Ozanimod as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, is under investigation for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ozanimod as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. In the 10-week induction period, patients in cohort 1 were assigned to receive oral ozanimod hydrochloride at a dose of 1 mg (equivalent to 0.92 mg of ozanimod) or placebo once daily in a double-blind manner, and patients in cohort 2 received open-label ozanimod at the same daily dose. At 10 weeks, patients with a clinical response to ozanimod in either cohort underwent randomization again to receive double-blind ozanimod or placebo for the maintenance period (through week 52). The primary end point for both periods was the percentage of patients with clinical remission, as assessed with the three-component Mayo score. Key secondary clinical, endoscopic, and histologic end points were evaluated with the use of ranked, hierarchical testing. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In the induction period, 645 patients were included in cohort 1 and 367 in cohort 2; a total of 457 patients were included in the maintenance period. The incidence of clinical remission was significantly higher among patients who received ozanimod than among those who received placebo during both induction (18.4% vs. 6.0%, P<0.001) and maintenance (37.0% vs. 18.5% [among patients with a response at week 10], P<0.001). The incidence of clinical response was also significantly higher with ozanimod than with placebo during induction (47.8% vs. 25.9%, P<0.001) and maintenance (60.0% vs. 41.0%, P<0.001). All other key secondary end points were significantly improved with ozanimod as compared with placebo in both periods. The incidence of infection (of any severity) with ozanimod was similar to that with placebo during induction and higher than that with placebo during maintenance. Serious infection occurred in less than 2% of the patients in each group during the 52-week trial. Elevated liver aminotransferase levels were more common with ozanimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ozanimod was more effective than placebo as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; True North ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02435992.).

Long-term Efficacy and Tolerability of RPC4046 in an Open-Label Extension Trial of Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The short-term efficacy of RPC4046, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-13, has been shown in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of RPC4046 in an open-label, long-term extension (LTE) study in adults with EoE. METHODS: We analyzed data from 66 patients who completed the 16-week, double-blind, induction portion of a phase 2 study of RPC4046 (180 mg or 360 mg/wk) vs placebo and then completed a 52-week LTE, receiving open-label RPC4046 360 mg/wk. The study was conducted at 28 centers in 3 countries; patients were enrolled between September 2014 and January 2017. Outcomes were stratified by double-blind dose group and included esophageal eosinophil counts, EoE endoscopic reference score, EoE histologic scoring system score, symptom-based EoE activity index score, and safety. RESULTS: By week 12 of the LTE, esophageal eosinophil mean and peak counts, total EoE endoscopic reference scores, and EoE histologic scoring system grade and stage scores did not differ considerably between patients who originally received placebo vs RPC4046. Most patients maintained responses through week 52. Symptom remission (symptom-based EoE activity index score, ≤20) increased from 14% at LTE entry to 67% at LTE week 52 in placebo‒RPC4046 patients and from 30% to 54% in RPC4046‒RPC4046 (either dose) patients. Of the 28 patients who did not have a histologic response to RPC4046 during the double-blind induction phase, 10 patients (36%) achieved response during the LTE. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (21%) and nasopharyngitis (14%). CONCLUSIONS: One year of treatment with RPC4046 is generally well tolerated and results in continued improvement and/or maintenance of endoscopic, histologic, and clinical measures of EoE disease activity relative to baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02098473.

Ozanimod induction therapy for patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease: a single-arm, phase 2, prospective observer-blinded endpoint study.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment of Crohn's disease has improved with development of tumour necrosis factor antagonists, fewer than 50% of patients have sustained benefit. Durable maintenance therapy with orally administered alternative treatments remains an unmet need. We aimed to evaluate the effects of ozanimod, an oral agent selectively targeting sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5, on endoscopic disease activity in Crohn's disease. METHODS: STEPSTONE was a phase 2, uncontrolled, multicentre trial in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease recruited at 28 hospital and community research centres in Canada, the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. All patients began treatment with a 7-day dose escalation (4 days on ozanimod 0·25 mg daily followed by 3 days at 0·5 mg daily). Patients then received ozanimod 1·0 mg oral capsule daily for a further 11 weeks, for a 12-week induction period, followed by a 100-week extension. The primary endpoint was change in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) from baseline to week 12, as determined by a blinded central reader. Data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02531113 and EudraCT, number 2015-002025-19, and is completed. FINDINGS: 69 patients were enrolled between Nov 17, 2015, and Aug 18, 2016. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in SES-CD was -2·2 (SD 6·0); 16 (23·2%, 95% CI 13·9-34·9) patients experienced endoscopic response. A reduction from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score also was observed (mean change -130·4 [SD 103·9]). Clinical remission (CDAI <150 points) was shown in 27 (39·1%, 95% CI 27·6-51·6) patients and response (CDAI decrease from baseline ≥100) in 39 (56·5%, 95% CI 44·0-68·4) of patients. The mean change from baseline in two-item patient-reported outcome (PRO2, stool frequency, abdominal pain scores) score was -66·1 (SD 65·4). Mean change from baseline in Geboes Histology Activity Score (GHAS) was -5·9 (SD 11·0) and in Robart's Histopathology Index (RHI) -10·6 (25·1). Adverse events were most frequently those attributed to Crohn's disease, most commonly Crohn's disease (flare) in 18 (26%) patients. The most commonly reported serious treatment-related adverse events were Crohn's disease (six [9%]) and abdominal abscess (two [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Endoscopic, histological, and clinical improvements were seen within 12 weeks of initiating ozanimod therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials have been initiated. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

A phase I, dose-escalation study of PF-06650808, an anti-Notch3 antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with breast cancer and other advanced solid tumors.

Background PF-06650808 is a novel anti-Notch3 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) able to deliver an auristatin-based cytotoxic payload to target cells. In this first-in-human, dose-finding, phase I study (NCT02129205), we investigated safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and preliminary antitumor activity of single-agent PF-06650808 in 40 patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) and other solid tumors unselected for Notch3 expression. Primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). PF-06650808 was administered intravenously every 3 weeks at a starting dose of 0.2 mg/kg, escalated up to 6.4 mg/kg following the modified continual reassessment method. An additional dose level, 2.0 mg/kg, was evaluated in patients with advanced, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC. Results The majority of patients had advanced BC (60%) and almost all (90%) had received ≥3 prior lines of anticancer therapy. Treatment with PF-06650808 was generally well tolerated at dose levels ≤2.0 mg/kg with no DLTs. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was estimated to be 2.4 mg/kg. The most common treatment-related AEs in all patients were fatigue (40.0%), decreased appetite (37.5%), nausea (35.0%), alopecia (32.5%), abdominal pain (25.0%), pruritus (25.0%), and vomiting (25.0%). Five patients achieved a partial response (PR), including 2 unconfirmed PRs; 4 of the responders had ER+/PR+/HER2- BC. Sixteen (51.6%) patients achieved stable disease, including 8 (57.1%) of 14 patients with ER+ BC. Tumor samples from all responders tested positive for NOTCH3 expression in a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Conclusions The anti-Notch3 ADC PF-06650808 has demonstrated a manageable safety profile and early signs of antitumor activity in patients with advanced BC.

A comparative clinical study of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab reference product (Humira®) in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, randomized, 78-week study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, versus adalimumab reference product (Humira®) sourced from the EU (adalimumab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) (10-25 mg/week). We report results for the first 26 weeks of treatment. METHODS: Patients with active RA (N = 597) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU, while continuing with MTX treatment. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ACR20 difference between the two arms was entirely contained within the symmetric equivalence margin (±14%). Additionally, a two-sided 90% CI was calculated by using an asymmetric equivalence margin (-12%, 15%). Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 26 included ACR20/50/70, change from baseline Disease Activity Score based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [DAS28-4(CRP)], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, DAS28-4(CRP) of less than 2.6, and ACR/EULAR remission. QuantiFERON-TB testing was performed at screening and week 26. RESULTS: Patients (78.7% of whom were female and whose mean age was 52.5 years) had a mean baseline RA duration of 6.8 years. The mean baseline DAS28-4(CRP) values were 5.9 (PF-06410293) and 6.1 (adalimumab-EU). The observed week-12 ACR20 values were 68.7% (PF-06410293) and 72.7% (adalimumab-EU) in the intention-to-treat population. With non-responder imputation, the treatment difference in week-12 ACR20 was -2.98% and corresponding CIs-95% CI (-10.38%, 4.44%) and 90% CI (-9.25%, 3.28%)-were entirely contained within the equivalence margins (symmetric and asymmetric, respectively). The secondary efficacy endpoints were similar between arms. Over 26 weeks, injection-site reactions occurred in 1.7% versus 2.0%, hypersensitivity events in 4.4% versus 8.4%, pneumonia in 0.7% versus 2.0%, and opportunistic infections in 2.4% versus 1.7% in the PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU arms, respectively. One death due to myocardial infarction occurred (adalimumab-EU arm). Rates of anti-drug antibody incidence were 44.4% (PF-06410293) and 50.5% (adalimumab-EU). CONCLUSIONS: The study results demonstrate that efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar during the first 26 weeks of treatment in patients with active RA on background MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02480153 . First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29 . Start date: October 27, 2014.

A randomized controlled trial comparing PF-06438179/GP1111 (an infliximab biosimilar) and infliximab reference product for treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, active-controlled, randomized, multinational study evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (IxifiTM/Zessly®), an infliximab biosimilar, vs infliximab (Remicade®) reference product sourced from the European Union (infliximab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. This paper reports results from the initial 30-week treatment period. METHODS: Patients (N = 650) were stratified by geographic region and randomized 1:1 to PF-06438179/GP1111 or infliximab-EU (3 mg/kg intravenous at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks). Dose escalation to 5 mg/kg was allowed starting at week 14 for patients with inadequate RA response. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥ 20% clinical improvement (ACR20) response at week 14. Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was within the symmetric equivalence margin of ± 13.5%. Statistical analysis was also performed with a two-sided 90% CI using an asymmetric equivalence margin (- 12.0%, 15.0%). RESULTS: Patients (80.3% female; 79.4% seropositive) had a mean RA duration of 6.9 years, and mean baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, four components based on C-reactive protein was 6.0 in both arms. Week 14 ACR20 in the intention-to-treat population was 62.7% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 64.1% for infliximab-EU. Week 14 ACR20 using nonresponder imputation was 61.1% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 63.5% for infliximab-EU, and the 95% (- 9.92%, 5.11%) and 90% (- 8.75%, 4.02%) CIs for the treatment difference (- 2.39%) were entirely contained within the prespecified symmetric and asymmetric equivalence margins, respectively. No differences were observed between arms for secondary efficacy endpoints. Overall postdose antidrug antibody (ADA) rates through week 30 were 48.6% and 51.2% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU, respectively. Efficacy and immunogenicity were similar between treatments for patients with dose escalation (at or after week 14), as well as between treatments for patients without dose escalation. Safety profiles of PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU were similar, with no clinically meaningful differences observed between arms, including after ADA development. Serum drug concentrations were similar between arms at each time point during the initial 30-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and PK with or without dose escalation in patients with moderate to severe active RA on background methotrexate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02222493 . Registered on 21 August 2014. EudraCT, 2013-004148-49 . Registered on 14 July 2014.

A randomized study comparing the pharmacokinetics of the potential biosimilar PF-06438179/GP1111 with Remicade® (infliximab) in healthy subjects (REFLECTIONS B537-01).

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of PF-06438179/GP1111, a potential biosimilar to Remicade®, to Remicade® sourced from European Union (infliximab-EU) and United States (infliximab-US), and of infliximab-EU to infliximab-US. METHODS: In this phase I, parallel-group, three-arm trial, healthy adult subjects were randomized to receive a single 10-mg/kg intravenous infusion of PF-06438179/GP1111, infliximab-EU, or infliximab-US. PK, and safety and immunogenicity evaluations were performed over 8 and 12 weeks, respectively. PK similarity was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the test-to-reference ratios for PK parameters, Cmax, AUCT, and AUCinf, were within the 80.00-125.00% pre-specified equivalence window. RESULTS: Of 151 subjects randomized, 146 received study treatment; 130 were eligible for PK similarity assessment. Serum concentration-time profiles were similar across the three treatments. The 90% CIs for test-to-reference ratios for Cmax, AUCT, and AUCinf were within 80.00-125.00% for comparison of PF-06438179/GP1111 to infliximab-EU and infliximab-US, and of infliximab-EU to infliximab-US. Similar numbers of subjects across treatment groups experienced adverse events. Anti-drug and neutralizing antibody profiles were largely similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated PK similarity of PF-06438179/GP1111 to infliximab-EU and infliximab-US, and of infliximab-EU to infliximab-US. All three products displayed comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CT.gov identifier NCT01844804.

A phase 1, dose-escalation study of PF-06664178, an anti-Trop-2/Aur0101 antibody-drug conjugate in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Purpose and Methods Trop-2 is a glycoprotein over-expressed in many solid tumors but at low levels in normal human tissue, providing a potential therapeutic target. We conducted a phase 1 dose-finding study of PF-06664178, an antibody-drug conjugate that targets Trop-2 for the selective delivery of the cytotoxic payload Aur0101. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives included further characterization of the safety profile, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity. Eligible patients were enrolled and received multiple escalating doses of PF-06664178 in an open-label and unblinded manner based on a modified continual reassessment method. Results Thirty-one patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were treated with escalating doses of PF-06664178 given intravenously every 21 days. Doses explored ranged from 0.15 mg/kg to 4.8 mg/kg. Seven patients experienced at least one dose limiting toxicity (DLT), either neutropenia or rash. Doses of 3.60 mg/kg, 4.2 mg/kg and 4.8 mg/kg were considered intolerable due to DLTs in skin rash, mucosa and neutropenia. Best overall response was stable disease in 11 patients (37.9%). None of the patients had a partial or complete response. Systemic exposure of PF-06664178 increased in a dose-related manner. Serum concentrations of free Aur0101 were substantially lower than those of PF-06664178 and total antibody. No correlation of Trop-2 expression and objective response was observed, although Trop-2 overexpression was not required for study entry. The intermediate dose of 2.4 mg/kg appeared to be the highest tolerated dose, but this was not fully explored as the study was terminated early due to excess toxicity. Conclusion PF-06664178 showed toxicity at high dose levels with modest antitumor activity. Neutropenia, skin rash and mucosal inflammation were dose limiting toxicities. Findings from this study may potentially aid in future antibody drug conjugate design and trials.

Multiplicity adjustments in testing for bioequivalence.

Bioequivalence of two drugs is usually demonstrated by rejecting two one-sided null hypotheses using the two one-sided tests for pharmacokinetic parameters: area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax). By virtue of the intersection-union test, there is no need for multiplicity adjustment in testing the two one-sided null hypotheses within each parameter. However, the decision rule for bioequivalence often requires equivalence to be achieved simultaneously on both parameters that contain four one-sided null hypotheses together; without adjusting for multiplicity, the family wise error rate (FWER) could fail to be controlled at the nominal type-I error rate α. The multiplicity issue for bioequivalence in this regard is scarcely discussed in the literature. To address this issue, we propose two approaches including a closed test procedure that controls FWER for the simultaneous AUC and Cmax bioequivalence and requires no adjustment of the type-I error, and an alpha-adaptive sequential testing (AAST) that controls FWER by pre-specifying the significance level on AUC (α1) and obtaining it for Cmax (α2) adaptively after testing of AUC. While both methods control FWER, the closed test requires testing of eight intersection null hypotheses each at α, and AAST is at times accomplished through a slight deduction in α1 and no deduction in α2 relative to α. The latter considers equivalence reached in AUC a higher importance than that in Cmax. Illustrated with published data, the two approaches, although operate differently, can lead to the same substantive conclusion and are better than a traditional method like Bonferroni adjustment.

Inference of bioequivalence for log-normal distributed data with unspecified variances.

Two drugs are bioequivalent if the ratio of a pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter of two products falls within equivalence margins. The distribution of PK parameters is often assumed to be log-normal, therefore bioequivalence (BE) is usually assessed on the difference of logarithmically transformed PK parameters (δ). In the presence of unspecified variances, test procedures such as two one-sided tests (TOST) use sample estimates for those variances; Bayesian models integrate them out in the posterior distribution. These methods limit our knowledge on the extent that inference about BE is affected by the variability of PK parameters. In this paper, we propose a likelihood approach that retains the unspecified variances in the model and partitions the entire likelihood function into two components: F-statistic function for variances and t-statistic function for δ. Demonstrated with published real-life data, the proposed method not only produces results that are same as TOST and comparable with Bayesian method but also helps identify ranges of variances, which could make the determination of BE more achievable. Our findings manifest the advantages of the proposed method in making inference about the extent that BE is affected by the unspecified variances, which cannot be accomplished either by TOST or Bayesian method.

Safety and clinical activity of a combination therapy comprising two antibody-based targeting agents for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: results of a phase I/II study evaluating the immunoconjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin with rituximab.

PURPOSE: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) is an antibody-targeted chemotherapy agent composed of a humanized anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, a potent cytotoxic agent. We performed a phase I/II study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of INO plus rituximab (R-INO) for treatment of relapsed/refractory CD20(+)/CD22(+) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A dose-escalation phase to determine the MTD of R-INO was followed by an expanded cohort to further evaluate the efficacy and safety at the MTD. Patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL), relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), or refractory aggressive NHL received R-INO every 4 weeks for up to eight cycles. RESULTS: In all, 118 patients received one or more cycles of R-INO (median, four cycles). Most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (31%) and neutropenia (22%). Common low-grade toxicities included hyperbilirubinemia (25%) and increased AST (36%). The MTD of INO in combination with rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) was confirmed to be the same as that for single-agent INO (1.8 mg/m(2)). Treatment at the MTD yielded objective response rates of 87%, 74%, and 20% for relapsed FL (n = 39), relapsed DLBCL (n = 42), and refractory aggressive NHL (n = 30), respectively. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 68% (median, not reached) for FL and 42% (median, 17.1 months) for relapsed DLBCL. CONCLUSION: R-INO demonstrated high response rates and long PFS in patients with relapsed FL or DLBCL. This and the manageable toxicity profile suggest that R-INO may be a promising option for CD20(+)/CD22(+) B-cell NHL.

Intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination compared with brinzolamide 1% and timolol 0.5%.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination with brinzolamide 1% or timolol 0.5% alone in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, parallel group, multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred twenty-three patients were randomized to the study treatments. METHODS: Patients with OAG or OHT were recruited to the study. Qualifying eyes had IOPs of 24 to 36 mmHg at 8 am and 21 to 36 mmHg at 10 am on 2 eligibility visits after an appropriate washout period from previous treatment. Patients were assigned randomly to either brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5%, brinzolamide 1% (Azopt; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX), or timolol 0.5%, dosed twice daily and were followed up while receiving therapy for 6 months. At selected sites, additional IOP measurements were performed at 12 pm, 4 pm, and 8 pm during the 2 eligibility visits, at month 3, and at month 6. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean IOP. RESULTS: Brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% produced statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline ranging from 8.0 to 8.7 mmHg, which were statistically and clinically superior to that of either brinzolamide 1% (5.1-5.6 mmHg) or timolol 0.5% (5.7-6.9 mmHg). No safety concerns were identified based on an assessment of ocular and cardiovascular parameters and a review of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Brinzolamide 1%/timolol 05% is superior in IOP-lowering efficacy to either brinzolamide 1% or timolol 0.5%.

Efficacy of brinzolamide and levobetaxolol in pediatric glaucomas: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To describe the safety and clinical response on elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) of brinzolamide and levobetaxolol in pediatric patients under 6 years of age. METHODS: A double-masked, randomized design. Pediatric patients were randomized to brinzolamide suspension, 1%, or levobetaxolol suspension, 0.5%, both dosed twice daily. IOPs at 9 AM were taken at screening, baseline, and weeks 2, 6, and 12. A descriptive study with mean change from baseline IOP, the primary efficacy parameter. RESULTS: Seventy-eight evaluable patients (32 brinzolamide and 46 levobetaxolol). Patients on no prestudy IOP-lowering therapy randomized to brinzolamide had mean IOP change from baseline ranging from -4.1 mm Hg (week 2) to -5.0 mm Hg (week 6). When all brinzolamide patients are considered, there was little mean change from baseline IOP due to the large number of patients enrolled without a washout of prior IOP-lowering therapy. Levobetaxolol patients had mean change from baseline, ranging from -1.8 mm Hg (week 6) to -2.9 mm Hg (week 2). Levobetaxolol patients on no prestudy therapy had mean IOP change from baseline ranging from -2.9 mm Hg (week 12) to -4.0 mm Hg (week 2). Brinzolamide was more efficacious for glaucoma associated with systemic or ocular abnormalities and less efficacious for primary congenital glaucoma. Levobetaxolol was most efficacious for primary congenital glaucoma. Adverse events were predominantly nonserious and did not interrupt patient continuation in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Both brinzolamide and levobetaxolol were well tolerated. Both drugs provided clinically relevant IOP reductions for patients not on a previous medication, although efficacy is, in part, contingent upon diagnosis.

Travoprost 0.004% with and without benzalkonium chloride: a comparison of safety and efficacy.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004% without benzalkonium chloride (BAC) to that of the marketed formulation of travoprost 0.004% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: The study was a double-masked, randomized, parallel group, multicenter, noninferiority design. Adult patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with qualifying intraocular pressure (IOP) on 2 eligibility visits received either travoprost 0.004% with BAC (n=346), or travoprost 0.004% without BAC (n=344) dosed once-daily each evening. Patients were followed for a period of 3 months. IOP measurements at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM were taken at study visits on week 2, week 6, and month 3. RESULTS: Mean IOP reductions, across all 9 study visits and times ranged from 7.3 to 8.5 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% without BAC and from 7.4 to 8.4 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% with BAC. Statistical equivalence was also demonstrated for the comparison of mean IOP changes; 95% confidence limits were within +/-0.8 mm Hg at 9 of 9 study visits and times in both the per protocol and intent-to-treat data sets. Adverse events and the number of patients discontinued owing to adverse events were similar for both treatment groups. Adverse events due to hyperemia occurred in 6.4% and 9.0% of patients treated with travoprost 0.004% without BAC and travoprost 0.004% with BAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Travoprost 0.004% without BAC is equivalent to travoprost 0.004% with BAC in both safety and efficacy.