A randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine/dexamethasone ophthalmic suspension for acute viral conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 0.6%/dexamethasone (DEX) 0.1% ophthalmic suspension vs vehicle in patients with clinically suspected acute viral conjunctivitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled study. Adults with a clinical diagnosis of suspected acute viral conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to PVP-I/DEX ophthalmic suspension or vehicle bilaterally four times daily for 5 days (Days 1-5). Evaluation was on Days 1, 3 (+1-day window), and 6 (+1). Patients with signs of acute viral conjunctivitis at the Day 6 visit received open-label PVP-I/DEX for five additional days and were evaluated on Day 11-14. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical resolution of acute viral conjunctivitis in the study eye at the Day 6 visit. RESULTS: Overall, 132 patients were randomized and received treatment (PVP-I/DEX, n=66; vehicle, n=66); 38 patients continued into the open-label portion of the study. Not enough patients with confirmed adenoviral conjunctivitis (n=32/132) were enrolled to assess the primary endpoint, although there were some efficacy trends in the PVP-I/DEX group for global clinical score (sum of watery conjunctival discharge and bulbar conjunctival redness). There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and no patients discontinued due to a TEAE. In the masked phase, 56.1% of patients receiving PVP-I/DEX experienced at least one TEAE vs 43.9% in the vehicle group; 78.9% of patients in the open-label phase experienced at least one TEAE. Most TEAEs were mild in severity. CONCLUSION: PVP-I/DEX ophthalmic suspension administered for ≤14 days had a favorable safety profile and was generally well tolerated.

Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Trial of Povidone-Iodine/Dexamethasone Ophthalmic Suspension for Treatment of Adenoviral Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy/safety of an ophthalmic suspension of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 0.6% and dexamethasone 0.1% in patients with acute adenoviral conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-masked trial. METHODS: Adults with a positive Rapid Pathogen Screening Adeno-Detector Plus test were randomized 1:1:1 to PVP-I 0.6%/dexamethasone 0.1%, PVP-I 0.6%, or vehicle, bilaterally 4 times daily for 5 days (days 1-5). Patients were evaluated on days 3, 6, and 12 (+1-day window). Efficacy measures included clinical resolution and adenoviral eradication. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients were included in the efficacy analysis (PVP-I/dexamethasone, n = 48; PVP-I, n = 50; vehicle, n = 46). The proportion of patients with clinical resolution (primary study eye with last observation carried forward [LOCF]) at the day 6 visit was higher with PVP-I/dexamethasone (31.3%) than with vehicle (10.9%; P = .0158) and PVP-I (18.0%; P = nonsignificant). The proportion with adenoviral eradication (primary study eye with LOCF) was higher with PVP-I/dexamethasone than with vehicle at the day 3 (35.4% vs 8.7%; P = .0019) and day 6 (79.2% vs 56.5%; P = .0186) visits and vs PVP-I (day 3 visit, 32.0%; day 6 visit, 62.0%; each P = nonsignificant). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 69.0% (vehicle), 62.7% (PVP-I), and 53.4% (PVP-I/dexamethasone) of patients in the safety dataset. Discontinuation owing to AEs occurred in 37 patients (vehicle, n = 16; PVP-I, n = 12; PVP-I/dexamethasone, n = 9). CONCLUSION: PVP-I/dexamethasone appeared safe and well tolerated, and significantly improved clinical resolution and adenoviral eradication in patients with acute adenoviral conjunctivitis.

Lifitegrast, a Novel Integrin Antagonist for Treatment of Dry Eye Disease.

The etiology of dry eye disease (DED) is complex and not yet fully understood, but the disease is now recognized as being associated with ocular surface inflammation. The latest advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of DED have directed the focus of recent drug development to target the inflammatory pathways involved in the disease. Lifitegrast is a novel small molecule integrin antagonist that inhibits T cell-mediated inflammation by blocking the binding of two important cell surface proteins (lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1 and intercellular adhesion molecule 1), thus lessening overall inflammatory responses. This review highlights the role of T cells and integrins in the inflammatory process involved in the pathophysiology of DED and outlines the scientific rationale for the role of lifitegrast. In addition, the preclinical development, pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy, and safety of lifitegrast are described.

Latrunculin B Reduces Intraocular Pressure in Human Ocular Hypertension and Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of Latrunculin-B (Lat-B), a marine macrolide that disrupts the actin cytoskeleton, in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) or early primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: In this Phase I, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose study, subjects with bilateral OHT or early POAG (>22 mm Hg) received one of four concentrations of INS115644 (Lat-B ophthalmic solutions, 0.005%, 0.01%, 0.02%, or 0.05%) in one eye over 3 days (5 single-dose instillations, separated by 12 hours). One eye was randomly assigned to active drug, the other to placebo. IOP was measured prior to treatment initiation (day 0) and on days 1 and 3. RESULTS: Baseline IOPs were 22.9 ± 2.4 mm Hg and 23.5 + 3.1 mm Hg in the 0.02% and 0.05% dose groups, respectively. At 4 hours post instillation of the first dose, 0.02% INS115644 reduced IOP from baseline (mean ± SE) by 3.8 ± 0.7 mm Hg (P = 0.002) and 0.05% by 3.9 ± 1.0 mm Hg (P = 0.004). A maximum IOP decrease of 24% was noted at 4 hours after the fifth instillation of 0.02%. Adjusting for diurnal baseline and IOP in the contralateral, placebo-treated eye, the maximal 12-hour hypotensive effect was 4.0 ± 0.5 mm Hg (adjusted mean ± SE), a 17% decrease, following the fifth instillation of 0.02% (day 3). Adverse events were few and consisted mainly of mild redness, irritation, and a transient, clinically insignificant increase (≤2.5%) in central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: In OHT or POAG patients, twice daily Lat-B significantly lowered IOP compared with contralateral, placebo-treated eyes, with few and mild ocular adverse events. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Lat-B may be a potential therapeutic agent for glaucoma.

Safety and efficacy of topical azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1.0% in the treatment of contact lens-related dry eye.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% in patients with contact lens-related dry eye (CLDE). METHODS: This was a 4-week, single-center, open-label clinical trial in patients diagnosed with CLDE using the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ). Fifty patients were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups: azithromycin ophthalmic solution administered bid on days 1 and 2 and on days 3 to 29±1 or Visine for Contacts rewetting drops administered qid on days 1 to 29±1. The patient diaries were used daily to collect data on comfortable and total contact lens wear time and ocular dryness throughout the treatment period. Tear osmolarity, fluorescein corneal staining, and visual acuity were also assessed during clinic visits. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, and 44 completed the study. One patient discontinued in the azithromycin group, and five patients discontinued in the rewetting drops group because of adverse events. A statistically significant increase in mean comfortable contact lens wear time from baseline was observed for the subjects treated with azithromycin ophthalmic solution as compared with the subjects treated with rewetting drops at week 4 (P=0.004; primary endpoint), in addition to weeks 2 and 3. The improvement in the mean comfortable wear time for the patients in the azithromycin treatment group exceeded 2 hrs throughout the treatment period (weeks 1-4). No significant differences were observed between the groups for total wear time, low contrast visual acuity, or tear osmolarity. Subject-rated ocular dryness (PM time assessments) was significantly improved from baseline in the subjects treated with azithromycin ophthalmic solution as compared with those treated with rewetting drops at weeks 2 and 3 endpoints (P=0.015 for each week). Additionally, a statistical difference was observed in favor of the azithromycin treatment group at week 2 for the subjects reclassifying as nondry eye as determined by the CLDEQ (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with topical azithromycin ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and resulted in a significant improvement in comfortable contact lens wear time in the patients with CLDE.

Pharmacokinetics of azithromycin and moxifloxacin in human conjunctiva and aqueous humor during and after the approved dosing regimens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ocular pharmacokinetics of azithromycin and moxifloxacin in human conjunctiva and aqueous humor in subjects undergoing cataract surgery. DESIGN: Multicenter, open-label, randomized study. METHODS: Subjects scheduled for routine cataract surgery and with normal-appearing conjunctiva were eligible. One conjunctival biopsy sample and 1 aqueous humor sample were obtained from subjects randomly assigned to 1 of 10 prespecified time points (1 to 312 hours) after treatment initiation of azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% or moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%. Samples were assayed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Azithromycin 1% provided high concentrations (peak level, 559.7 µg/g) in human conjunctiva that were sustained at levels 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than those of moxifloxacin 0.5% throughout the 7-day dosing period and for at least 7 days thereafter. Azithromycin also showed an extended half-life (65.7 hours) in conjunctiva relative to that of moxifloxacin (28.6 hours). Accordingly, the concentration of azithromycin was maintained well above the minimum inhibitory concentration required for inhibition of growth of 90% of tested bacterial isolates for at least 7 days, whereas moxifloxacin conjunctival levels fell to levels at or less than the minimum inhibitory concentration required for inhibition of growth of 90% of tested bacterial isolates approximately 24 hours after the last dose. Peak aqueous humor concentration of moxifloxacin was higher (0.77 µg/mL) than that of azithromycin (0.053 µg/mL). No clinically relevant safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin 1% demonstrated high, therapeutic levels in the conjunctiva that were maintained up to 7 days after completion of a 1-week dosing regimen. Aqueous humor levels, however, were subtherapeutic with this dosing regimen. In comparison, moxifloxacin achieved lower conjunctival tissue levels, but higher aqueous humor levels.

Multicenter open-label study evaluating the efficacy of azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% on the signs and symptoms of subjects with blepharitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of 4 weeks of treatment with azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% on eyelid bacterial load, tear cytokines, and signs and symptoms of blepharitis. METHODS: Twenty-six subjects (mean age 64.2 years; 65% female; 100% white) with moderate to severe blepharitis received azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% in the absence of warm compresses or eyelid scrubs for 28 days (twice a day on days 1 and 2 and once a day on days 3-28). Blepharitis signs and symptoms were evaluated at baseline (day 1) and compared with end of treatment (day 29) and 2 follow-up visits (2 and 4 weeks posttreatment). Tear collection and eyelid margin bacterial cultures were performed at baseline and end of treatment. Tear cytokines were measured by a multiplex immunobead assay. RESULTS: Four-week azithromycin treatment demonstrated significant decreases from baseline in investigator-rated signs of meibomian gland plugging, eyelid margin redness, palpebral conjunctival redness, and ocular discharge (P < or = 0.002) at day 29, which persisted 4 weeks posttreatment (P < or = 0.006). Subject-reported symptoms of eyelid itching, foreign body sensation/sandiness/grittiness, ocular dryness, ocular burning/pain, and swollen/heavy eyelids also demonstrated significant improvement from baseline (P < 0.001 for all symptoms and time points, except P = 0.037 for ocular dryness at visit 4). Eyelid margin culture exhibited significant decreases in coagulase-negative staphylococci and Corynebacterium xerosis bacteria. Changes in tear cytokine concentrations were not observed. Twelve subjects experienced 19 adverse events, 15 of which were ocular and none of which were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin provided significant improvement in signs and symptoms of blepharitis after 4 weeks of treatment compared with baseline and persisted in the 4-week follow-up period.

Safety of unoprostone isopropyl as mono- or adjunctive therapy in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

This review summarises the safety of unoprostone isopropyl (both at the 0.12 and 0.15% concentrations) instilled twice daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH). For unoprostone 0.15%, combined data from two 12-month comparative monotherapy studies are reported, as well as data from three adjunctive therapy studies and two special population studies. With unoprostone monotherapy, most adverse events were mild or moderate and transient in nature. Less than 7% of unoprostone-treated patients discontinued therapy due to an adverse event. The most common adverse events associated with unoprostone were burning/stinging, burning/stinging directly upon drug instillation, ocular itching, and conjunctival hyperaemia. Unoprostone had no clinically notable effects on vital signs, laboratory profiles, or comprehensive ophthalmic examinations. One of 659 unoprostone 0.15%-treated patients had a change in iris colour after 12 months of monotherapy. Except for a higher incidence of burning/stinging and burning/stinging upon instillation, unoprostone was comparable to timolol 0.5% twice daily and betaxolol 0.5% twice daily. No safety concerns were raised with use of unoprostone as adjunctive therapy. Unoprostone had no significant effect on exercise-induced heart rate in healthy subjects or on pulmonary function in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. The safety profile of unoprostone 0.15% was consistent with published information on the 0.12% formulation. In conclusion, unoprostone has an excellent safety profile in patients with POAG or OH.