Safety of KPI-121 Ophthalmic Suspension 0.25% in Patients With Dry Eye Disease: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Multicenter, Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled Studies

PURPOSE

The safety of KPI-121 0.25%, an ophthalmic nanoparticle suspension of loteprednol etabonate, was evaluated in subjects with dry eye disease (DED) in one phase 2 and three phase 3 randomized trials of similar design.

METHODS

Adults with DED received KPI-121 0.25% or vehicle drops 4 times daily (QID) for ≥2 weeks; 1430 subjects received KPI-121 0.25% and 1438 subjects received vehicle drops. Main safety assessments were adverse events (AEs) and intraocular pressure (IOP). As a common side effect associated with the use of ocular corticosteroids is elevated IOP, subjects with a history of or current diagnosis of glaucoma were excluded.

RESULTS

Instillation site pain was the most common AE, reported by 5.2% of subjects in the KPI-121 0.25% group and 4.4% of subjects in the vehicle group; other AEs were reported by ≤0.8% of subjects in the KPI-121 group. IOP elevations, a side effect associated with the use of ophthalmic corticosteroids, were observed with low incidence: 0.6% and 0.2% of subjects in the KPI-121 and vehicle groups, respectively. An IOP elevation was defined as an increase from baseline of >5 mm Hg that resulted in an IOP of ≥21 mm Hg in either eye during use of the study product.

CONCLUSIONS

KPI-121 ophthalmic suspension 0.25% seemed to be safe and well tolerated when dosed QID for 2 to 4 weeks in those DED subjects included in the 4 trials.

Two multicenter, randomized studies of the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in moderate to severe dry eye disease. CsA Phase 3 Study Group

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of cyclosporin A ([CsA] 0.05% and 0.1% ophthalmic emulsions) to vehicle in patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, 6-month, vehicle-controlled.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 877 patients with defined moderate to severe dry eye disease (292 to 293 in each treatment group).

METHODS

Two identical clinical trials; patients were treated twice daily with either CsA, 0.05% or 0.1%, or vehicle. The results of these two trials were combined for analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

EFFICACY

corneal and interpalpebral dye staining, Schirmer tear test (with and without anesthesia), tear break-up time, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), facial expression, patient subjective rating scale, symptoms of dry eye, investigator's evaluation of global response to treatment, treatment success, and daily use of artificial tears.

SAFETY

occurrence of adverse events, best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, biomicroscopy, and blood trough CsA concentrations.

RESULTS

Treatment with CsA, 0.05% or 0.1%, gave significantly (P < or = 0.05) greater improvements than vehicle in two objective signs of dry eye disease (corneal staining and categorized Schirmer values). CsA 0.05% treatment also gave significantly greater improvements (P < 0.05) in three subjective measures of dry eye disease (blurred vision, need for concomitant artificial tears, and the physician's evaluation of global response to treatment). There was no dose-response effect. Both CsA treatments exhibited an excellent safety profile, and there were no significant topical or systemic adverse safety findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel ophthalmic formulations CsA 0.05% and 0.1% were safe and effective in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease yielding improvements in both objective and subjective measures. Topical CsA represents a new pharmacologically based treatment for dry eye disease that may provide significant patient benefits.

The efficacy and safety of brinzolamide 1% ophthalmic suspension (Azopt) as a primary therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Brinzolamide Primary Therapy Study Group

A randomized, multicenter, double-masked, prospective, parallel study was designed to establish the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brinzolamide 1.0% (Azopt) as a primary therapy compared with dorzolamide 2.0% (Trusopt) and placebo in patients diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma (with or without a pseudoexfoliative or a pigmentary dispersion component) or ocular hypertension. Brinzolamide 1.0%, dosed two times (b.i.d.) and three times (t.i.d.) a day, dorzolamide 2.0% (t.i.d.), and placebo (t.i.d) were administered to patients during a 3-month treatment period. Diurnally corrected IOP reduction from baseline, including peak and trough times, was the primary end point. Sample sizes were chosen to establish statistical equivalence between treatments. Mean IOP changes observed on treatment were as follows: -3.4 mm Hg (-13.2%) to -4.1 mm Hg (-16.7%) with brinzolamide 1.0% b.i.d.; -4.1 mm Hg (-16.6%) to -4.8 mm Hg (-19.1%) with brinzolamide 1% t.i.d.; and -4.3 mm Hg (-16.9%) to -4.9 mm Hg (-20.1%) with dorzolamide 2.0%. IOP reductions after administration of brinzolamide 1.0% b.i.d. and t.i.d. were equivalent to each other and also clinically and statistically equivalent to those with dorzolamide 2.0% t.i.d. The incidence of ocular discomfort (burning and stinging) upon instillation was significantly higher for dorzolamide (10.7%) than brinzolamide (b.i.d. or t.i.d., 3.0% each). The most frequent non-ocular event reported was taste perversion, which was less (3.7%) with brinzolamide 1.0% b.i.d., but brinzolamide t.i.d. was similar to dorzolamide t.i.d. (6.8% vs. 5.3%). Brinzolamide 1.0% b.i.d., brinzolamide 1.0% t.i.d., and dorzolamide 2.0% t.i.d. equaled each other in IOP-lowering efficacy, and brinzolamide was significantly more comfortable than dorzolamide upon instillation.

The impact of drug bulletins on physician prescribing habits in a health maintenance organization

The concern over rising health care costs has created an environment that is favorable for the development of efficient health care programs. Pharmacists have been instrumental in developing and implementing programs to reduce drug costs, but many of these lack adequate documentation in the literature. One such area is the impact of disseminating drug bulletins to prescribers. This study was undertaken to assess quantitatively the impact of drug bulletins on physician prescribing habits and to measure the resultant changes in drug cost. This was a retrospective examination of Prime Health's acquisition of certain drugs described in five separate drug bulletins before and after issuance of the bulletins. We were able to demonstrate statistically significant changes in the proportions of drugs acquired after dissemination of each bulletin. In some cases, these changes persisted for the duration of the study (one year after issuance of the bulletin); in other cases, they reverted to pre-bulletin proportions. These changes resulted in mean drug cost reductions of 30 percent per calendar quarter for all of the post-bulletin period. Our findings suggest that the issuance of certain types of drug bulletins to prescribers is associated with a significant change in their prescribing habits, with resultant cost savings.