RESUMEN
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a preservative free sodium hyaluronate/chondroitin sulfate ophthalmic solution (SH/CS-PF) in patients with dry eye disease (DED).Methods: This was a randomized phase IV, multicentric, prospective, double-blind clinical trial. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed. Patients were assigned to receive either SH/CS-PF, Systane® Ultra (PEG/PG) or Systane® Ultra PF (PEG/PG-PF) for 90 days. A total of 326 patients were included in the ITT, and 217 in the PP analysis. Efficacy endpoints were goblet cell density, Nelson's grades (conjunctival impression cytology), tear break-up time (TBUT), Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), and Schirmer's test. Other parameters included were tolerability, measured by the ocular symptomatology; and safety, measured through corneal staining, intraocular pressure, visual acuity and adverse events.Results: In the ITT, there was a significant increase in mean goblet cell density in all treatments compared with their baseline (28.4% vs 21.4% and 30.8%), without difference between arms (p = .159). Eyes exposed to SH/CS-PF, PEG/PG and PEG/PG-PF showed Grade 0-I squamous metaplasia (85.5%, 87.9% and 93.2%, respectively). Similar improvements were observed for TBUT (1.24 ± 2.3s vs 1.27 ± 2.4s and 1.39 ± 2.3s) and OSDI scores at day 90 (-8.81 ± 8.6 vs -7.95 ± 9.2 and -8.78 ± 9.8), although no significant intergroup difference was found. Schirmer's test also presented improvement compared to baseline (1.38 ± 4.9 vs 1.50 ± 4.7 and 2.63 ± 5.9), with a significantly higher variation for PEG/PG-PF. There were no significant differences between treatments for any tolerability and safety parameter, nor between ITT and PP analyses for any outcome.Conclusions: The topical application of SH/CS-PF is as effective, safe and well tolerated as that of PEG/PG or PEG/PG-PF. The results suggest that SH/CS-PF may lead to normalization of clinical parameters and symptom alleviation in patients treated for DED.
Asunto(s)
Sulfatos de Condroitina/administración & dosificación , Síndromes de Ojo Seco/tratamiento farmacológico , Ácido Hialurónico/administración & dosificación , Administración Oftálmica , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Sulfatos de Condroitina/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Síndromes de Ojo Seco/fisiopatología , Femenino , Fluorofotometría , Humanos , Ácido Hialurónico/efectos adversos , Presión Intraocular/fisiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Soluciones Oftálmicas , Conservadores Farmacéuticos , Estudios Prospectivos , Lágrimas/fisiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Agudeza Visual/fisiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of difluprednate 0.05% (PRO-145) versus prednisolone acetate 1% (Prednefrin® SF), for management of postoperative inflammation and pain, after cataract surgery. METHODS: This was a Phase III, multicenter, prospective, double-blind, clinical trial. Intent-to-treat population included 178 post-phacoemulsification patients that were assigned to receive either PRO-145, or prednisolone. One day after unilateral eye surgery, patients instilled a drop 4 times a day for 14 days (then tapering the dose downward for 14 days). The primary efficacy endpoints were anterior chamber (AC) cell grade and flare. Other parameters measured included: retinal central thickness (measured via OCT), conjunctival hyperemia, edema, pain and photophobia. Tolerability and safety were assessed through burning, itching, foreign body sensation, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and incidence of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: A total of 171 subjects were randomized (1:1) and completed the study. Compared to day 1, there was a significant improvement in the AC cell count and flare in both groups by the final visit (80.2% vs 88.4%, p=1.000). Conjunctival hyperemia improved in a similar fashion (81.2% vs 79%, p=0.234) in both PRO-145 and prednisolone groups, without differences between them. This was also observed for edema (82.4% vs 82.5%, p=0.246), pain (15.3% vs 7%, p=0.497) and photophobia (16.4% vs 15.1%, p=0.246), respectively. There was no significant difference between treatments for any tolerability parameter studied. Finally, at the 4-week postoperative visit, there were no significant differences between treatments for VA, IOP and AE results (p-values; 0.095, 0.053 and 0.099, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that PRO-145 is as effective and safe as prednisolone acetate in treating postoperative inflammation and pain in patients undergoing phacoemulsification. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03693989.
RESUMEN
Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of bromfenac 0.09%, sodium hyaluronate 0.4% (SH) combination therapy, versus placebo and SH in a clinical model of pterygium I-III. Methods: A total of 166 eyes (99 patients) with pterygium grade I-III were randomized to bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solution+SH 0.4% or placebo+SH 0.4%. This was a Phase IV, prospective, parallel, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial. One drop of bromfenac or placebo was instilled two times a day (BID) for 20 days, both groups accompanied treatments with one drop of SH three times a day (TID). The primary efficacy endpoints were the conjunctival hyperemia and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score. Other results measured included burning, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. The safety was assessed by the tear break-up time (TBUT), visual acuity (VA), IOP, lissamine green, fluorescein stains, and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Compared with baseline, there was a significant reduction in the conjunctival hyperemia (p=0.0001) and OSDI score in both groups (p=0.0001). There was a significant improvement in ocular symptomatology for both, placebo/SH and bromfenac/SH groups (p=0.0001), the decrement in the ocular burning was 41.1% vs 24.6%, the foreign body sensation was 31.5% vs 36.2% and, for photophobia was 23.3% vs 30.5%, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed in TBUT for bromfenac/SH (p=0.045), at day 20. There were no significant alterations in IOP (p=0.068) or VA (p=0.632). Similar improvements were observed in the fluorescein and green lissamine staining. Finally, the incidence of AE was similar between groups. Conclusion: The treatment with bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solution and SH 0.4% combination therapy for 3 weeks reduced clinical signs, in patients with pterygium I-III. The results suggest that bromfenac 0.09% can improve the symptomatology, reduce the presentation of clinical signs associated with superficial ocular inflammation.