Nepafenac dosing frequency for ocular pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: Nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% was dosed topically once (QD), twice (BID), or three-times (TID) daily to assess the resolution of ocular pain and anterior-segment inflammation following cataract surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled study of 212 adults. Patients received nepafenac 0.1% or placebo, 1 drop QD, BID, or TID beginning 1 day before cataract surgery, continuing on the day of surgery, and for 14 days thereafter. One (1) additional drop was administered 30-120 min prior to surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent of treatment failures (>or=16 aqueous cells, aqueous flare = severe, or ocular pain score = moderately severe or severe) through postoperative day 14. RESULTS: On days 7 and 14, the QD, BID, and TID all nepafenac posologies significantly reduced the percent of treatment failures, compared to placebo ( p

A one-week comfort study of BID-dosed brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension fixed combination compared to BID-dosed dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ocular discomfort of brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension fixed combination dosed twice-daily compared to dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution fixed combination dosed twice-daily. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial. Patients had open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and were randomized to twice-daily therapy with either brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% or dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%. Patients completed ocular discomfort assessments (based on burning, stinging, a feeling of heat or warmth, sharp pain, or smarting pain) on their current intraocular pressure-lowering therapy at baseline and on study medication after 1 week of dosing. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analyses, mean ocular discomfort scores at 1 week were significantly lower in eyes receiving brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (0.77 vs. 1.53; P = 0.0003). Mean increases from baseline in ocular discomfort scores were statistically significant in both groups but were smaller in eyes receiving brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (0.49; P = 0.0028) than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (1.32; P < 0.0001). Over threefold more patients on brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (23/47, 49%) than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (7/47, 15%) reported no ocular discomfort after 1 week of therapy (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension is associated with a statistically significantly less ocular discomfort profile than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution.

24-hour control of intraocular pressure with 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed-combination ophthalmic solution in open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 24-hour efficacy and tolerability of 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed combination (DTFC) solution in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Randomized, parallel, double-masked, multicenter study. Patients with insufficiently controlled intraocular pressure (IOP > or = 22 mmHg) were randomized to DTFC (N = 117) or timolol (N = 115). IOP was measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 8 weeks, with measurements taken at 6 p.m., 8 p.m., 10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 2 p.m. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00108017 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statistically significant change in IOP from untreated baseline for DTFC at all hours at week 8. Secondary outcome measures included: IOP-lowering at week 6 at all individual time points, change from baseline to 8 weeks in mean daytime IOP (average of 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 6 p.m., and 8 p.m. IOPs) and night-time IOP (10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m.), and comparison of DTFC with timolol after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Patients receiving DTFC had a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in IOP at week 8 compared with baseline at all eight time points (p < 0.001). Significant IOP reductions were also seen at all time points at week 6 (p < 0.001). DTFC significantly lowered mean daytime IOP and night-time IOP ( p < 0.001 for both). Timolol alone also significantly reduced IOP from baseline at 8 weeks for all diurnal time points, and mean daytime and night-time IOP ( p < 0.001 for all). Compared with timolol alone, there were significantly greater reductions with DTFC at 10 a. m. (p = 0.003) and 2 p. m. (p = 0.016), and for mean daytime IOP (p = 0.025) at 8 weeks. Significant between-treatment differences were not observed at other time points. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with no differences observed in the safety profiles between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both DTFC and timolol provided significant IOP reduction over the entire 24-hour measurement period. Although this study was not designed or powered to compare DTFC and timolol, DTFC exhibited greater IOP-lowering than timolol during the daytime, but not at night.

The systemic safety of bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09%.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic safety of a commercially available bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% for the treatment of postoperative inflammation and reduction of ocular pain in subjects who have undergone cataract extraction. DESIGN: Two phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel, placebo-controlled, clinical trials were conducted under a common protocol. These data were pooled for analysis. SETTING: The setting for this study was a series of multicentered, private, and university-affiliated ophthalmology clinics in the United States. SUBJECTS: A total of 527 subjects were sequentially assigned, according to a computer-generated randomization list (2:1) to either bromfenac (n = 356) or placebo (n = 171). Potential subjects were excluded if using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), steroids, anticoagulants, or with uncontrolled ocular or systemic disease, preexisting ocular inflammation, surgical complications, or liver chemistry values of > or =Grade 1 according to World Health Organization Common Toxicity Criteria scoring. INTERVENTION: Subjects who underwent cataract surgery without prior anti-inflammatory treatment and had a postsurgical Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) of > or =3 were treated with either bromfenac or placebo. Subjects self-instilled 1 drop of the assigned test agent twice-daily for 14 days and were followed for an additional 14 days for safety evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety data were collected and the results for systemic safety are reported in this paper. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-seven (527) subjects comprised the safety population. A total of 290 of 356 bromfenac and 93 of 171 placebo subjects received 28 doses of test agent. No clinically significant treatment-related systemic adverse effects or changes in liver chemistries were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% demonstrated neither treatment-related systemic adverse events nor evidence of hepatic toxicity.

Bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% (Xibrom) for postoperative ocular pain and inflammation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and ocular safety of bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% (Xibrom) for the treatment of postoperative inflammation and reduction of ocular pain in subjects who have undergone cataract extraction (CE). DESIGN: Two phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel, placebo-controlled clinical trials were conducted under a common protocol. Data were pooled for analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred twenty-seven subjects were sequentially assigned, according to a computer-generated randomization list (2:1), to bromfenac (n = 356) or a placebo (n = 171). INTERVENTION: Subjects who underwent cataract surgery without prior antiinflammatory treatment with a postsurgical Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) of > or =3 were treated with either bromfenac or the placebo, instilled twice daily for 14 days in the study eye, and observed for an additional 14 days for safety evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cleared ocular inflammation with a SOIS of 0 (cells< or =5 and absence of flare after 14 days of treatment). Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ocular inflammation, time to resolution of ocular pain, proportion of subjects with photophobia, and ocular adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups for age, gender, and race. The baseline mean SOIS was 3.7 in both groups. A greater proportion of bromfenac (64.0%) than placebo subjects (43.3%) achieved complete clearance of ocular inflammation at study day 15 (P<0.0001). The effect of bromfenac on clearance of ocular inflammation was as early as study day 3 after initiation of treatment, compared with the placebo (8.4% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.0012). The median time to resolution of ocular pain was 2 days (bromfenac) versus 5 days (placebo) (P<0.0001). Numbers of most ocular adverse events were lower for the bromfenac group than for the placebo group. Eye irritation was reported in a lower percentage of subjects for bromfenac (2.5%) versus placebo (4.7%), as were burning and stinging (1.4% vs. 2.5%), and photophobia (2.0% vs. 11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.09% effectively and rapidly cleared ocular inflammation and reduced ocular pain after CE. There were no serious ocular adverse events, and fewer adverse events were reported for the bromfenac group.