Loteprednol etabonate: a formulation for short-term use in inflammatory flares in dry eye disease.

Loteprednol etabonate is a soft corticosteroid that is rapidly deactivated after reaching the general circulation, displaying good local activity and a high therapeutic index without inducing systemic side effects. In 2021, Kala Pharmaceuticals launched Eysuvis (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 0.25% in the U.S. for the short-term (up to 2 weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was based on results from one phase II trial and three phase III trials showing Eysuvis significantly improved both the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease and was well tolerated. Eysuvis is a novel loteprednol etabonate nanosuspension formulation developed by Kala using its AMPPLIFY mucus-penetrating particle (MPP) drug delivery technology. Use of this MPP formulation results in enhanced penetration of loteprednol etabonate into target tissue on the ocular surface. Eysuvis is the first FDA-approved ocular corticosteroid indicated for dry eye disease.

Is there a role for tapered topical dose steroidal treatment for dry eye disease? A randomized, pilot study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of tapered doses of loteprednol-etabonate in dry eye disease patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dry eye and treatment outcomes were assessed by Schirmer I test, tear BUT, lissamine green conjunctival staining, fluorescein corneal staining, and HLA-DR expression on conjunctival cells. Patients received either loteprednol-etabonate 0.5% twice daily for 14 days tapered to once daily for 14 days, and then twice weekly for 28 days (n = 10), or NaCl 0.9%. RESULTS: A significant decrease of ocular surface inflammation and improvement of symptoms was recorded in the study group compared with controls at days 14 and 56. Change from baseline in HLA-DR expression in CD45+ conjunctival cells was significantly higher in treated patients at day 14. Intraocular pressure and best corrected visual acuity were preserved in all treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Tapered doses of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% suspension controlled ocular surface inflammation, improving dry eye symptoms.

[Perioperative/Postoperative Anti-Inflammatory Therapy During/After Corneal Surgery/Transplantation]. / Perioperative/postoperative antientzündliche Therapie bei/nach Hornhautchirurgie/Hornhauttransplantation.

Surgical trauma, and foreign material - such as sutures or implants or antigens during tissue transplantation - may cause inflammatory reactions. Inflammatory reactions after surgical interventions distant from the vascularised limbus and without opening of the anterior chamber of the eye are usually very muted, because of the corneal immune and angiogenic privilege. A milestone in the therapy and prophylaxis of inflammation after corneal surgery has been the use of topical glucocorticoids since the 1950s. When these are used, it is important to consider the cataractogenic effect of long-term use, the possibility of steroid-induced increase in intraocular pressure (so-called steroid response), the increased risk for microbial infection and the inhibition of epithelialisation. The available glucocorticoids differ in their ability to penetrate into the eye (prednisolone best), their immunosuppressive activity (dexamethasone best) and their ability to induce a steroid response (loteprednol etabonate and fluorometholone least). Preservative-free formulations are only available for dexamethasone. The different properties must be taken into account when choosing the "best" glucocorticoid: If there is a risk of delay in epithelialisation of the wound, topical steroids should be avoided or if necessary, phosphate- and preservative-free dexamethasone should be used with caution. If efficiency in the posterior cornea or in the anterior chamber is important, e.g. after penetrating keratoplasty, prednisolone acetate should be used. If a steroid response is known, loteprednol etabonate or fluorometholone should be used. When allogeneic tissue is transplanted, long-term topical glucocorticoid use over 24 months or longer is necessary. After high-risk keratoplasty with allogeneic donor tissue, supplemental systemic immunosuppressive therapy with calcineurin inhibitors or mycophenolate mofetil over 6 to 12 months is recommended.

Panscleritis as an Unusual Complication of Gonioscopy-assisted Transluminal Trabeculotomy.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of this study was to report a case of panscleritis after gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy (GATT). METHODS: We describe the case of a 33-year-old man with a history of unilateral anterior uveitis and glaucoma, who developed panscleritis after GATT surgery. RESULTS: Uneventful GATT surgery was performed in a glaucomatous left eye. On the second postoperative day, the patient developed tenderness on palpation of the eye. Ophthalmic examination revealed significant diffuse hyperemia, elongated and tortuous upper bulbar conjunctival/scleral vessels, and exudative retinal detachment at the superior nasal quadrant, with diffuse scleral thickening. The patient was diagnosed as having panscleritis, which was attributed to the GATT surgery. Although the scleritis resolved completely with intravenous and oral methylprednisolone treatment, localized retinal detachment persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery-induced posterior scleritis may occur following minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries such as GATT. Control of uveitis for at least 3 months before surgery is indicated in patients with uveitis if GATT surgery is planned.

Non-glaucoma periocular allergic, atopic, and irritant dermatitis at an academic institution: A retrospective review.

PURPOSE: To better understand the nature of periocular dermatitis (PD) patient presentation, treatment, time-to-cure, and referral pattern for allergy testing in an ophthalmic academic center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 344 patients diagnosed with PD between January 1, 2000 and November 30, 2016 at the Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute was performed. Eighty patients were eligible for the study. The primary endpoint was the time-to-cure. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess if there was a significant difference between time-to-cure in patients treated with: 1) combination topical steroid/antibiotic (n = 6) vs. topical steroid alone (n = 40) and 2) combination topical steroid and oral antihistamine (n = 5) vs. topical steroid alone (n = 40). RESULTS: The median age of eligible patients was 57.69 years old, 66.25% of patients were female, and 41.25% had a history of atopy. Seven patients in total were referred for allergy testing. A significant difference was found in likelihood of cure when comparing combination topical steroid and oral antihistamine versus topical steroid alone, adjusting for age and gender (aHR = 3.97, 95% CI: 1.40-11.25). No significance was found when comparing combination topical steroid/antibiotic versus topical steroid alone (aHR = 1.96, 95% CI: 0.72-5.27). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with topical steroid and oral antihistamine were approximately 4 times more likely to experience cure in comparison to patients treated with topical steroids alone. While the majority of patients were not referred for formal allergy testing, this would likely be of benefit.

Submicron loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic gel 0.38% for the treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of a 0.38% submicron formulation of loteprednol etabonate (LE) gel for the treatment of postoperative inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. SETTING: Forty-five United States ophthalmology practices. DESIGN: Double-masked vehicle-controlled randomized parallel group study. METHODS: Patients 18 years of age or older with anterior chamber cells grade 2 or higher on day 1 after uncomplicated cataract surgery were randomized to 14 days of treatment with LE gel 2 times a day, LE gel 3 times a day, or vehicle. Hierarchical primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with resolution of anterior chamber cells and grade 0 (no) pain at postoperative day 8. Safety outcomes included adverse events, intraocular pressure (IOP), biomicroscopy, visual acuity, ophthalmoscopy, and tolerability (drop comfort and ocular symptoms). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 514 patients. Significantly more patients in the LE gel 2 times a day and 3 times a day groups compared with the vehicle group had complete resolution of anterior chamber cells (26.9% and 28.7% versus 9.3%) and reported grade 0 pain (73.7% and 73.1% versus 47.7%) on day 8 (P < .001 vs vehicle for all). The safety findings were unremarkable, with 1 patient experiencing an IOP increase of 10 mm Hg or higher while on LE gel. More than 75% of patients in each group reported no drop discomfort. CONCLUSION: In this study, submicron loteprednol etabonate gel 0.38% appeared safe and effective in the treatment of postoperative inflammation and pain whether instilled 2 times or 3 times a day.

Loteprednol etabonate for inflammatory conditions of the anterior segment of the eye: twenty years of clinical experience with a retrometabolically designed corticosteroid.

INTRODUCTION: Topical corticosteroids are an important pharmacotherapy for the management of various inflammatory conditions affecting the anterior segment of the eye. However, medications in this class are associated with well-known risks including increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataracts. The topical corticosteroid loteprednol etabonate (LE) was developed with the specific intention of minimizing these side effects. AREAS COVERED: The focus of this review is to examine published efficacy and safety data for LE, a drug engineered to undergo rapid metabolism to inactive metabolites with the goal of improved safety. Two decades of clinical research focused on LE formulations are reviewed, including the use of LE in combination with tobramycin. The cumulative body of experience affirms the concept that the molecular design of LE confers certain safety benefits without compromising the desired anti-inflammatory efficacy of a topical corticosteroid. EXPERT OPINION: Loteprednol etabonate is a mainstay for topical therapy of a wide variety of commonplace and niche conditions of the ocular surface and the anterior segment, including in the healing post-operative patient. Its versatility and safety allow eye care providers to recommend both acute induction as well as chronic maintenance therapy with appropriate follow-up.

Comparison of Efficacy of Difluprednate 0.05% and Loteprednol Gel 0.5% After Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes and complications of topical difluprednate 0.05% and loteprednol gel 0.5% after routine cataract surgery. METHODS: Subjects received either difluprednate emulsion 0.05% (n=30 eyes) or loteprednol gel 0.5% (n=30 eyes) after routine cataract surgery. Topical steroid drops were initiated 3 days before cataract surgery and continued for 2 weeks postoperatively. Anterior chamber (AC) cell grade, corneal edema, corneal pachymetry, visual acuity, ocular surface quality (Oxford scale), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were evaluated at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients treated with difluprednate or loteprednol had statistically similar resolution of their AC cell grade and corneal edema at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively (P>0.05 at each study visit). Difluprednate-treated and loteprednol-treated eyes achieved a mean best-corrected visual acuity of at least 20/25 by 1 week postoperatively (0.055 and 0.061 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, respectively; P=0.82). The nasal ocular surface quality at 1 week had improved in loteprednol-treated eyes compared with difluprednate-treated eyes (1.0 vs. 1.9 Oxford score, respectively; P<0.001), but similar at all other visits. There was no statistical difference between IOP levels between both treatment groups (P>0.05). In the difluprednate-treated group, one patient developed rebound inflammation and two patients developed cystoid macular edema at their 1-month postoperative visit. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-inflammatory effect, visual recovery, and IOP of patients using topical difluprednate or loteprednol gel after cataract surgery are equivalent. There may be an additional short-term benefit of loteprednol gel in protecting the ocular surface after cataract surgery.

Effect of topical loteprednol etabonate with lid hygiene on tear cytokines and meibomian gland dysfunction in prosthetic eye wearers.

PurposeTo assess tear cytokine levels and clinical outcomes in meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) in the blind eye of patients wearing an ocular prosthesis after 2 months of treatment with topical loteprednol etabonate and eyelid scrubs with warm compresses.Patients and methodsThis study included patients with MGD wearing a unilateral ocular prosthesis for more than 1 year. All patients topically received 0.5% loteprednol etabonate and were instructed to scrub their eyelids with warm compresses on the prosthetic eye for 2 months. We evaluated tear cytokine levels using Multiplex Bead Immunoassays, performed biomicroscopic examination of the lid margins and meibomian gland, conducted meibography imaging, and assessed MGD-related ocular symptoms using a questionnaire for the prosthetic eye before and 2 months after treatment.ResultsThirty consecutive patients were included. There were significant reductions in the levels of interleukin (IL)-6, interferon-γ, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, and IL-1ß (P<0.001 for each cytokine). Moreover, there were improvements in ocular symptoms (P=0.001), lid margin abnormalities (P<0.001), meibomian gland expressibility (P<0.001) and meibography findings (P=0.037).ConclusionTopical loteprednol etabonate in conjunction with eyelid scrubs and warm compresses were effective in treating MGD in prosthetic eye wearers. Furthermore, tear cytokine measurements may serve as an additional approach for evaluating the efficacy of anti-inflammatory treatment for MGD in prosthetic eye wearers.

Loteprednol Etabonate 0.5%/Tobramycin 0.3% Compared with Dexamethasone 0.1%/Tobramycin 0.3% for the Treatment of Blepharitis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T) and dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T) ophthalmic suspensions in reducing select signs of blepharitis. METHODS: Data were pooled from two studies (one from the USA; one from China) of adults (n = 627) with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis treated with LE/T or DM/T four times daily for 2 weeks (safety population). Efficacy analyses included 495 eyes (247 LE/T, 248 DM/T) with any baseline sign of blepharitis. RESULTS: At Day 15, the least squares mean change from baseline in composite blepharitis severity was similar between LE/T (-2.86) and DM/T (-2.99) (90% CI for mean treatment difference: -0.35, 0.11). Intraocular pressure (IOP) increases ≥10 mmHg over baseline were reported for 1 US patient (DM/T group) and 19 Chinese patients (6 LE/T; 13 DM/T). CONCLUSIONS: LE/T was similarly effective in reducing the signs of blepharitis compared with DM/T, but demonstrated a better safety profile with respect to changes in IOP.

Symptomatic Treatment of Subepithelial Infiltrates after Viral Conjunctivitis: Loteprednol or Dexamethasone?

PURPOSE: To compare the efficiency and ocular side-effect profile of topical loteprednol applied to one eye and topical dexamethasone applied to the other eye in the early period on the same patient who has subepithelial infiltrates (SEI). METHODS: The patients who developed bilateral SEI following epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) were applied topical loteprednol on one eye (group 2) and topical dexamethasone on the other (group 1). RESULTS: Decrease in the symptoms was faster in the dexamethasone group, but this difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.073). Both groups were found to have substantial recurrence. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.131). CONCLUSIONS: The study has found that in the treatment of SEI, which developed after EKC, statistically similar results can be obtained with loteprednol, which is known to have fewer adverse effects.

Potential Use of Cyclodextrin Complexes for Enhanced Stability, Anti-inflammatory Efficacy, and Ocular Bioavailability of Loteprednol Etabonate.

Loteprednol etabonate (LE) is a soft corticosteroid that maintains therapeutic activity with much reduced adverse effects. Yet, its ocular bioavailability is hindered by its poor aqueous solubility. Early attempts of LE complexation with cyclodextrins (CDs) did not involve the study of the effects of various complexation methods on the characteristics of the complexes formed. Formulation of complexes into different delivery systems as well in vitro and in vivo assessments has not been accomplished in the earlier studies. In this study, complexation of LE with each of hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HP-ß-CD) and ß-cyclodextrin (ß-CD) by kneading, freeze drying, and co-precipitation was attempted. These complexes were incorporated into gels, drops, and ocuserts using hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), methylcellulose (MC), and sodium alginate (ALG). These formulae were examined with respect to drug content, pH, viscosity, in vitro release, and stability for 6 months. Kinetic analysis of release data was done. Selected formulations were assessed for their efficacy in the treatment of ocular allergic conjunctivitis and their ocular bioavailability in rabbits' eyes. All formulations exhibited accepted drug content, pH, and viscosity. The drug release was increased by complexation particularly with HP-ß-CD in the order of ocuserts ≥ drops > gels, being the highest for HPMC preparations that also exhibited the greatest stability and anti-inflammatory activity especially in case of LE-HP-ß-CD complexes. Ocuserts of co-precipitated LE-HP-ß-CD using HPMC (5% w/w) and Carbopol 934P (0.1% w/w) provided a significantly enhanced stability (p < 0.05), ocular anti-inflammatory efficacy (p < 0.05), and ocular bioavailability (p < 0.0001), to be represented as a potential ocular delivery system of LE.

Efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1%, emedastine difumarate 0.05%, and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for Chinese children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized vehicle-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a disease of various agents that affects the physical and mental health of children. Although the most effective therapy has not been found so far, it is essential to explore the considerable therapeutic method. We compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine, emedastine, loteprednol etabonate (LE), and vehicle for treating seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) in Chinese children. METHODS: Eighty cases of 160 eyes aged from 5 to 10 years with SAC were available and those subjects were randomly distributed into 4 groups. Both their eyes received olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% twice a day, emedastine difumarate 0.05% twice a day, or LE 0.5% 4 times a day, respectively, whereas those of the control group received artificial tears (AT) 0.5% 3 times a day. This study was conducted successfully and the observations were collected before treatment and on day 8 (±1 day) and day 15 (±2 days) afterward. The principal measurement of efficacy was focused on the signs and symptoms of the subjects, evaluated before and after treatment, in addition to visual acuity (VA) and fundus oculi. RESULTS: On day 8 (±1 day) and day 15 (±2 days), all the antiallergic agents were found to be more effective than vehicle (p < 0.05) in terms of all the symptoms and signs. However, there was no statistical significance (p ≥ 0.05) shown among the treatment groups. There were no evident changes in VA and no clinically significant changes were observed in fundus oculi. CONCLUSION: After the treatment, the efficacy presented a similar distribution among the trial groups.

Effect of 0.1% diclofenac ophthalmic solution on inflammatory response and macular thickness following phacoemulsification cataract surgery. / [Wplyw 0,1% kropli diklofenaku na odczyn zapalny w komorze przedniej oka i stan plamki po operacji fakoemulsyfikacji zacmy].

Purpose: To evaluate 0.1% diclofenac sodium as an adjunctive therapy with loteprednol etabonate on postoperative inflammation in the anterior chamber and on foveal and parafoveal retinal thickness. Material and methods: Eighty eyes eligible for phacoemulsification were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. Patients in group I (N = 40) received anti-inflammatory treatment consisting of 0.1% diclofenac with 0.5% loteprednol; group II (N = 40) patients received 0.5% loteprednol alone. Best corrected visual acuity and intraocular pressure were measured, and laser flarephotometry was done. Foveal and parafoveal thickness were assessed by optical coherence tomography. Results: Median flare values decreased more rapidly in group I at 7 and 14 days (7.9 and 7.4 ph/ms, respectively) than in group II (13.7 and 11.8 ph/ms, respectively; p < 0.0001). Group II had significantly increased parafoveal thickness at 14 and 42 days (median 285.59 µm, p = 0.001 and 288.38 µm, p < 0.001, respectively). Parafoveal thickness differed significantly between groups at 14 and 42 days (p = 0.0085, p = 0.0004, respectively). Conclusions: Eyes treated with both diclofenac sodium and loteprednol etabonate showed less inflammatory response and were less likely to develop foveal and parafoveal thickening than those treated with steroid only.

Loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy, as well as the safety of loteprednol etabonate (LE) ophthalmic suspension compared with placebo and other commonly used eye drops for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of randomized controlled trials were carried out in a database of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Eight qualified studies were included. This study assessed the reduction from baseline in scores of cardinal signs and symptoms, proportion of patients with improvement of allergic signs and symptoms, and incidence of clinically significant intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (IOP elevation ≥10 mmHg). RESULTS: The results showed that topical LE was significantly superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in signs scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.65 to -0.32) and symptoms scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.38) of allergic conjunctivitis, and as effective as olopatadine and fluorometholone acetate. Topical LE was associated with a higher improvement rate of signs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.26-1.86; I (2 )= 57%) and symptoms (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.15-1.46; I (2 )= 54%) than placebo and the positive control treatment. Clinically significant IOP elevation was more frequent in the group of LE than the group of control treatment (pooled odds ratio = 3.03; 95% CI = 1.04-8.80), which was affected by the response to corticosteroid of the individual patient and the wearing of contact lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Topical LE is effective in treating allergic conjunctivitis. However, it should be used with caution due to the higher incidence of IOP elevation compared with placebo and olopatadine. A large-scale trial would be required to confirm the effect of different concentrations of LE on IOP.

Loteprednol Etabonate 0.5% Gel Vs. Prednisolone Acetate 1% Solution After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: Prospective Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation and graft rejection with loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel and prednisolone acetate 1% solution after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). METHODS: In this prospective, evaluator-masked trial, 167 patients were randomized to loteprednol or prednisolone in a 1:1 ratio 1 month after DMEK; 66 fellow eyes were enrolled and assigned to the opposite treatment. Dosing was 4 times daily for 2 months, thrice daily for 1 month, twice daily for 1 month, and once daily for 7 months. The main outcomes were IOP elevation (defined as IOP ≥ 24 mm Hg or an increase of ≥10 mm Hg over the baseline preoperative level) and immunologic rejection episodes, assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: A total of 233 eyes were assigned to treatment. Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel and prednisolone acetate 1% solution were equally effective in preventing immunologic rejection episodes; none (0%) occurred with either treatment (P = 1). IOP elevation was twice as likely in the prednisolone-treated eyes (relative risk = 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-4.5, P = 0.016). The proportion with IOP elevation was 25% in prednisolone-treated eyes versus 11% in loteprednol-treated eyes (P = 0.013). In 66 subjects with fellow eyes assigned to opposite treatments, an IOP increase of ≥10 mm Hg was significantly more likely in the prednisolone-treated eye (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel was as effective as prednisolone acetate 1% solution in preventing immunologic graft rejection episodes after DMEK and was significantly less likely to cause IOP elevation.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01853696.