Long-term evaluation of 0.25% levobunolol and timolol for therapy for elevated intraocular pressure.

In a one-year, double-masked, randomized study, the ocular hypotensive efficacy of twice-daily treatment with 0.25% levobunolol hydrochloride or timolol maleate was evaluated in 78 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension (phase 1). If intraocular pressure (IOP) was not well controlled during the study, the concentration of medication was increased to 0.5%, and the patient was followed up for an additional three months (phase 2). During phase 1, the mean IOP was reduced by 4.6 mm Hg in the timolol treatment group and by 5.1 mm Hg in the levobunolol treatment group. Seventy-one percent (29/41) of the patients in the timolol treatment group and 70% (26/37) of the patients in the levobunolol treatment group successfully completed phase 1. Of those patients who required the higher concentration of medication, 89% (8/11) in the timolol treatment group and 75% (3/4) in the levobunolol treatment group successfully completed phase 2. Higher concentration, however, did not produce greater IOP reduction. No statistically or clinically significant differences between the groups were noted in any of the efficacy or safety variables evaluated.

A combination of levobunolol and dipivefrin for the treatment of glaucoma.

This double-masked prospective study compared the ocular hypotensive efficacy and the safety of 0.5% and 1% levobunolol hydrochloride with 0.5% timolol maleate when each was administered topically twice daily in combination with 0.1% dipivefrin hydrochloride. Forty-three patients whose intraocular pressure was previously controlled by concomitant treatment with timolol and dipivefrin were randomly assigned to receive 0.5% or 1% levobunolol and 0.1% dipivefrin, or to continue to receive 0.5% timolol and 0.1% dipivefrin for three months. In the groups receiving levobunolol and dipivefrin concurrently, continued intraocular pressure control was achieved equal to that attained with timolol and dipivefrin before study entry. We concluded that concomitant treatment with levobunolol and dipivefrin is equal in both efficacy and safety to concomitant treatment with timolol and dipivefrin.

Levobunolol. A three-month efficacy study in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

The ocular hypotensive effect and the safety of levobunolol hydrochloride (0.5% and 1%) were compared with vehicle in this double-masked study of 42 patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After a washout of ocular hypotensive medication, patients received one of the three test treatments in both eyes twice daily for three months. Both concentrations of levobunolol produced significant reductions in intraocular pressure, while decreases in vehicle-treated patients were minimal. Over the three-month study period, average pressure reductions were approximately 9.0 mm Hg in patients receiving either concentration of levobunolol and 0.5 mm Hg in patients receiving vehicle. Fewer patients were terminated from the study for inadequately controlled intraocular pressure in the levobunolol groups than in the vehicle group. No patients were terminated for drug-related adverse experiences.

Levobunolol compared with timolol for the long-term control of elevated intraocular pressure.

Levobunolol hydrochloride (0.5% and 1%) and timolol maleate (0.5%) are being compared in an ongoing, double-masked, randomized study of 141 patients with ocular hypertension or chronic open-angle glaucoma. Baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) in the three treatment groups ranged from 26 to 27 mm Hg. During the first 15 months of the study, the two drugs have not proved to be significantly different in ocular hypotensive efficacy, with overall mean IOP decreases of 6.8 to 7.6 mm Hg. In addition, the two concentrations of levobunolol have been equally effective in controlling IOP. Neither drug has been associated with any significant ocular side effects. Both drugs have produced significant decreases (five to ten beats per minute) in mean heart rate. The effect on mean blood pressure has been less pronounced: overall decreases have been less than 4 mm Hg for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The results of this ongoing study suggest that levobunolol is as effective and as safe as timolol for the long-term control of IOP.

Ophthalmic beta-blockers since timolol.

In the twenty years since beta-blockers were proposed for treatment of glaucoma, use of topical timolol has increased to account for 70% of all glaucoma medications used. The objective of this article is to review the "newer" beta-blockers, and to address the generalization that "all ophthalmic beta-blockers are the same." The review concentrates on agents that have been studied as topical treatments for patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Sections on pharmacology and design of clinical trials are included to aid the ophthalmologist in evaluating the new drugs and published clinical reports. The major questions to consider in evaluating the therapeutic potential of a new beta-blocker for the treatment of glaucoma involve efficacy and safety: Is the drug as effective as timolol? Does it have a duration of action at least as long as timolol? Does it have ocular toxicity? Is it comfortable? What are its systemic effects?

Memory-enhancing effects of post-training dipivefrin and epinephrine: involvement of peripheral and central adrenergic receptors.

These experiments examined the effects, in mice, of post-training i.p. injections of dipivefrin (DPE), a lipophilic prodrug of epinephrine, and epinephrine (EPI) on 48-h retention assessed in inhibitory avoidance and Y-maze discrimination tasks. DPE, in doses of 0.3-10 micrograms/kg significantly facilitated retention: the effects were approximately 10-fold more potent than those of EPI obtained with similar experimental conditions. The alpha-adrenergic antagonists prazosin (alpha 1; 3.0 mg/kg; i.p.), yohimbine (alpha 2; 3.0 mg/kg; i.p.) and phentolamine (alpha 1 and alpha 2; 3.0 mg/kg; i.p.) did not block the enhancement of retention induced by either DPE (10.0 micrograms/kg; i.p.) or EPI (0.1 mg/kg; i.p.). However, the beta-adrenergic antagonist propranolol (2.0 mg/kg; i.p.) attenuated the effects of both DPE and EPI. Sotalol (2.0 mg/kg; i.p.), a peripherally-acting beta-adrenergic antagonist, attenuated the effects of EPI but not those of DPE. These findings suggest the DPE-induced enhancement of memory involves central beta- but not alpha-adrenergic mechanisms while EPI's effects are initiated by activation of peripheral beta-adrenergic systems.

Epinephrine-induced memory facilitation: attenuation by adrenoceptor antagonists.

The present study examined the relative importance of alpha- and beta-adrenoceptors in the memory modulatory effects of epinephrine. Posttraining epinephrine administration enhanced retention performance of a one-trial inhibitory avoidance response. Further pretraining injections of a variety of adrenoceptor antagonists, including selective alpha 1-, alpha 2-, beta 1- and/or beta 2-adrenoceptor antagonists, attenuated the retention enhancing effects of posttraining epinephrine. These results suggest that alpha- and beta-adrenoceptors of both subtypes are involved in the memory-modulating effects of epinephrine.

Regulatory review intervals for ophthalmic new drug applications at the US Food and Drug Administration.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the regulatory review interval for recent ophthalmic new drug applications (NDAs) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: Based on publicly available information regarding submission and approval dates, the timing of FDA review of NDAs of first indications for therapeutic ophthalmic drugs in the 1990s was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (median) interval of the 19 NDAs from submission to approval decreased from 44 (18) months in 1990 to 11 (10.6) months in 1996. At least nine of these agents had their first worldwide ophthalmic approval in the United States. For 10 of the 19 NDAs, the ophthalmic NDA represented the first US approval of this molecule by any route. CONCLUSIONS: Quality filings currently appear to be reviewed and approved in 1 year or less. Because of the confidential nature of corporate development, no analysis can be made regarding changes in the presubmission costs and timing.

Update on regulatory review intervals for ophthalmic new drug applications at the United States Food and Drug Administration.

PURPOSE: To update the analysis of the regulatory review interval for ophthalmic new drug applications at the United States Food and Drug Administration for the years 1997 to 1999, based on the previous review by the author of the period 1990 to 1996. METHODS: Publicly available records on ophthalmic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in this time period were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the seven ophthalmic new drug applications approved during the years 1997 to 1999, the range of approval intervals was 5 to 22 months. With only one approval in 1997, the mean was the same as that single product, 22 months. The mean approval time for 1998 was 10.3 months, and for 1999 it was 8.7 months. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmology division continues its rapid rate of New Drug Application review.

Glaucoma treatment with once-daily levobunolol.

Although twice-daily instillation of topical beta-blockers is the standard regimen for treatment of increased intraocular pressure, once-daily therapy might improve patient compliance and provide greater safety. In a three-month, double-masked clinical trial, 92 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension received levobunolol 0.5% or 1% or timolol 0.5% once daily, in both eyes. Overall mean decreases in intraocular pressure were significantly greater in the groups treated with levobunolol than in the group treated with timolol. Intraocular pressure decreases averaged 7.0 mm Hg with levobunolol 0.5%, 6.5 mm Hg with levobunolol 1%, and 4.5 mm Hg with timolol. The intraocular pressures of 72% (18 of 25 patients) of those treated with levobunolol 0.5%, 79% (22 of 28 patients) of those treated with levobunolol 1%, and 64% (16 of 25 patients) of those treated with timolol were successfully controlled during the study. Heart rate and blood pressure decreases were minimal with both levobunolol and timolol. Study results indicated that once-daily treatment with levobunolol and, to a lesser extent, timolol is sufficient to control intraocular pressure successfully and safely.

Levobunolol compared with timolol: a four-year study.

Fifty-one patients with raised intraocular pressure (IOP) were treated for up to four years with one of three ophthalmic solutions: 0.5% levobunolol, 1% levobunolol, or 0.5% timolol. The study was conducted as a double-masked, randomised trial in which medications were administered twice daily to both eyes. Levobunolol and timolol were equally effective in reducing overall mean IOP; reductions were greater than 8.8 mmHg in all three treatment groups. The study showed levobunolol to be as safe and effective as timolol in the long-term control of raised IOP.

Levobunolol and metipranolol: comparative ocular hypotensive efficacy, safety, and comfort.

Topical levobunolol 0.5% was compared with topical metipranolol 0.6% for efficacy, safety, and comfort in 46 patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The study was of parallel design, randomised, double-masked, and of three months' duration. After a washout interval the study medications were instilled twice daily in both eyes. The overall mean decrease in intraocular pressure (IOP) was approximately 7 mmHg in both groups. More than 90% of patients in both groups successfully completed the study. Both agents caused slight decreases in heart rate and blood pressure. More complaints of burning and stinging were reported in the metipranolol group than in the levobunolol group. This three-month, 46-patient study showed levobunolol 0.5% and metipranolol 0.6% to be similarly effective ocular hypotensive agents.

Long-term ocular hypotensive effect of levobunolol: results of a one-year study.

Data for the first 12 months are reported for an ongoing, multicentre, clinical study comparing the long-term, ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of topical levobunolol (0.5% and 1%) and timolol (0.5%). This study was a double-masked trial testing 88 patients with chronic open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. During the 12-month period drops were instilled twice daily into both eyes after a washout of prestudy ocular hypotensive medication. The effect of the three treatments in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) was similar. Mean IOP reductions over the 12 months averaged 7.2 mmHg for the 0.5% levobunolol group, 6.2 mmHg for the 1% levobunolol group, and 6.0 mmHg for the timolol group. Decreases in mean heart rate of up to 5 beats per minute were observed in the 0.5% levobunolol group, up to 8 beats per minute in the 1% levobunolol group, and up to 4 beats per minute in the timolol group. Several patients were removed from the study owing to side effects possibly related to levobunolol treatment.

Double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for postoperative inflammation. Loteprednol Etabonate Post-operative Inflammation Study Group 1.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% with those of a placebo (vehicle) in controlling anterior chamber cell and flare reaction in patients having cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. METHODS: This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter study comprised patients who exhibited a minimum anterior chamber inflammation (ACI) score (sum of cell and flare reaction) of 3 (0 to 9 scale) on the day after cataract removal with posterior chamber IOL implantation. All 227 patients received loteprednol etabonate 0.5% or the placebo 4 times a day in the operated eye for up to 14 days after surgery. Five patients without valid on-treatment follow-up visits were not evaluated for efficacy. RESULTS: By the final visit, the ACI had resolved in 64% (70/109) of patients in the loteprednol etabonate group and 29% (33/113) of those in the placebo group (P < .001). The resolution rate and mean change from baseline of the individual components of ACI (cell and flare), as well as other signs and symptoms, was better in the loteprednol etabonate group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Among the 53 patients who did not complete the study, 34 (29%) were placebo patients discontinued for inadequate anti-inflammatory effect. The treatment failure rate and the time course of failures were lower in the loteprednol etabonate group; the differences were clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P < .001). Three patients in the loteprednol etabonate group had an intraocular pressure elevation of 10 mm Hg or more over the preoperative screening value. CONCLUSION: Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% led to a clinically meaningful reduction in the signs and symptoms of postoperative ACI and had an acceptable safety profile when compared with a placebo.

Flurbiprofen 0.03% for the control of inflammation following cataract extraction by phacoemulsification.

We conducted a double-masked, vehicle-controlled study to evaluate the anti-inflammatory effect of topical flurbiprofen in cataract surgery by phacoemulsification and implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens. The 233 patients were randomized to receive either flurbiprofen or vehicle immediately prior to and for two weeks following surgery. No concomitant corticosteroid use was allowed. The flurbiprofen group had significantly less anterior chamber cells and flare at day 7 and significantly less conjunctival erythema, corneal edema, and lid edema at day 14. The investigator's global effectiveness rating was higher in the flurbiprofen group at day 14. Blood-aqueous barrier disruption, as measured by aqueous fluorophotometry, was statistically significantly diminished in the flurbiprofen group. Burning and stinging were rated significantly greater in the flurbiprofen group than in the vehicle group. Foreign-body sensation and photophobia were significantly more severe in the vehicle group than in the flurbiprofen group. Flurbiprofen provided postsurgical anti-inflammatory efficacy in clinical signs of inflammation and in blood-aqueous barrier disruption, and also showed improved subjective signs.

Financing new drug development in ophthalmology.

Previously, the author presented an overview of the procedural aspects of ophthalmic drug development. In that article, aspects of drug discovery and development were discussed, including application of the scientific method, compound selection, biological evaluation, pharmaceutical formulation, clinical development, and regulatory approval. An important part of drug discovery and development is funding the work. In this article, the author presents key issues involved in this funding process.

Commercially available ocular hypotensive products: preservative concentration, stability, storage, and in-life utilization.

PURPOSE: With the recent addition of several new ocular hypotensive agents to the pharmacopeia, glaucomatologists have more choices in selection of pharmacotherapy. Several of these new agents have special storage requirements or a limited shelf-life when stored under certain conditions. METHODS: To better inform physicians and patients about pharmaceutical issues relating to the correct usage or storage of ophthalmic products used to manage glaucoma, the authors reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for sterile ophthalmic preparations, together with the United States Pharmacopeia 24. They also reviewed the Ophthalmic Physicians Desk Reference (2000 edition) for pharmaceutical information regarding branded glaucoma-solution products. RESULTS: The US Food and Drug Administration requires that both analytical tests (e.g., concentration of preservative) and functional tests (e.g., preservative efficacy tests) be undertaken to show the sterility of liquid products. In addition, extensive chemical testing of the potency and stability of the active molecule and other physicochemical properties of the formulation are needed to justify expiration dates and determine the shelf-life of the product. Of the 19 products that met the search criteria, 17 (89%) used benzalkonium chloride as the primary preservative agent, in weight-to-volume ratios ranging from 0.004% (Betagan, Optipranolol) to 0.020% (Xalatan). Five products had a warning against freezing, and 12 required protection from light. Only one product required refrigerated storage before opening, though most products specify an upper range for temperature exposure during storage. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and their patients need to be aware of the special requirements of each product to assure that they receive the dose of medication as prescribed. The distinction between stability during storage before dispensing (shelf-life) and the acceptable "in-use life" after opening of the dispensed product are essential for the safe and efficacious management of glaucoma.

Change in intraocular pressure during long-term use of loteprednol etabonate.

PURPOSE: Loteprednol etabonate is a novel site-active corticosteroid synthesized through structural modifications of prednisolone-related compounds so that it will undergo a predictable transformation to an inactive metabolite. In double-masked studies, loteprednol etabonate was effective in the treatment of giant papillary conjunctivitis, seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, postoperative inflammation, and uveitis. The objective of this analysis was to determine the incidence of clinically significant elevations in intraocular pressure (IOP) with long-term use of loteprednol etabonate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All subjects (healthy volunteers or patients with inflammation or allergy) in all sponsored loteprednol etabonate studies in the United States were evaluated. A clinically significant elevation in IOP was defined as > or = 10 mmHg at any visit, and long-term use was defined as > or = 28 days. Of the 2,210 subjects, 1,648 were treated for 28 days or longer with loteprednol etabonate (0.2% or 0.5%), prednisolone acetate 1%, or vehicle. RESULTS: IOP elevation > or = 10 mmHg occurred in 1.7% (15/901) of patients taking long-term loteprednol etabonate, 0.5% (3/583) of those taking vehicle, and 6.7% (11/164) of those taking prednisolone acetate. Excluding patients who wore contact lenses, the incidence was 0.6% (4/624), 1.0% (3/304), and 6.7% (11/164) for loteprednol etabonate, vehicle, and prednisolone acetate, respectively. The incidence of IOP elevations with 0.2% loteprednol etabonate was 0.8% (1/133), similar to that for vehicle (0.7%, 1/135). CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis in a large population of subjects undergoing long-term therapy and of a previously published controlled, double-masked study in corticosteroid responders suggest that loteprednol etabonate has less propensity to cause clinically significant elevations in IOP than prednisolone acetate.

The role of mitomycin treatment duration and previous intraocular surgery on the success of trabeculectomy surgery.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine the effect of duration of mitomycin exposure during trabeculectomy surgery on filtration success in eyes that had and had not been subjected to previous surgery. METHODS: On hundred six eyes of 92 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The effect of previous surgery and exposure duration of mitomycin 0.5 mg/ml on outcomes of trabeculectomy surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean duration of mitomycin exposure was 0.7 +/- 0.02 min (mean +/- SEM) in the eyes that had not been subjected to previous surgery and 1.5 +/- 0.11 min in the eyes that had (p < 0.001). The mean follow-up times were 14 months in both groups. The mean decrease in intraocular pressure was 13.6 +/- 1.25 mm Hg in the group that had not been subjected to previous surgery and 13.9 +/- 1.45 mm Hg in the group that had been subjected to previous surgery. Analysis of variance techniques demonstrated no predictive value of demographics, history of previous surgery, or duration of mitomycin exposure with results of trabeculectomy surgery. Hypotony was the most frequent complication in both the no previous surgery and the previous surgery groups. The incidence of complications was numerically greater in the group that had not been subjected to previous surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of mitomycin exposure and the history of previous surgery did not correlate with postoperative intraocular pressure, medications, or incidence of complications. The exposure duration response curve of mitomycin 0.5 mg/ml in these patients appears to be flat through the time evaluated. Lower concentrations of mitomycin and shorter exposure should be used to maintain efficacy with reduced risk of complications.

Failure to detect systemic levels, and effects of loteprednol etabonate and its metabolite, PJ-91, following chronic ocular administration.

The objective of this study was to determine the systemic exposure to loteprednol etabonate (LE) following its chronic, ocular instillation. This was a randomized, double-masked, placebo controlled, single center trial in 14 normal volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either LE (n=10) or placebo (n=4) and instructed to instill one drop into each eye 8 times daily on Days 0 and 1 and four times daily on Days 2 through 42. Blood levels of loteprednol etabonate (LE) and its major metabolite PJ-91 (delta1 cortienic acid etabonate) in plasma, and circulating plasma cortisol levels were measured during the study. Plasma levels of LE or PJ-91 were below the level of quantitation (1 ng/mL) for all subjects in both treatment groups. Plasma cortisol levels were all within the normal range. Chronic exposure to LE at a concentration and frequency equal to or greater than the intended therapeutic dose does not result in detectable systemic levels or hypothalamic pituitary axis suppression.