An exploratory study to evaluate visual function endpoints in non-advanced age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: To prevent irreversible vision loss in age-related macular degeneration (AMD), it is critical to detect retinal dysfunction before permanent structural loss occurs. In the current study we evaluated a series of visual function tests to identify potential endpoints to detect visual dysfunction in non-advanced AMD. METHODS: A series of visual function tests were performed on 23 non-advanced AMD subjects (AREDS grade 1-4 on simplified scale) and 34 age-matched normals (AREDS grade 0). Tests included some commonly used endpoints such as ETDRS visual acuity (VA), low luminance (LL) 2.0ND ETDRS VA, MNREAD as well as newly developed tests such as the Ora-VCF™ test, Ora-tablet reading test, color sensitivity etc. Differences between the two groups were compared for each test. Test-retest repeatability and reproducibility was assessed on a subset of subjects and percent agreement was calculated. RESULTS: There was no difference in standard ETDRS VA between non-advanced AMD (0.06 ± 0.02 logMAR) and normal groups (0.04 ± 0.02 logMAR) (p = 0.57). LL 2.0 ETDRS VA and MNREAD showed no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Ora-VCF™ test was significantly worse in the non-advanced AMD group compared to normals (0.67 ± 0.07 in AMD; 0.45 ± 0.04 in normals, p = 0.005). Non-advanced AMD subjects also had significantly worse reading performance using the Ora-tablet with LL 2.0ND (114.55 ± 11.22 wpm in AMD; 145.17 ± 9.55 wpm in normals p = 0.049). No significant difference between the groups was noted using other tests. Repeatability was 82% for Ora-VCF™ test and 92% for Ora-tablet LL 2.0ND reading. Reproducibility was 89% for both Ora-VCF™ test and Ora-tablet LL 2.0ND reading. CONCLUSION: While there was no significant difference between non-advanced AMD and normal groups using some current common endpoints such as ETDRS VA, LL 2.0 ETDRS VA or MNREAD, Ora-VCF™ test and Ora-tablet LL 2.0ND reading tests were able to identify significant visual dysfunction in non-advanced AMD subjects. These tests show promise as endpoints for AMD studies.

Early Ophthalmic Changes in Macula Does Not Correlate with Visual Function.

PURPOSE: Early detection and treatment of age-related macular degeneration require a clear understanding of the early progress of the disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether minimal macular ophthalmoscopic changes corresponded to changes in visual function. METHODS: Color macular photos from a group of older subjects who were classified as grade 0 on AREDS simplified grading were further evaluated by a retinal specialist using 5x magnification for possible minimal macular anomalies. Group 0-A (N = 15) were defined as subjects with no visible macular anomalies while Group 0-B (N = 19) comprised subjects for whom minimal macular mottling, pigment changes or very small drusen (< 63 µm) were observed in the study eye. All subjects had best VA of 20/25 or better and had no evidence of other retinal diseases in the study eye. All subjects underwent a series of visual function tests such as standard ETDRS VA, low luminance ETDRS VA, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, variable contrast flicker (VCF) sensitivity, and reading speed (words per minute, wpm) using both MNRead and low luminance reading on a tablet. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the mean age between the two groups (74.8 ± 5.2 years for 0-A vs 74.5 ± 4.4 for 0-B, p = 0.82). None of the visual function tests identified any significant difference between the two groups. Mean ETDRS VA was 0.0 ± 0.11 for 0-A subjects and 0.08 ± 0.12 for 0-B (p = 0.063). Mean Pelli-Robson log contrast sensitivity was 1.75 ± 0.29 for 0-A and 1.78 ± 0.17 for the 0-B group (p = 0.73). VCF threshold was 0.47 ± 0.25 for 0-A and 0.43 ± 0.22 for 0-B (p = 0.64). Reading speed using MNRead was 214 ± 47.4 wpm for 0-A and 210 ± 64.7 for 0-B (p = 0.85). Low luminance tablet reading speed was 137 ± 71.8 wpm for 0-A and 151 ± 39.4 (0-B) (p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: A panel of psychophysical tests did not demonstrate significant differences between subjects with and without minimal macular changes.

Efficacy of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution compared with placebo in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Ketotifen fumarate blocks histamine1 (H1) receptors, stabilizes mast cells, and acts as an eosinophil inhibitor (decreases chemotaxis and activation of eosinophils). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of ketotifen 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the prevention of symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. METHODS: This was a single-center, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, contralateral-eye comparison, allergen challenge trial conducted in the United States. Subjects were randomized to receive ketotifen 0.025% in one eye and placebo in the other. At visits 1 and 2, allergen challenges were performed to determine the allergen concentration eliciting a qualifying reaction for each subject. At the 3 subsequent visits, subjects received 1 drop of ketotifen 0.025% ophthalmic solution in one eye and vehicle solution as placebo in the other eye 15 minutes (visit 3), 6 hours (visit 4), and 8 hours (visit 5) before allergen challenge. The primary efficacy measure was the subject's rating of itching at 3, 7, and 10 minutes after challenge. RESULTS: Of the 89 subjects randomly assigned to masked trial medication at visit 3, 72 completed the study. At visits 3, 4, and 5, mean itching scores were significantly better for ketotifen-treated eyes at all postchallenge time points, compared with placebo (P<.001). Also at visits 3, 4, and 5, ketotifen was statistically superior to placebo in reducing ocular hyperemia at all postchallenge time points (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ketotifen was safe and statistically effective in reducing ocular itching and hyperemia associated with allergic conjunctivitis. Ketotifen's rapid onset of action (within 15 minutes) and extended duration of action (at least 8 hours) make it a valuable treatment for allergic conjunctivitis.

Ocular allergic disease: mechanisms, disease sub-types, treatment.

Ocular allergy refers to a variety of hypersensitivity disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva, and/or cornea. Its incidence is estimated at over 20% of the general population in the United States. This review will discuss the various forms of ocular allergy, their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. New frontiers in mechanisms, therapy, and management in the office are emphasized throughout.

Ocular tolerability and safety of ketotifen fumarate ophthalmic solution.

Ketotifen fumarate, formulated for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, is a histamine H1-receptor antagonist, mast cell stabilizer, and eosinophil inhibitor (decreases chemotaxis and activation of eosinophils). In this study, healthy volunteers 3 years of age or older received ketotifen fumarate .025% ophthalmic solution (n = 330) or placebo (n = 165) four times daily for 6 weeks. Ketotifen was safe and well tolerated in the adult and pediatric populations, with an incidence of ocular adverse events of 18.2%, compared with 15.2% with placebo. No ocular rebound vasodilation or itching was observed within 48 hours after treatment. Ketotifen has a favorable safety and tolerability profile, which may have a positive impact on compliance, an important aspect of effective symptomatic control of allergic conjunctivitis.