21 to 26 mm Hg in each treatment group. After 2 weeks of treatment and 24 hours after the last dose, mean (SD) IOP was 13.1 (2.1) mm Hg (change from eligibility visit, -10.4 [2.7] mm Hg) in the travoprost group and 16.0 (3.1) mm Hg (change from eligibility visit, -7.1 [2.4] mm Hg) in the latanoprost group. The difference in change from baseline was statistically significant between treatment groups (P=0.006). Travoprost lowered IOP significantly at all time points throughout the 44-hour period after the last dose (mean IOP,

24-Hour IOP control with once-daily bimatoprost, timolol gel-forming solution, or latanoprost: a 1-month, randomized, comparative clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (QD) bimatoprost, latanoprost, and timolol gel-forming solution in providing 24-hour intraocular pressure (IOP) control. DESIGN: This was a randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked, prospective, parallel-group, clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. INTERVENTION: After washout of any previous ocular hypotensive medications, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution QD (n=38) or latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution QD (n=38) between 7 and 9 pm, or timolol maleate 0.5% gel-forming ophthalmic solution QD (n=39) between 7 and 9 am for 1 month. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure, circadian IOP, was measured at eight time points over the course of 24 hours beginning at 8 am on day 28 and with the last measurement at 8 am on day 29. IOP was also measured at 8 am and 10 am at baseline and at 8 am on day 14. Safety measures included adverse events, biomicroscopy, visual acuity, heart rate, and blood pressure. RESULTS: At 10 am (peak drug effect) on day 28, the mean IOP reduction from baseline was significantly greater with bimatoprost (9.3 mm Hg, 40.3%) than with timolol gel (7.1 mm Hg, 31.1%; P=.024, Wilcoxon rank sum test) or latanoprost (7.4 mm Hg, 33.3%). In the overall analysis of IOP measured over the course of 24 hours, mean IOP was significantly lower with bimatoprost or latanoprost than with timolol gel (P<.001; analysis of repeated measures). The analysis of repeated measures also showed a significant difference between bimatoprost and latanoprost (P=.003). In the area-under-the-curve analysis, bimatoprost and latanoprost were superior to timolol gel (P< or =.018) but comparable to each other (P> or =.223). All treatment regimens were well tolerated, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. There were no significant effects on systemic safety parameters. CONCLUSION: Once-daily bimatoprost or latanoprost provided significantly better 24-hour IOP control than timolol gel in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Some measurements suggested a trend for greater efficacy of bimatoprost over latanoprost. All three treatments were well tolerated.