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.

Omidenepag Isopropyl in Latanoprost Low/Nonresponders With Primary Open Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: A Phase 3, Nonrandomized, Two-Phase, Open-Label Study.

PRCIS: This study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of once-daily 0.002% omidenepag isopropyl (OMDI) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) who do not respond or respond poorly to latanoprost. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of OMDI in latanoprost low/nonresponders with POAG or OHT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 3, nonrandomized, 2-phase, open-label, multicenter study (NCT03697811) in the United States. Key inclusion criteria included individuals aged 18 years or above, POAG or OHT diagnosis in both eyes, IOP ≥22 mm Hg in ≥1 eye, and ≤34 mm Hg in both eyes at all time points. Overall, 107 patients were enrolled; 104 completed treatment. Included a screening period (≤35-day washout period and 8-week latanoprost run-in period) and a 3-month treatment period comprising one drop of OMDI 0.002% once daily in both eyes. The primary study endpoint was changed from baseline in the mean diurnal (MD) IOP at month 3. Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: At baseline (visit 4), 75 (70.1%) patients had POAG, 32 (29.9%) had OHT, and 68 (63.6%) had prior use of prostaglandin/prostaglandin analogs (37.4% of whom used latanoprost). The mean (SD) baseline MD IOP was 23.34 mm Hg (2.12). The mean (SD) 3-month (visit 7) MD IOP change from baseline (following latanoprost run-in period and OMDI treatment period) was an additional decrease of 2.96 mm Hg (2.83) ( P <0.0001). No significant safety issues were reported during OMDI treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate OMDI efficacy and safety in latanoprost low/nonresponders with POAG or OHT, suggesting OMDI is a treatment option in the patient population in this study.

Efficacy and Safety of the Melanocortin Pan-Agonist PL9643 in a Phase 2 Study of Patients with Dry Eye Disease.

Purpose: The melanocortin receptor pan-agonist PL9643, a potential therapy for ocular diseases, was investigated in a phase 2, 12-week study in patients with dry eye disease (DED). Methods: This was a placebo-controlled study evaluating efficacy and safety of thrice-daily PL9643. Placebo (vehicle) was similar to tears. Primary endpoints were intra-patient changes in inferior corneal fluorescein staining and ocular discomfort after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in additional DED signs or symptoms. Multiple secondary endpoints were not adjusted for multiplicity. Patients with moderate or severe DED were analyzed in addition to the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: In the ITT population (n = 160) the PL9643 group did not demonstrate significant treatment difference versus placebo at week 12/day 85 for the primary endpoints (P > 0.05). In patients with moderate or severe DED (n = 53), PL9643 treatment demonstrated either nominally significant (P < 0.05) or trending (P < 0.1) improvement over placebo in mean change from baseline at week 12/day 85 in several sign endpoints, including fluorescein staining in inferior, superior, corneal sum, and total sum regions; Lissamine Green staining in temporal, nasal, conjunctival sum, and total sum regions; and tear film breakup time. Conjunctival redness also showed (nonsignificant) improvement at week 12/day 85. There were no drug-related adverse events (AEs) and no drug-related discontinuations. Conclusions: PL9643 showed no significant efficacy for the ITT population; however, efficacy results across several signs and symptoms in the subpopulation of moderate to severe DED patients, the low number of ocular AEs, and no tolerability issues suggest that PL9643 shows promise as a therapeutic for DED. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04268069.

A randomized, vehicle-controlled, Phase 2b study of two concentrations of the TRPM8 receptor agonist AR-15512 in the treatment of dry eye disease (COMET-1).

PURPOSE: Dry eye disease (DED) symptoms can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). AR-15512, a transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) agonist, was evaluated as a potential therapy for DED. METHODS: In a Phase 2b study, patients with DED were randomized 1:1:1 to 0.0014% AR-15512, 0.003% AR-15512, or vehicle twice daily for 12 weeks. Eligibility criteria included DED signs and symptoms of prespecified severity levels. Outcomes assessed were DED signs (Schirmer score ± anesthetic, ocular surface staining, hyperemia), symptoms (Ocular Discomfort [ODS-VAS], Symptoms Assessment iN Dry Eye [SANDE], Eye Dryness-VAS, Ocular Pain-VAS), QoL-VAS, and adverse events. Co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline in ODS-VAS and anesthetized Schirmer score at Day 28. RESULTS: 0.003% AR-15512 (n = 122) was associated with early and sustained improvements in unanesthetized Schirmer score (Days 1 and 14, p < 0.0001), as well as improvements in ocular surface staining (Days 14 and 84, p ≤ 0.0365) and hyperemia (Day 84, p < 0.0215). Statistically significant improvements in symptoms were observed for the 0.003% concentration on SANDE (Days 14, 28, and 84, p ≤ 0.0254), ODS-VAS (Day 84, p = 0.0281), Eye Dryness-VAS (Day 84, p = 0.0302), and multiple QoL measures (Days 14, 28, and 84, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between active and vehicle groups for the co-primary endpoints. The most common adverse events were burning and stinging upon instillation. CONCLUSIONS: Although predefined co-primary study endpoints were not met, AR-15512 demonstrated statistically significant improvements in DED signs, symptoms, and disease-related QoL.

Topical Anti-TNFα Agent Licaminlimab (OCS-02) Relieves Persistent Ocular Discomfort in Severe Dry Eye Disease: A Randomized Phase II Study.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of new topical ocular anti-TNFα antibody fragment licaminlimab in the relief of persistent ocular discomfort in severe dry eye disease (DED). Patients and Methods: Patients with ≥6-month history of DED, regular use of artificial tears, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≥55 letters in each eye (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Score) at baseline were included in this multicenter, randomized, vehicle-controlled, double masked study. A total of 514 patients were screened. After a 2-week run-in with Vehicle, all qualifying patients received Vehicle eye drops for 4 weeks. Patients with global ocular discomfort score ≥50 at the end of this 4-week period were randomized to receive licaminlimab (60 mg/mL ophthalmic solution) (69 patients) or Vehicle (65 patients) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in global ocular discomfort score at Day 29. Safety assessments included adverse events and ophthalmology examination including intraocular pressure (IOP). Serum licaminlimab levels were also determined. Results: Change from baseline to Day 29 in global ocular discomfort score was statistically significantly greater for licaminlimab than for Vehicle (p = 0.041). No safety issues were identified. Serum licaminlimab was undetectable in most patients; the maximum concentration observed was 8.47 ng/mL. Conclusion: Topical ocular licaminlimab demonstrated statistically significant improvement in global ocular discomfort score compared to Vehicle in patients with severe DED, with good tolerability, no increase in IOP, and minimal systemic drug exposure.

Repository Corticotropin Injection (Acthar® Gel) for Refractory Severe Noninfectious Keratitis: Efficacy and Safety from a Phase 4, Multicenter, Open-Label Study.

INTRODUCTION: Noninfectious keratitis is a painful corneal inflammation treated with topical cyclosporine and other immunosuppressants. Additional treatment options are needed for keratitis that does not improve with standard therapies. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) is approved to treat severe acute and chronic allergic and inflammatory processes involving the eye and its adnexa, including keratitis. This phase 4, multicenter, open-label study assessed the efficacy and safety of RCI for refractory severe noninfectious keratitis. METHODS: Patients were ≥ 18 years old with persistent severe keratitis despite treatment with topical immunosuppressants. Patients received 80 U of RCI subcutaneously twice weekly for 12 weeks followed by a 4-week taper. Assessments included all domains of the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) Questionnaire, Ocular Discomfort and 4-Symptom Questionnaire, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Corneal fluorescein and conjunctival lissamine green staining, Conjunctival Redness Scale, tear production (Schirmer's test), visual acuity, slit lamp examination, and intraocular pressure were also assessed. Safety was evaluated via treatment-emergent adverse events. Analyses were performed using the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (patients who received ≥ 1 dose of RCI and contributed any post-baseline efficacy data). RESULTS: In the mITT population (N = 35), 50.0% (95% confidence interval, 33.2% to 66.8%) of patients experienced clinically important improvements in the symptom bother domain of the IDEEL Questionnaire at week 12 of RCI therapy. All domains of the IDEEL and the Ocular Discomfort and 4-Symptom Questionnaire showed improvements at week 12 of RCI treatment. The most pronounced improvements in the VAS at week 12 were for eye dryness and eye discomfort. Corneal staining, conjunctival staining, conjunctival redness, and tear production showed early improvements that were sustained through week 12. No new safety signals for RCI were identified. CONCLUSIONS: RCI is safe and effective for refractory severe noninfectious keratitis that has not improved with other approved therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04169061.

A Water-free 0.1% Cyclosporine A Solution for Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: Results of the Randomized Phase 2B/3 ESSENCE Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a topical water-free cyclosporine A formulation (CyclASol 0.1% ophthalmic solution) in comparison with vehicle for the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). METHODS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, confirmatory, vehicle-controlled clinical study. After a 2-week run-in period, eligible DED patients were randomized 1:1 to either CyclASol 0.1% or vehicle twice daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in total corneal fluorescein staining (National Eye Institute scale), and the second hierarchical primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the Ocular Surface Disease Index score, both at 4 weeks. Secondary efficacy and safety assessments included conjunctival lissamine green staining (Oxford scale), visual analog scales for dry eye symptoms, and adverse event. RESULTS: Treatment with CyclASol 0.1% was superior to vehicle in the primary endpoint: total corneal fluorescein staining at week 4 (Δ -0.8; 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to -0.4; P = 0.0002, analysis of covariance). This difference had already reached statistical significance after 2 weeks and was maintained throughout the study. The study did not statistically meet its second hierarchically tested primary endpoint: Ocular Surface Disease Index score (P = 0.2634). However, CyclASol 0.1% treatment showed statistically significant improvement compared with that of vehicle in the eye dryness score at week 4 (Δ -4.783; 95% confidence interval, -9.129 to -0.438; P = 0.0311). CONCLUSIONS: CyclASol 0.1% was effective in treating signs and symptoms of DED. It significantly reduced corneal and conjunctival staining and improved ocular dryness compared with vehicle. CyclASol 0.1% was safe and showed excellent tolerability.

Plasma Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Dexamethasone Following Administration of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Healthy Adults.

PURPOSE: Intracanalicular dexamethasone insert is a resorbable sustained-release polyethylene glycol-based hydrogel insert delivering a 0.4 mg tapered dose of dexamethasone for up to 30 days to the ocular surface. It is FDA-approved for treating inflammation and pain after ocular surgery. It has also been studied for ocular surface diseases such as allergic conjunctivitis. This study assessed the plasma pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of dexamethasone following intracanalicular insertion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study subjects (N=16) were healthy adults. A dexamethasone insert was unilaterally placed into the canaliculus, and blood samples were obtained for analysis 1 hour prior to insertion and 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24 hours and 4, 8, 15, 22 and 29 days after insertion. Safety analyses included slit lamp and dilated fundus examinations, best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Plasma results were below the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) at all time points in five subjects (31.3%). Among subjects with quantifiable plasma concentrations, Cmax was <1 ng/mL (range, 0.05 to 0.81 ng/mL), AUC0-last ranged from 0.13 to 7.18 h∙ng/mL, and Tmax ranged from 4.0 to 163.0 hours. Mean (SD) IOP increased from 16.3 (1.4) mmHg at baseline to 19.3 (3.2) at Day 22 but returned to baseline after treatment. No changes occurred in dilated fundus, punctum, or visual acuity examinations. CONCLUSION: The dexamethasone 0.4 mg insert results in minimal systemic exposure following intracanalicular administration.

Phase 3 Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Patients With Allergic Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone intracanalicular ocular insert for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to receive a dexamethasone insert or a placebo insert in both eyes and were evaluated using a modified version of the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. After inserts were placed in office, a series of 4 closely spaced post-insertion CACs were conducted at weeks 1, 2, and 4 across approximately 30 days. Primary efficacy endpoints, assessed at week-1 CAC-day 8, were reported by subjects of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post CAC and investigator-evaluated conjunctival redness at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post CAC. RESULTS: For the primary endpoints, dexamethasone inserts showed statistically significantly lower mean ocular itching scores than placebo at all time points (P <.001), with differences favoring dexamethasone inserts over placebo (0.86, 0.98, and 0.96 units at 3, 5, and 7 minutes, respectively) and statistically significantly lower conjunctival redness scores at 20 minutes (P <.05) but not at 7 or 15 minutes (P ≥.05). Results also showed statistically significantly less itching and conjunctival redness at 31 and 29 of 33 other time points, respectively (P <.05). There were no serious adverse events; 1 subject had elevated intraocular pressure in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Data presented in this study demonstrate the potential for a single, physician-administered dexamethasone intracanalicular insert to provide relief of ocular itching for up to 4 weeks in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Low-dose brimonidine for relief of ocular redness: integrated analysis of four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to provide an integrated analysis of safety and efficacy data for brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.025 per cent (low-dose; Bausch & Lomb Incorporated), a topical vasoconstrictor for relief of ocular redness. METHODS: Integrated efficacy data from two randomised, double-masked, vehicle-controlled studies in subjects with ocular redness as well as safety data from the two efficacy studies, a vehicle-controlled safety study, and a pharmacokinetic study were analysed. Efficacy outcomes analysed included investigator-assessed ocular redness (scale, 0-4) before treatment instillation and at five to 240 minutes post-instillation on Day 1, at five minutes post-instillation on Days 15 and 29, and one week after treatment discontinuation (Day 36), and redness self-assessed by subjects recorded daily in diaries. Safety assessments included adverse events, ophthalmic examinations, and rebound redness upon treatment discontinuation. Drop comfort (scale, 0-10) was a tolerability measure. RESULTS: The efficacy population included 117 subjects (brimonidine, n = 78; vehicle, n = 39). The safety population included 635 subjects (brimonidine, n = 426; vehicle, n = 209). Investigator-assessed ocular redness was significantly lower with brimonidine versus vehicle at all post-instillation time points on Day 1 (mean change from pre-instillation of -1.4 units for brimonidine and -0.2 units for vehicle; p < 0.0001). Subject-assessed ocular redness was also significantly lower with brimonidine versus vehicle (mean treatment difference in average daily ratings of -0.9; p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis through Day 29 and rebound redness was rare. Incidence of ocular adverse events was low, the most common being reduced visual acuity (brimonidine, 4.0 per cent; vehicle, 4.3 per cent) and conjunctival hyperaemia (2.6 and 2.9 per cent, respectively). Both brimonidine and vehicle were rated as very comfortable (mean post-instillation scores, 0.4-0.5). CONCLUSION: In this integrated analysis, low-dose brimonidine significantly reduced ocular redness with no tachyphylaxis, and minimal rebound redness, and was generally safe and well tolerated.

Brimonidine Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% for Reduction of Ocular Redness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

SIGNIFICANCE: The α2-adrenergic receptor agonist brimonidine has been reported to induce conjunctival blanching in cataract, strabismus, laser refractive, and filtration procedures. Clinicians are often faced with red eyes with no apparent underlying pathology. Low-dose brimonidine reduced ocular redness in such subjects with efficacy maintained over 1 month and negligible rebound redness. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.025% for the treatment of ocular redness. METHODS: In this single-center, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trial, adult subjects with baseline redness of more than 1 unit in both eyes (0- to 4-unit scale) were randomized 2:1 to brimonidine 0.025% or vehicle. A single dose was administered in-office (day 1); thereafter subjects instilled treatment four times a day for 4 weeks, with clinic visits on days 15, 29, and 36 (7 days post-treatment). Efficacy end points included investigator-evaluated redness 5 to 240 minutes post-instillation on day 1 (primary); investigator-evaluated change from baseline 1, 360, and 480 minutes post-instillation on day 1, and 1 and 5 minutes post-instillation on days 15 and 29; total clearance of redness, and subject-assessed redness. Safety/tolerability measures included adverse events, rebound redness, and drop comfort. RESULTS: Sixty subjects were randomized (n = 40 brimonidine, n = 20 vehicle). Investigator-assessed redness was lower with brimonidine versus vehicle over the 5- to 240-minute post-instillation period (mean [SE], 0.62 [0.076] vs. 1.49 [0.108]; P < .0001) and at each time point within that period (P < .0001). At 1, 360, and 480 minutes post-instillation, respectively, the mean differences (95% confidence interval) between treatments were -0.73 (-1.05 to -0.41), -0.57 (-0.84 to -0.29), and -0.39 (-0.67 to -0.10), respectively. No tachyphylaxis was evident with brimonidine on days 15 and 29, and minimal rebound redness was observed following discontinuation. Adverse events were infrequent, and brimonidine was rated as very comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: Brimonidine 0.025% appeared safe and effective for reduction of ocular redness, with an 8-hour duration of action, no evidence of tachyphylaxis, and negligible rebound redness.

Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Netarsudil to Timolol in Patients With Elevated Intraocular Pressure: Rho Kinase Elevated IOP Treatment Trial 1 and 2 (ROCKET-1 and ROCKET-2).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and ocular and systemic safety of netarsudil 0.02% ophthalmic solution, a rho-kinase inhibitor and norepinephrine transporter inhibitor, in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized noninferiority clinical trials: Rho Kinase Elevated IOP Treatment Trial 1 and 2 (ROCKET-1 and ROCKET-2). METHODS: After a washout of all pre-study ocular hypotensive medications, eligible patients were randomized to receive netarsudil 0.02% once daily (q.d.), timolol 0.5% twice a day (b.i.d.), and (ROCKET-2 only) netarsudil 0.02% b.i.d. Data through 3 months from both studies are provided in this report. RESULTS: Enrolled into the 2 studies were 1167 patients. Treatment with netarsudil q.d. produced clinically and statistically significant reductions from baseline intraocular pressure (P < .001), and was noninferior to timolol in the per-protocol population with maximum baseline IOP < 25 mm Hg in both studies (ROCKET-2, primary outcome measure and population, ROCKET-1, post hoc outcome measure). Netarsudil b.i.d. was also noninferior to timolol (ROCKET-2). The most frequent adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia, the incidence of which ranged from 50% (126/251, ROCKET-2) to 53% (108/203, ROCKET-1) for netarsudil q.d., 59% (149/253, ROCKET-2) for netarsudil b.i.d., and 8% (17/208, ROCKET-1) to 11% (27/251, ROCKET-2) for timolol (P < .0001 for netarsudil vs timolol). CONCLUSIONS: In 2 large, randomized, double-masked trials reported here, once-daily dosing of netarsudil 0.02% was found to be effective and well tolerated for the treatment of patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma. The novel pharmacology and aqueous humor dynamic effects of this molecule suggest it may be a useful addition to the armamentarium of ocular hypotensive medications.

Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: Two individual phase 3 conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies of similar design have assessed the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.77% for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the integrated efficacy and safety of olopatadine HCl 0.77% from a larger dataset by pooling data from the two individual CAC studies. METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active- and vehicle-controlled CAC studies. The primary comparison was on ocular itching scores between olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus vehicle (at onset and 24 hours) and olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% (at 24 hours). Additional end points included conjunctival redness, total redness, and proportion of itching responders at onset and 24-hour duration of CAC. For both primary and secondary analysis, mixed model repeated measures analysis was used, except for proportion of ocular itching responders. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using a two-sample t-test. RESULTS: This analysis included 448 patients. Olopatadine HCl 0.77% was superior to vehicle (P<0.0001) at onset and 24-hour duration of action (difference in means: -1.14 to -1.52) and to olopatadine 0.2% (P=0.0009) at 24-hour duration of action in relieving ocular itch. Additionally, olopatadine HCl 0.77% substantially reduced conjunctival redness and total redness over vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% at onset and 24-hour duration of action. At 24 hours CAC, there were a higher proportion of itching responders with olopatadine HCl 0.77% compared to vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% (difference in proportion of responders: 43.17%, P<0.0001, and 17.25%, P=0.0012, respectively). No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms the findings from the individual studies. The rapid onset and prolonged duration of action (for 24 hours) of olopatadine HCl 0.77% supports once-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Vehicle-Controlled, Phase 2 Clinical Trial of a Sustained-Release Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in a Chronic Allergen Challenge Model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a sustained-release dexamethasone intracanalicular insert (Dextenza™) in a model of allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, Phase 2 study. Subjects had to have a positive conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) reaction to allergen (bilateral +2 itching and redness on 5-point, 0-4 scales) at Visit 1, and for 2 of 3 time points on subsequent visits. Subjects who met entry criteria were randomized to receive Dextenza or PV (vehicle insert). Challenges occurred over 42 days, with efficacy assessed at 14 (primary endpoint visit), 28, and 40 days postinsertion. Outcome measures included the evaluation of ocular itching, redness, tearing, chemosis, eyelid swelling, rhinorrhea, and congestion. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects completed the study in the Dextenza group and 31 in the vehicle group. At 14 days postinsertion, Dextenza was statistically superior to PV, with least square mean differences for ocular itching of -0.76, -0.97, and -0.87 at 3, 5, and 7 min post-CAC, and for conjunctival redness of -0.46, -0.66, and -0.68 at 7, 15, and 20 min post-CAC. Clinical significance, defined as a 1-U decrease from PV, was not met for primary efficacy. Secondary endpoints, including number of subjects reporting itching and conjunctival redness, indicated superior performance of Dextenza compared with vehicle. Eleven Dextenza-treated (35.5%) and 10 vehicle-treated (30.3%) subjects each experienced a single adverse event. CONCLUSION: This Phase 2 study demonstrated preliminary efficacy and safety data of Dextenza for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Phase 3 Randomized Double-Masked Study of Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily 0.77% Olopatadine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution in Subjects With Allergic Conjunctivitis Using the Conjunctival Allergen Challenge Model.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel once-daily 0.77% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: In this 5-week, multicenter, double-masked, phase 3, randomized trial, subjects aged ≥18 years with a history of AC and a confirmed positive bilateral CAC response were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive olopatadine 0.77%, olopatadine 0.2%, olopatadine 0.1%, or vehicle, respectively, following a single topical dose in each eye. The primary objective was superiority of olopatadine 0.77% over all comparators on ocular itching according to a 0 to 4 scale (0 = none and 4 = incapacitating itch) at 24-hour duration of action and over vehicle only at the onset of action (3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC for both). RESULTS: In total, 345 subjects were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior to the vehicle at alleviating ocular itching at all post-CAC time points at the onset of action and at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.9 to -1.5; P < 0.0001). Superiority in relieving ocular itching was also demonstrated for olopatadine 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% and 0.1% at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.3 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Additionally, olopatadine 0.77% significantly improved conjunctival redness and total redness compared with all comparators at the onset of action (differences in means: -0.3 to -0.6 and -0.8 to -2.0, respectively; both P < 0.05). No safety concerns for olopatadine 0.77% were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine 0.77% demonstrated a rapid onset and prolonged duration of action. It was superior to all comparators in alleviating AC-associated ocular itching with a favorable safety profile.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01743027.

Effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on ocular itch associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis: a pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis represent the majority of cases of ocular allergy. This analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% in preventing ocular itching associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Pooled data from two double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis were analyzed. Subjects randomized to receive treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% or placebo were challenged with seasonal (grass, ragweed, trees) or perennial (cat dander, cat hair, dog dander, dust mites, cockroach) allergens, 16 hours after treatment instillation. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 minutes post-CAC. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 minutes post-CAC. The proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score =0), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 189 subjects enrolled in the two studies were treated with alcaftadine or placebo. Overall, 129 subjects were challenged with seasonal allergens and 60 subjects were challenged with perennial allergens. Alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a statistically significant reduction in mean itch score at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC compared with placebo in subjects challenged with seasonal allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points) and those challenged with perennial allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points). A higher percentage of subjects treated with alcaftadine compared with placebo achieved minimal itch (P≤0.001 versus placebo at all time points) and zero itch (P<0.05 at all time points except 7 minutes for perennial) when challenged with either seasonal or perennial allergens. No treatment-related or serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and demonstrated effective relief of ocular itching in subjects challenged with allergens classic for triggering either seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated. METHODS: Pooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score<1) and zero itch (itch score=0) was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P=0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P=0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P<0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P=0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally well tolerated.

Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease: results of the OPUS-1 phase 3 study.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% compared with placebo in subjects with dry eye disease. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel arm, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 588 adult subjects with dry eye disease. METHODS: Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive topically administered lifitegrast (5.0%) or placebo (vehicle) twice daily for 84 days after a 14-day open-label placebo run-in period. After enrollment (day 0), subjects were evaluated at days 14, 42, and 84. Key objective (fluorescein and lissamine staining scores [Ora scales]) and subjective (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI], 7-item visual analog scale, and ocular discomfort score [Ora scale]) measures were assessed at all visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective efficacy measure (sign) was mean change from baseline inferior corneal staining score (ICSS) at day 84. The co-primary subjective efficacy measure (symptom) was the mean change from baseline in the visual-related function subscale score of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (VR-OSDI). Supportive measures included corneal fluorescein scores (superior, central, total region) and conjunctival lissamine scores (nasal, temporal, total region) and symptom scores at day 84. RESULTS: The study met the primary objective efficacy ICSS end point in demonstrating superiority of lifitegrast compared with placebo (P = 0.0007). Lifitegrast significantly reduced corneal fluorescein staining (superior, P = 0.0392; total cornea, P = 0.0148) and conjunctival lissamine staining (nasal, P = 0.0039; total conjunctiva, P = 0.0086) at day 84 versus placebo. Significant (P < 0.05) improvements in nasal and total lissamine scores were observed at day 14 and maintained through day 84. The study did not meet the co-primary subjective VR-OSDI measure (P = 0.7894). However, significant improvements were observed at day 84 in ocular discomfort (P = 0.0273) and eye dryness (P = 0.0291), the most common and severe symptoms reported at baseline in both groups. There were no unanticipated or serious ocular adverse events (AEs). The most frequent reported ocular AEs were transient intermittent instillation site symptoms (irritation, discomfort) primarily on the initial lifitegrast dose at day 0. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% significantly reduced corneal fluorescein and conjunctival lissamine staining and improved symptoms of ocular discomfort and eye dryness compared with placebo when administered twice daily over 84 days.

A phase 2 randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study of a novel integrin antagonist (SAR 1118) for the treatment of dry eye.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of an investigational integrin antagonist (SAR 1118) ophthalmic solution compared to placebo (vehicle) in subjects with dry eye disease. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 230 dry eye subjects selected with use of a controlled adverse environment were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive SAR 1118 (0.1%, 1.0%, 5.0%) or placebo eye drops twice daily for 84 days. Principal eligibility criteria included exacerbation in corneal staining and ocular symptoms with controlled adverse environment exposure, no active lid margin disease, and Schirmer test (mm/5 min) >1 and <10. Ocular signs and symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index, OSDI) were assessed at day 14, 42, and 84. No supplemental artificial tears were allowed. Primary outcome measure was inferior corneal staining score at day 84. RESULTS: A dose response for the corneal staining score (P = .0566) was observed for SAR 1118 at day 84 compared to placebo. Mean change from baseline to day 84 showed significant improvements (P < .05) in corneal staining score, total OSDI, and visual-related function OSDI scores for SAR 1118 compared to placebo; improvements in tear production and symptoms were observed as early as day 14 (P < .05). Adverse events were mild and transient in nature with no serious ocular adverse events. SAR 1118 5.0% showed increased instillation site adverse events relative to placebo but were limited to the initial dose. CONCLUSION: SAR 1118 demonstrated improvements in signs and symptoms of dry eye compared to placebo and appears safe when administered over 84 days.