Travoprost Intracameral Implant Demonstrates Superior IOP Lowering Versus Topical Prostaglandin Analog Monotherapy in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to analyze and compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) treatment effect of the slow-eluting (SE) travoprost intracameral implant to the IOP treatment effect of topical prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy in a subgroup of subjects who were on pre-study PGA monotherapy prior to enrollment in the two pivotal phase 3 trials of the travoprost intracameral implant. METHODS: A combined study population of 133 subjects from two phase 3 trials, who were on topical PGA monotherapy at screening, subsequently underwent a washout period from their topical PGA, and then were randomized and administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant. The subjects were analyzed for the IOP treatment effects of the pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the in-study SE travoprost intracameral implant. Paired t-tests were used to compare the difference in screening minus post-washout baseline IOP versus month 3 minus post-washout baseline IOP. The IOP-lowering efficacy in eyes administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant was compared to the IOP lowering in the same eyes while on a topical PGA monotherapy prior to study entry. RESULTS: Pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated IOP treatment effects of -5.76 mmHg and -7.07 mmHg, respectively. The IOP-lowering treatment effect was significantly greater by 1.31 mmHg for the SE travoprost intracameral implant relative to pre-study PGA monotherapy (95% confidence interval: -2.01, -0.60; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: The SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated superior IOP-lowering treatment effect versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy with a superiority margin that was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful. The greater IOP reduction from baseline while on the SE implant versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy may be a reflection of the optimized adherence and continuous elution of PGA therapy into the anterior chamber achieved with the SE travoprost intracameral implant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03519386 and NCT03868124.

Travoprost Intracameral Implant for Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: 12-Month Results of a Randomized, Double-Masked Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: The trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8 A.M., 10 A.M., and 4 P.M.) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments. RESULTS: A total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (P < 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group. CONCLUSIONS: The SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.

Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Travoprost Intraocular Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of 2 models of the travoprost intraocular implant (fast-eluting [FE] and slow-eluting [SE] types) from 1 of 2 phase 3 trials (the GC-010 trial). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension having an unmedicated baseline mean diurnal IOP (average of 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm time points) of ≥ 21 mmHg, and IOP of ≤ 36 mmHg at each of the 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm timepoints at baseline. METHODS: Study eyes were randomized to the travoprost intraocular implant (FE implant [n = 200] or SE implant [n = 197] model) or to timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5% twice daily (n = 193). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mean change from baseline IOP in the study eye at 8 am and 10 am, at each of day 10, week 6, and month 3. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and ophthalmic assessments. RESULTS: Mean IOP reduction from baseline over the 6 time points ranged from 6.6 to 8.4 mmHg for the FE implant group, from 6.6 to 8.5 mmHg for the SE implant group, and from 6.5 to 7.7 mmHg for the timolol group. The primary efficacy end point was met; the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the implant groups and the timolol group was < 1 mmHg at all 6 time points. Study eye AEs, most of mild or moderate severity, were reported in 21.5%, 27.2%, and 10.8% of patients in the FE implant, SE implant, and timolol groups, respectively. The most common AEs included iritis (FE implant, 0.5%; SE implant, 5.1%), ocular hyperemia (FE implant, 3.0%; SE implant, 2.6%), reduced visual acuity (FE implant, 1.0%; SE implant, 4.1%; timolol, 0.5%), and IOP increased (FE implant, 3.5%; SE implant, 2.6%; timolol, 2.1%). One serious study eye AE occurred (endophthalmitis). CONCLUSIONS: The travoprost intraocular implant demonstrated robust IOP reduction over the 3-month primary efficacy evaluation period after a single administration. The IOP-lowering efficacy in both implant groups was statistically and clinically noninferior to that in the timolol group, with a favorable safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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

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

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

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

Pooled Efficacy and Safety Profile of Netarsudil Ophthalmic Solution 0.02% in Patients With Open-angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PRECIS: In pooled phase III analyses, once-daily netarsudil 0.02% resulted in intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction that was noninferior to twice-daily timolol 0.5%, with minimal treatment-related serious or systemic adverse events (AEs). Ocular AEs were generally tolerable. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the Rho kinase inhibitor netarsudil in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pooled analysis of data from the ROCKET-1 to 4 phase III studies of once-daily (PM) netarsudil or twice-daily timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The primary efficacy measure was mean IOP at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 4:00 PM at week 2, week 6, and month 3 in patients with baseline IOP <25 mm Hg. RESULTS: In the pooled primary efficacy population (netarsudil, n=494; timolol, n=510), once-daily netarsudil was noninferior to twice-daily timolol at all 9 timepoints through month 3. Mean treated IOP ranged from 16.4 to 18.1 mm Hg among netarsudil-treated patients and 16.8 to 17.6 mm Hg among timolol-treated patients. In the pooled safety population (n=839 in each treatment group), treatment-related serious AEs occurred at similar frequencies in each treatment group (netarsudil, 0.1%; timolol, 0%). The most common ocular AE, conjunctival hyperemia (netarsudil, 54.4%; timolol, 10.4%), was graded as mild in 77.6% (354/456) of affected netarsudil-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily netarsudil resulted in IOP lowering that was noninferior to twice-daily timolol, with tolerable ocular AEs that were generally mild and self-resolving. As a first-in-class agent in the United States, with a novel mechanism of action, netarsudil may provide a useful therapeutic option for patients who would benefit from IOP lowering.

Netarsudil/Latanoprost Fixed-Dose Combination for Elevated Intraocular Pressure: Three-Month Data from a Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the Rho kinase inhibitor netarsudil and latanoprost vs monotherapy with netarsudil or latanoprost. DESIGN: Three-month primary endpoint analysis of a randomized, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (unmedicated intraocular pressure [IOP] >20 and <36 mm Hg at 8:00 AM) were randomized to receive once-daily netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, netarsudil 0.02%, or latanoprost 0.005% for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean IOP at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 4:00 PM at week 2, week 6, and month 3. RESULTS: Mean treated IOP ranged from 14.8-16.2 mm Hg for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 17.2-19.0 mm Hg for netarsudil, and 16.7-17.8 mm Hg for latanoprost. Netarsudil/latanoprost FDC met the criteria for superiority to each active component at all 9 time points (all P < .0001), lowering IOP by an additional 1.8-3.0 mm Hg vs netarsudil and an additional 1.3-2.5 mm Hg vs latanoprost. At month 3, the proportion of patients achieving mean diurnal IOP ≤15 mm Hg was 43.5% for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 22.7% for netarsudil, and 24.7% for latanoprost. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported; treatment-related systemic adverse events were minimal. The most frequent ocular adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 53.4%; netarsudil, 41.0%; latanoprost, 14.0%), which led to treatment discontinuation in 7.1% (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC), 4.9% (netarsudil), and 0% (latanoprost) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily netarsudil/latanoprost FDC demonstrated IOP reductions that were statistically and clinically superior to netarsudil and latanoprost across all 9 time points through month 3, with acceptable ocular safety.

Once-Daily Netarsudil Versus Twice-Daily Timolol in Patients With Elevated Intraocular Pressure: The Randomized Phase 3 ROCKET-4 Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of netarsudil once daily (QD) and timolol twice daily (BID). DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority study. METHODS: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (unmedicated baseline IOP >20 to <30 mm Hg at 8:00 AM) were randomized to netarsudil ophthalmic solution 0.02% QD (PM) or timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5% BID. The primary endpoint was mean IOP at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 4:00 PM at week 2, week 6, and month 3 in patients with baseline IOP <25 mm Hg (per-protocol population). Safety was recorded over the 6-month treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients from each treatment arm were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Netarsudil QD met the criteria for noninferiority to timolol BID. Mean treated IOP ranged from 16.3 to 17.9 mm Hg for netarsudil and 16.7 to 17.6 for timolol, with mean reductions from baseline of 3.9 to 4.7 mm Hg and 3.8 to 5.2 mm Hg, respectively. In prespecified secondary analyses, netarsudil demonstrated noninferiority to timolol in patients with baseline IOP <27 mm Hg and <30 mm Hg. The IOP-lowering effects of netarsudil were sustained over 6 months of treatment. No treatment-related serious adverse event (AE) was reported for either study drug. However, statistically significant reductions in mean heart rate were recorded at all study visits for the timolol group. The most frequent ocular AE among netarsudil-treated patients was conjunctival hyperemia (47.9%), which was predominately mild. CONCLUSIONS: Netarsudil QD (PM), a first-in-class IOP-lowering medication, was noninferior to timolol BID and was associated with tolerable ocular AEs.

Long-term Safety and Ocular Hypotensive Efficacy Evaluation of Netarsudil Ophthalmic Solution: Rho Kinase Elevated IOP Treatment Trial (ROCKET-2).

PURPOSE: To evaluate netarsudil 0.02% ophthalmic solution in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority clinical study. METHODS: After a washout of all prestudy ocular hypotensive medications, 756 eligible patients with elevated IOP were randomized to receive netarsudil 0.02% once a day (q.d.) (251); netarsudil 0.02% twice a day (b.i.d.) (254); or timolol 0.5% b.i.d. (251) for 12 months, as well as a noninterventional Corneal Observation Study (COS) for patients manifesting cornea verticillata. RESULTS: On treatment, mean IOP at 8:00 AM decreased from a baseline IOP of 22.5-22.6 mm Hg to 17.9-18.8 mm Hg, 17.2-18.0 mm Hg, and 17.5-17.9 mm Hg for netarsudil q.d., netarsudil b.i.d., and timolol, respectively, over 12 months. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were ocular, with the most frequent ocular AE being conjunctival hyperemia, with an incidence of 61%, 66%, and 14%, respectively. The next most frequent AEs were corneal deposits (corneal verticillata), with an incidence of 26%, 25%, and 1%, respectively, and conjunctival hemorrhage (typically petechial), with an incidence of 20%, 19%, and 1%, respectively. All 3 AEs were generally scored as mild, with conjunctival hyperemia and/or hemorrhage appearing sporadically during the study. In the observational follow-up component of this study, there was no clinically meaningful impact of corneal verticillata on visual function in affected patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, double-masked trial, once-daily dosing of netarsudil 0.02% was effective, consistently lowering IOP through 12 months, and was tolerated by the majority of patients.

Once-Daily Netarsudil/Latanoprost Fixed-Dose Combination for Elevated Intraocular Pressure in the Randomized Phase 3 MERCURY-2 Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of a once-daily (pm) fixed-dose combination (FDC) product containing netarsudil 0.02% and latanoprost 0.005% with monotherapy with netarsudil or latanoprost. Netarsudil is a Rho kinase inhibitor that lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) primarily by increasing trabecular (conventional) outflow. Latanoprost is the most frequently prescribed of the prostaglandin analogs, which lower IOP primarily by increasing uveoscleral outflow. DESIGN: Three-month, double-masked, randomized (1:1:1), phase 3, superiority study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients had unmedicated IOP > 20 to <36 mmHg at 8:00 am and met other standard criteria for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. METHODS: Randomization to once-daily (pm) netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, netarsudil, or latanoprost for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean IOP at 8:00 am, 10:00 am, and 4:00 pm at week 2, week 6, and month 3 (intent-to-treat). Statistical superiority was concluded if the P value for the comparison of netarsudil/latanoprost FDC with each component was <0.05 and the difference in mean IOP (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC minus comparator) was <0 for all time points at all visits. Safety was recorded throughout the treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were enrolled, with 90.2%, 89.4%, and 94.4% completing 3 months of treatment with netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, netarsudil, and latanoprost, respectively. Least-squares mean treated IOP ranged from 15.3 to 16.5 mmHg for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 17.4 to 19.8 mmHg for netarsudil, and 17.1 to 18.1 mmHg for latanoprost. Netarsudil/latanoprost FDC met the criteria for superiority to each active component at all 9 time points (all P < 0.0001), lowering IOP by an additional 2.2 to 3.3 mmHg versus netarsudil and an additional 1.5 to 2.4 mmHg versus latanoprost. At month 3, the proportion of patients achieving mean diurnal IOP ≤ 15 mmHg was 42.1% for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 15.8% for netarsudil, and 18.3% for latanoprost. No treatment-related serious adverse event (AE) was observed. Treatment-related systemic AEs were minimal. The most frequent ocular AE was conjunctival hyperemia (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 54.5%; netarsudil, 42.7%; latanoprost, 22.3%), which was generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily netarsudil/latanoprost FDC demonstrated IOP reductions that were statistically and clinically superior to its individual components at all 9 time points over 3 months, with tolerable ocular safety. This FDC offers a reduced treatment burden that may improve adherence and clinical outcomes.

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.

Fixed-dose combination of AR-13324 and latanoprost: a double-masked, 28-day, randomised, controlled study in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of the Rho kinase inhibitor and norepinephrine transport inhibitor AR-13324 (0.01% and 0.02%) and latanoprost (PG324 Ophthalmic Solution) relative to the active components AR-13324 0.02% and latanoprost 0.005%, used bilaterally at night. METHODS: This was a double-masked, randomised, parallel comparison study in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After washout, patients were randomised to one of four treatment arms and treated for 28 days. The primary efficacy variable was mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) at day 29. RESULTS: We randomised 298 patients, of whom 292 (98%) completed the study. Mean unmedicated diurnal IOPs (study eye) was 25.1, 25.1, 26.0 and 25.4 in the PG324 0.01%, PG324 0.02%, latanoprost and AR-13324 0.02% groups, respectively. On day 29, mean diurnal IOP decreased to 17.3, 16.5, 18.4 and 19.1 mm Hg, respectively. For the primary efficacy variable of mean diurnal IOP at day 29, PG324 0.02% met the criterion for statistical superiority relative to both latanoprost and AR-13324 0.02% (p<0.0001), providing additional IOP lowering of 1.9 and 2.6 mm Hg, respectively. PG324 0.01% also met the criterion for superiority. The most frequently reported adverse event was conjunctival hyperaemia with an incidence of 41% (30/73), 40% (29/73), 14% (10/73) and 40% (31/78) in the PG324 0.01%, PG324 0.02%, latanoprost and AR-13324 0.02% groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study, the fixed-dose combination of AR-13324 0.02% and latanoprost 0.005% in PG324 Ophthalmic Solution provides clinically and statistically superior ocular hypotensive efficacy relative to its individual active components at the same concentrations. The only safety finding of note was transient asymptomatic conjunctival hyperaemia which was typically of mild severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02057575.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with an anti-m2e monoclonal antibody in experimental human influenza.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of TCN-032, a human monoclonal antibody targeting a conserved epitope on M2e, was explored in experimental human influenza. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were inoculated with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2) and received a single dose of the study drug, TCN-032, or placebo 24 hours later. Subjects were monitored for symptoms, viral shedding, and safety, including cytokine measurements. Oseltamivir was administered 7 days after inoculation. RESULTS: Although the primary objective of reducing the proportion of subjects developing any grade ≥2 influenza symptom or pyrexia, was not achieved, TCN-032-treated subjects showed 35% reduction (P = .047) in median total symptom area under the curve (days 1-7) and 2.2 log reduction in median viral load area under the curve (days 2-7) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (P = .09) compared with placebo-treated subjects. TCN-032 was safe and well tolerated with no additional safety signals after administration of oseltamivir. Serum cytokine levels (interferon γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and interleukin 8 and 10) were similar in both groups. Genotypic and phenotypic analyses showed no difference between virus derived from subjects after TCN-032 treatment and parental strain. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that TCN-032 may provide immediate immunity and therapeutic benefit in influenza A infection, with no apparent emergence of resistant virus. TCN-032 was safe with no evidence of immune exacerbation based on serum cytokine expression. Clinicaltrials.gov registry number. NCT01719874.

Post-cataract outcomes in patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis treated with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant.

PURPOSE: To describe visual acuity (VA) and inflammation following cataract surgery in eyes with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU) that were being treated with a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant compared with those that were not. DESIGN: Post hoc, subgroup analysis of data from a 3-year, dose-masked, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the FA implant for the treatment of NIPU. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: The subset of eyes that underwent cataract surgery during the 3-year trial. Eyes were either implanted with a 0.59- or a 2.1-mg FA implant, or, in the case of affected fellow eyes, received standard-of-care local treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VA, anterior and posterior chamber inflammation at 1 and 3 months after surgery, and rate of uveitis recurrence and serious postoperative ocular adverse events. RESULTS: Of 278 patients enrolled in the main trial, 132/142 phakic implanted eyes and 39/186 phakic non-implanted eyes underwent cataract surgery. Mean improvement in VA was significantly greater in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0047) and 3 months (P = 0.0015) postoperatively; significantly fewer anterior chamber cells were seen in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0084) and 3 months (P = 0.0002). Severity of vitreous haze was less in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.0005). The postsurgical uveitis recurrence rate was lower in implanted than non-implanted eyes (26.5% vs 44.4%; P = 0.0433). Glaucoma was reported in 19.7% of implanted eyes and no non-implanted eyes (P = 0.0008) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc subgroup analysis, eyes with NIPU treated with the FA intravitreal implant demonstrated better vision and less intraocular inflammation following cataract surgery than non-implanted eyes. Recurrent uveitic inflammation did not appear to be triggered by cataract surgery. Glaucoma occurred more frequently in implanted eyes.

Integrated analysis of three bacterial conjunctivitis trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%: microbiological eradication outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess clinical antimicrobial efficacy results obtained with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, administered three times a day (TID) for 5 days, integrated across three clinical trials of bacterial conjunctivitis and to investigate any microbiological eradication failures. METHODS: Clinical microbiological eradication data from three randomized, double-masked, parallel group studies of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis (two vehicle controlled; one active controlled with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution, 0.5%) were integrated. All bacterial samples isolated at baseline above the species-specific threshold value were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Samples isolated at subsequent visits were subjected to susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) to investigate the cause of eradication failures and the potential for drug resistance development. RESULTS: Visit 2 (day 4 or 5) and visit 3 (day 8) overall microbiological eradication rates were 92.2% and 88.4% for besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension compared with 61.4% and 72.5% for vehicle and 91.6% and 85.7% for moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution. Visit 2 and visit 3 microbiological eradication rates for Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates and for individual species were consistent with the overall eradication rates. The majority of observed eradication failures in any treatment group were due to the persistence of the pathogen isolated at baseline. Eradication failures in the besifloxacin treatment group were not associated with lower antimicrobial susceptibility at baseline. PFGE data showed that the majority of bacterial strains in eyes with eradication failures were identical to the strain isolated at baseline; these eradication failures were not associated with a lower antimicrobial susceptibility at the follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: Treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, administered TID for 5 days resulted in microbiological eradication rates that were ≥ 90% across the three clinical studies for the common pathogens of bacterial conjunctivitis. The few eradication failures were not due to fluoroquinolone resistance at baseline and/or resistance development during treatment.

Integrated analysis of three bacterial conjunctivitis trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%: etiology of bacterial conjunctivitis and antibacterial susceptibility profile.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to report on the bacterial species isolated from patients with bacterial conjunctivitis participating in three clinical trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, and their in vitro antibacterial susceptibility profiles. METHODS: Microbial data from three clinical studies, conducted at multiple clinical sites in the US and Asia were integrated. Species were identified at a central laboratory, and minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined for various antibiotics, including ß-lactams, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides. RESULTS: A total of 1324 bacterial pathogens representing more than 70 species were isolated. The most common species were Haemophilus influenzae (26.0%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (22.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (14.4%), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (8.4%). H. influenzae was most frequently isolated among patients aged 1-18 years, while S. aureus was most prevalent among those >65 years. Drug resistance was prevalent: Of H. influenzae isolates, 25.3% were ß-lactamase positive and 27.2% of S. pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-intermediate/ resistant; of S. aureus isolates, 13.7% were methicillin-resistant (MRSA), and of these, 65.4% were ciprofloxacin-resistant, while 45.9% of S. epidermidis isolates were methicillin-resistant (MRSE), and, of these, 47.1% were ciprofloxacin-resistant. Besifloxacin was more potent than comparator fluoroquinolones overall, and particularly against Gram-positive bacteria. Against ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA and MRSE, besifloxacin was four-fold to ≥ 128-fold more potent than other fluoroquinolones. CONCLUSIONS: While the pathogen distribution in bacterial conjunctivitis has not changed, drug resistance is increasing. Patient age and local antibiotic resistance trends should be considered in the treatment of this ocular infection. Besifloxacin showed broad-spectrum in vitro activity and was particularly potent against multidrug-resistant staphylococcal isolates.

Safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: data from six clinical and phase I safety studies.

BACKGROUND: Besifloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone, specifically a chloro-fluoroquinolone, with potent broad-spectrum bactericidal activity for the topical treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% across clinical and phase I safety studies. METHODS: Data were drawn from two phase I safety studies in healthy adults, an open-label, phase II pharmacokinetic study of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis and from integrated data from three randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, safety and efficacy studies of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis (two were vehicle controlled and one was active controlled with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, as base). Safety assessments included changes in visual acuity, ocular assessments with ophthalmoscopy and biomicroscopy, and assessment of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Safety data for besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were available for 1350 patients, including 1192 patients (1810 eyes) in the integrated analysis. Systemic exposure following topical administration of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was negligible. No changes were seen in corneal endothelial cell density. In the integrated safety analysis of the three safety and efficacy studies, the most commonly reported ocular AEs in study eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were blurred vision (2.1%), eye pain (1.8%), eye irritation (1.4%), nonspecific conjunctivitis (1.2%) and eye pruritus (1.1%). Blurred vision, eye irritation and nonspecific conjunctivitis occurred in significantly fewer besifloxacin-treated patients than in vehicle-treated patients (p < or = 0.05). Headache (1.8%) was the most frequently reported non-ocular AE. Most AEs were mild in severity and there were no treatment-related serious AEs. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% did not significantly affect visual acuity, biomicroscopy or ophthalmoscopy compared with vehicle or moxifloxacin. CONCLUSION: The results from this comprehensive data set of 1350 patients demonstrate that besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% has a favourable safety profile and is well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in children and adolescents with bacterial conjunctivitis: a post hoc, subgroup analysis of three randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Acute conjunctivitis is the most frequent eye disorder seen by primary care physicians and one that often affects children. Besifloxacin is a new topical fluoroquinolone, the first chlorofluoroquinolone, for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in patients aged 1-17 years with bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a subgroup of pediatric patients aged 1-17 years who had participated in three previously reported, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter, clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of besifloxacin in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. The studies were conducted in a community setting (clinical centers). All three clinical trials included children (aged > or = 1 year) with a clinical diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis in at least one eye, based on the presence at baseline of grade 1 or greater purulent conjunctival discharge and conjunctival injection, and pin-hole visual acuity of at least 20/200 in both eyes for verbal patients. Two trials were vehicle controlled; the third trial was comparator controlled (moxifloxacin hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% as base). In all studies, besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was administered as one drop in the affected eye(s) three times daily, at approximately 6-hourly intervals, for 5 days. The main outcome measures were clinical resolution and microbial eradication at visit 2 (day 4 +/- 1 in one study; day 5 +/- 1 in the other two studies) and visit 3 (day 8 or 9). Data from the two vehicle-controlled studies were combined for the assessments to provide greater statistical power. RESULTS: This analysis included 815 pediatric patients aged 1-17 years (447 with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis). Clinical resolution was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the besifloxacin group than in the vehicle group at both visit 2 (53.7% vs 41.3%) and visit 3 (88.1% vs 73.0%). Similarly, microbial eradication was significantly higher with besifloxacin than with vehicle at visit 2 (85.8% vs 56.3%) and visit 3 (82.8% vs 68.3%). No significant differences in clinical resolution and microbial eradication were noted between besifloxacin and moxifloxacin. Besifloxacin was well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events in the besifloxacin, vehicle, and moxifloxacin groups. CONCLUSION: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years.

Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant compared with standard therapy in subjects with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, phase 2b/3, open-label, multicenter superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with unilateral or bilateral NIPU. METHODS: One hundred forty subjects received either a 0.59-mg FA intravitreal implant (n = 66) or standard of care (SOC; n = 74) with either systemic prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid as monotherapy (> or =0.2 mg/kg daily) or, if judged necessary by the investigator, combination therapy with an immunosuppressive agent plus a lower dose of prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid (> or =0.1 mg/kg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to first recurrence of uveitis. RESULTS: Eyes that received the FA intravitreal implant experienced delayed onset of observed recurrence of uveitis (P<0.01) and a lower rate of recurrence of uveitis (18.2% vs. 63.5%; P< or =0.01) compared with SOC study eyes. Adverse events frequently observed in implanted eyes included elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) requiring IOP-lowering surgery (occurring in 21.2% of implanted eyes) and cataracts requiring extraction (occurring in 87.8% of phakic implanted eyes). No treatment-related nonocular adverse events were observed in the implant group, whereas such events occurred in 25.7% of subjects in the SOC group. CONCLUSIONS: The FA intravitreal implant provided better control of inflammation in patients with uveitis compared with systemic therapy. Intraocular pressure and lens clarity of implanted eyes need close monitoring in patients receiving the FA intravitreal implant.

Efficacy and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% compared with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% for treating bacterial conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, noninferiority study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 1 year of age or older with clinical manifestations of bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either besifloxacin suspension or moxifloxacin solution, instilled in the infected eye(s) 3 times daily for 5 days, and participated in study visits on days 1, 5 (+/-1 day), and 8 (+1 day). Assessments included clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms, visual acuity, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s) at each visit, as well as direct ophthalmoscopy on days 1 and 8. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end points were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection on day 5 in patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Secondary end points included clinical resolution and microbial eradication on day 8, individual clinical outcomes, microbial and clinical outcomes by bacterial species, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1161 patients (533 with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis) were randomized. Based on the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference, besifloxacin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for clinical resolution on day 5 (58.3% vs. 59.4%, respectively; 95% CI, -9.48 to 7.29) and day 8 (84.5% vs. 84.0%, respectively, 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.75%) and for microbial eradication on day 5 (93.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, 95% CI, -2.44 to 6.74) and day 8 (87.3% vs. 84.7%; 95% CI, -3.32 to 8.53). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment groups for either efficacy end points on days 5 or 8 (P>0.05). Besifloxacin and moxifloxacin were well tolerated. The cumulative frequency of ocular adverse events was similar between treatments (12% and 14% with besifloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively). However, eye irritation occurred more often in moxifloxacin-treated eyes (0.3% for besifloxacin vs. 1.4% for moxifloxacin; P = 0.0201). CONCLUSIONS: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension was non inferior to moxifloxacin ophthalmic suspension and provided similar safety and efficacy (clinical and microbiological) outcomes when used for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.