Introduction
This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the ...intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).
Methods
The trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8
a.m.
, 10
a.m.
, and 4
p.m.
) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8
a.m.
and 10
a.m.
at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8
a.m.
and 10
a.m.
at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments.
Results
A total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (
P
< 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group.
Conclusions
The SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.
Abstract Background: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% is a new topical fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Besifloxacin has potent in vitro activity against a broad ...spectrum of ocular pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle (the formulation without besifloxacin) in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Patients received either topical besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension or vehicle administered 3 times daily for 5 days. At study entry and on days 4 and 8 (visits 2 and 3), a clinical assessment of ocular signs and symptoms was performed in both eyes, as well as pinhole visual acuity testing, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s). An ophthalmoscopic examination was performed at study entry and on day 8. The primary efficacy outcome measures were clinical resolution and eradication of the baseline bacterial infection on day 8 in culture-confirmed patients. The safety evaluation included adverse events, changes in visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings in all patients who received at least 1 dose of active treatment or vehicle. Results: The safety population consisted of 269 patients (mean SD age, 34.2 22.3 years; 60.2% female; 82.5% white) with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The culture-confirmed intent-to-treat population consisted of 118 patients (60 besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 58 vehicle). Significantly more patients receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than vehicle had clinical resolution of the baseline infection at visit 3 (44/60 73.3% vs 25/58 43.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). Rates of bacterial eradication also were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension compared with vehicle at visit 3 (53/60 88.3% vs35/58 60.3%; P < 0.001). The cumulative frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (69/137 50.4% and 70/132 53.0%). The most common ocular adverse events were eye pain (20/190 treated eyes 10.5% and 13/188 6.9%), blurred vision (20/190 10.5% and 22/188 11.7%), and eye irritation (14/190 7.4% and 23/188 12.2%); these events were of mild or moderate severity. Changes in visual acuity and treatment-emergent events observed on biomicroscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy also were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% given 3 times daily for 5 days was both efficacious and well tolerated compared with vehicle in the treatment of these patients with bacterial conjunctivitis.
To compare the steroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) and other ocular adverse effects of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension with those of dexamethasone 0.1% and ...tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension.
Three hundred six healthy volunteers received either loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin (n = 156) or dexamethasone/tobramycin (n = 150) at 4-hour intervals 4 times a day in both eyes for 28 days in this randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group trial. IOP, visual acuity (VA), and ocular health were assessed at all study visits (days 1, 3, 8, 15, 22, and 29), whereas undilated direct ophthalmoscopy was completed at the baseline and final visits. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed at all follow-up visits.
The number of subjects experiencing IOP increases of >or=10 mm Hg from baseline at any study visit for the loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin group (3 subjects, 1.95%) was significantly lower than that for the dexamethasone/tobramycin group (11 subjects, 7.48%; P = 0.0280), as were mean changes from baseline IOP (P < 0.05 at all visits). The lowest VA recorded for any subject at any visit was 20/40 and reductions of >or=2 lines at any visit were observed in 14 (4.55%) eyes for loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin and in 23 (7.82%) eyes for dexamethasone/tobramycin (P = 0.1257). Both treatments were well tolerated.
Loteprednol/tobramycin was significantly less likely to produce elevations in IOP than was dexamethasone/tobramycin in healthy subjects treated for 28 days. Both loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin and dexamethasone/tobramycin were well tolerated with low risks for systemic AEs and ocular AEs other than elevation in IOP for dexamethasone/tobramycin.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Research design ...and methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study. A total of 957 patients aged 1 year and older with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% or vehicle applied topically three times daily for 5 days.
Main outcome measures: Primary endpoints were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection at Visit 2 (Day 5 ± 1). Secondary endpoints included clinical resolution and microbial eradication at Visit 3 (Day 8 or 9), individual clinical outcomes at follow-up visits, and safety.
Clinical trial registration: NCT number, NCT00347932.
Results: Three hundred and ninety patients had culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Clinical resolution and microbial eradication were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than with vehicle at Visit 2 (45.2% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.0084; and 91.5% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively) and Visit 3 (84.4% vs. 69.1%, p = 0.0011; and 88.4% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Results for secondary endpoints of individual clinical outcomes were consistent with primary endpoints. Fewer eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension experienced adverse events than those receiving vehicle (9.2% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.0047).
Conclusions: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension produces clinical resolution and microbial eradication rates significantly better than vehicle and is safe for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Limitations: A limitation of this study is the lack of a non-treatment control group.
The purpose of this paper is to report on the bacterial species isolated from patients with bacterial conjunctivitis participating in three clinical trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, ...0.6%, and their in vitro antibacterial susceptibility profiles.
Microbial data from three clinical studies, conducted at multiple clinical sites in the US and Asia were integrated. Species were identified at a central laboratory, and minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined for various antibiotics, including β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides.
A total of 1324 bacterial pathogens representing more than 70 species were isolated. The most common species were Haemophilus influenzae (26.0%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (22.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (14.4%), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (8.4%). H. influenzae was most frequently isolated among patients aged 1-18 years, while S. aureus was most prevalent among those >65 years. Drug resistance was prevalent: Of H. influenzae isolates, 25.3% were β-lactamase positive and 27.2% of S. pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-intermediate/ resistant; of S. aureus isolates, 13.7% were methicillin-resistant (MRSA), and of these, 65.4% were ciprofloxacin-resistant, while 45.9% of S. epidermidis isolates were methicillin-resistant (MRSE), and, of these, 47.1% were ciprofloxacin-resistant. Besifloxacin was more potent than comparator fluoroquinolones overall, and particularly against Gram-positive bacteria. Against ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA and MRSE, besifloxacin was four-fold to ≥ 128-fold more potent than other fluoroquinolones.
While the pathogen distribution in bacterial conjunctivitis has not changed, drug resistance is increasing. Patient age and local antibiotic resistance trends should be considered in the treatment of this ocular infection. Besifloxacin showed broad-spectrum in vitro activity and was particularly potent against multidrug-resistant staphylococcal isolates.
To compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the Rho kinase inhibitor netarsudil and latanoprost vs monotherapy with netarsudil or latanoprost.
...Three-month primary endpoint analysis of a randomized, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trial.
Adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (unmedicated intraocular pressure IOP >20 and <36 mm Hg at 8:00 AM) were randomized to receive once-daily netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, netarsudil 0.02%, or latanoprost 0.005% for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean IOP at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 4:00 PM at week 2, week 6, and month 3.
Mean treated IOP ranged from 14.8–16.2 mm Hg for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 17.2–19.0 mm Hg for netarsudil, and 16.7–17.8 mm Hg for latanoprost. Netarsudil/latanoprost FDC met the criteria for superiority to each active component at all 9 time points (all P < .0001), lowering IOP by an additional 1.8–3.0 mm Hg vs netarsudil and an additional 1.3–2.5 mm Hg vs latanoprost. At month 3, the proportion of patients achieving mean diurnal IOP ≤15 mm Hg was 43.5% for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 22.7% for netarsudil, and 24.7% for latanoprost. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported; treatment-related systemic adverse events were minimal. The most frequent ocular adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC, 53.4%; netarsudil, 41.0%; latanoprost, 14.0%), which led to treatment discontinuation in 7.1% (netarsudil/latanoprost FDC), 4.9% (netarsudil), and 0% (latanoprost) of patients.
Once-daily netarsudil/latanoprost FDC demonstrated IOP reductions that were statistically and clinically superior to netarsudil and latanoprost across all 9 time points through month 3, with acceptable ocular safety.
To describe visual acuity (VA) and inflammation following cataract surgery in eyes with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU) that were being treated with a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal ...implant compared with those that were not.
Post hoc, subgroup analysis of data from a 3-year, dose-masked, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the FA implant for the treatment of NIPU.
The subset of eyes that underwent cataract surgery during the 3-year trial. Eyes were either implanted with a 0.59- or a 2.1-mg FA implant, or, in the case of affected fellow eyes, received standard-of-care local treatment.
VA, anterior and posterior chamber inflammation at 1 and 3 months after surgery, and rate of uveitis recurrence and serious postoperative ocular adverse events.
Of 278 patients enrolled in the main trial, 132/142 phakic implanted eyes and 39/186 phakic non-implanted eyes underwent cataract surgery. Mean improvement in VA was significantly greater in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0047) and 3 months (P = 0.0015) postoperatively; significantly fewer anterior chamber cells were seen in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 1 (P = 0.0084) and 3 months (P = 0.0002). Severity of vitreous haze was less in implanted than non-implanted eyes at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.0005). The postsurgical uveitis recurrence rate was lower in implanted than non-implanted eyes (26.5% vs 44.4%; P = 0.0433). Glaucoma was reported in 19.7% of implanted eyes and no non-implanted eyes (P = 0.0008) postoperatively.
In this post hoc subgroup analysis, eyes with NIPU treated with the FA intravitreal implant demonstrated better vision and less intraocular inflammation following cataract surgery than non-implanted eyes. Recurrent uveitic inflammation did not appear to be triggered by cataract surgery. Glaucoma occurred more frequently in implanted eyes.
This study was conducted to analyze and compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) treatment effect of the slow-eluting (SE) travoprost intracameral implant to the IOP treatment effect of topical ...prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy in a subgroup of subjects who were on pre-study PGA monotherapy prior to enrollment in the two pivotal phase 3 trials of the travoprost intracameral implant.INTRODUCTIONThis study was conducted to analyze and compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) treatment effect of the slow-eluting (SE) travoprost intracameral implant to the IOP treatment effect of topical prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy in a subgroup of subjects who were on pre-study PGA monotherapy prior to enrollment in the two pivotal phase 3 trials of the travoprost intracameral implant.A combined study population of 133 subjects from two phase 3 trials, who were on topical PGA monotherapy at screening, subsequently underwent a washout period from their topical PGA, and then were randomized and administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant. The subjects were analyzed for the IOP treatment effects of the pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the in-study SE travoprost intracameral implant. Paired t-tests were used to compare the difference in screening minus post-washout baseline IOP versus month 3 minus post-washout baseline IOP. The IOP-lowering efficacy in eyes administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant was compared to the IOP lowering in the same eyes while on a topical PGA monotherapy prior to study entry.METHODSA combined study population of 133 subjects from two phase 3 trials, who were on topical PGA monotherapy at screening, subsequently underwent a washout period from their topical PGA, and then were randomized and administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant. The subjects were analyzed for the IOP treatment effects of the pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the in-study SE travoprost intracameral implant. Paired t-tests were used to compare the difference in screening minus post-washout baseline IOP versus month 3 minus post-washout baseline IOP. The IOP-lowering efficacy in eyes administered an SE travoprost intracameral implant was compared to the IOP lowering in the same eyes while on a topical PGA monotherapy prior to study entry.Pre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated IOP treatment effects of -5.76 mmHg and -7.07 mmHg, respectively. The IOP-lowering treatment effect was significantly greater by 1.31 mmHg for the SE travoprost intracameral implant relative to pre-study PGA monotherapy (95% confidence interval: -2.01, -0.60; P = 0.0003).RESULTSPre-study topical PGA monotherapy and the SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated IOP treatment effects of -5.76 mmHg and -7.07 mmHg, respectively. The IOP-lowering treatment effect was significantly greater by 1.31 mmHg for the SE travoprost intracameral implant relative to pre-study PGA monotherapy (95% confidence interval: -2.01, -0.60; P = 0.0003).The SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated superior IOP-lowering treatment effect versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy with a superiority margin that was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful. The greater IOP reduction from baseline while on the SE implant versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy may be a reflection of the optimized adherence and continuous elution of PGA therapy into the anterior chamber achieved with the SE travoprost intracameral implant.CONCLUSIONSThe SE travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated superior IOP-lowering treatment effect versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy with a superiority margin that was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful. The greater IOP reduction from baseline while on the SE implant versus pre-study topical PGA monotherapy may be a reflection of the optimized adherence and continuous elution of PGA therapy into the anterior chamber achieved with the SE travoprost intracameral implant.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03519386 and NCT03868124.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03519386 and NCT03868124.
Background:
Besifloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone, specifically a chlorofluoroquinolone, with potent broad-spectrum bactericidal activity for the topical treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
...Objective:
The objective of this report was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% across clinical and phase I safety studies.
Methods:
Data were drawn from two phase I safety studies in healthy adults, an open-label, phase II pharmacokinetic study of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis and from integrated data from three randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, safety and efficacy studies of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis (two were vehicle controlled and one was active controlled with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, as base). Safety assessments included changes in visual acuity, ocular assessments with ophthalmoscopy and biomicroscopy, and assessment of adverse events (AEs).
Results:
Safety data for besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were available for 1350 patients, including 1192 patients (1810 eyes) in the integrated analysis. Systemic exposure following topical administration of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was negligible. No changes were seen in corneal endothelial cell density. In the integrated safety analysis of the three safety and efficacy studies, the most commonly reported ocular AEs in study eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% were blurred vision (2.1 %), eye pain (1.8%), eye irritation (1.4%), nonspecific conjunctivitis (1.2%) and eye pruritus (1.1%). Blurred vision, eye irritation and nonspecific conjunctivitis occurred in significantly fewer besifloxacin-treated patients than in vehicle-treated patients (p≤0.05). Headache (1.8%) was the most frequently reported non-ocular AE. Most AEs were mild in severity and there were no treatment-related serious AEs. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% did not significantly affect visual acuity, biomicroscopy or ophthalmoscopy compared with vehicle or moxifloxacin.
Conclusion:
The results from this comprehensive data set of 1350 patients demonstrate that besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% has a favourable safety profile and is well tolerated.
PDF
