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.

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.

Impact of the Topical Ophthalmic Corticosteroid Loteprednol Etabonate on Intraocular Pressure.

Corticosteroids are a mainstay therapeutic option for the treatment of ocular inflammation. However, safety remains a concern for clinicians, particularly with long-term use. Though highly effective at suppressing inflammatory and allergic responses, topical ophthalmic corticosteroids carry an inherent risk of side effects, including elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), a risk factor for the development of glaucoma. The corticosteroid loteprednol etabonate (LE) contains an ester rather than a ketone at the C-20 position, minimizing the potential for side effects, including IOP elevation. In early pivotal clinical trials of LE ophthalmic suspension for conjunctivitis (allergic, giant papillary), anterior uveitis, and post-operative inflammation, LE had minimal impact on IOP over short-term (<28 days) and long-term (≥28 days) use. Since then, new LE formulations-including a gel, an ointment, and a suspension of LE in combination with tobramycin-have become commercially available. Multiple studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of LE for inflammatory conditions have been reported, including those requiring longer-term treatment such as photorefractive keratectomy, corneal transplantation, and dry eye disease. We review the available published data on the effect of LE on IOP and report on the cumulative incidence of clinically significant IOP elevations (≥10 mm Hg from baseline) with short-term and long-term LE use. In all studies, LE consistently demonstrated a low propensity to elevate IOP, regardless of formulation, dosage regimen, or treatment duration, including in known steroid responders. The cumulative proportion of patients exhibiting clinically significant IOP increases was 0.8% (14/1725 subjects) in studies evaluating short-term LE treatment and 1.5% (21/1386 subjects) in long-term studies. Furthermore, use of LE was associated with significantly lower rates of IOP elevation ≥10 mm Hg as compared to prednisolone acetate or dexamethasone (when used in combination with tobramycin). The cumulative data to date substantiates a favorable IOP-safety profile for LE with both short-term and long-term use.

Clinical and Antibacterial Efficacy and Safety of Besifloxacin Ophthalmic Suspension Compared With Moxifloxacin Ophthalmic Solution.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% compared with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in an Indian population. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel-group, clinical trial, including 6 clinical sites in India. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 1 drop of besifloxacin or moxifloxacin in the infected eye(s), 3 times daily, for 5 days. Primary efficacy end points included clinical resolution and bacterial eradication at day 5. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical resolution and bacterial eradication at day 8, ocular discharge, bulbar conjunctival injection, investigator's global assessment, and bacterial eradication by species. Efficacy was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and Pearson χ2 tests. Safety was assessed by the incidence of ocular and nonocular treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), changes in visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings. Data presented are that for the subset of patients from India. RESULTS: Of the 123 patients randomized at clinical sites in India, 96.7% completed the study. Day 5 differences in microbial eradication (100% besifloxacin vs 96.3% moxifloxacin) and in clinical resolution (78.9% besifloxacin vs 71.4% moxifloxacin) were not statistically significant. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for secondary end points. All ocular AEs in both groups were mild or moderate in severity. There were no drug-related ocular AEs with besifloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis with besifloxacin 0.6% produces similar antibacterial and clinical efficacy as that with moxifloxacin 0.5% in an Indian population, with no clinically meaningful safety concerns.

Antibacterial efficacy of prophylactic besifloxacin 0.6% and moxifloxacin 0.5% in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the ocular bacterial flora in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery and compare the antibacterial effects of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% and moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% in these patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, laboratory-masked clinical trial. Patients received besifloxacin or moxifloxacin "quater in die" or QID (four times a day) for 3 days before cataract surgery in the surgical eye and 1 hour before surgery in the nonsurgical fellow eye. Conjunctival and eyelid swabs were obtained from both eyes at baseline and after treatment, on the day of surgery (Visit 2). Swabs were processed for bacterial colony counts (in terms of colony-forming units) and species identification. In vitro antibiotic susceptibilities of isolates were determined using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute breakpoints. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (n=28 besifloxacin, n=31 moxifloxacin) completed the study. The majority (73%) of conjunctival samples were culture negative at baseline. The most frequent isolates were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS, 89%), specifically Staphylococcus epidermidis (72%). Both fluoroquinolones reduced the lid CFU values when administered QID for 3 days (P≤0.019), but only besifloxacin reduced the lid CFU estimate 1 hour following instillation of a single drop (P=0.039). Fewer besifloxacin-treated eyes had lids that were culture positive for CoNS at Visit 2 compared with moxifloxacin-treated eyes regardless of dosing regimen (P≤0.03). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC90) of besifloxacin against methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE) was eightfold lower than that of moxifloxacin. CONCLUSION: Besifloxacin appeared more effective in reducing bacterial counts on eyelids of patients undergoing cataract surgery, with significant reductions as early as 1 hour postdose, compared with moxifloxacin. Besifloxacin was more active in vitro against MRSE.

Use of the Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial in a Predominantly Asian Population.

INTRODUCTION: The fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant 0.59 mg (Retisert(®), Bausch + Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA) provides sustained release of FA directly to the vitreous cavity over a prolonged period of time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 0.59- and 2.1-mg FA intravitreal implant in patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, dose-controlled study was performed. Patients were randomized to the 0.59- or 2.1-mg FA implant surgically placed in the vitreous cavity through a pars plana incision and were evaluated at visits through 3 years. Patients with bilateral disease had the more severely affected eye implanted. Outcomes included uveitis recurrence rate, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), use of adjunctive therapy, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients, predominantly Asian, were implanted (n = 117, 0.59-mg implant; n = 122, 2.1-mg implant). Approximately 80% of patients had bilateral disease. Recurrence rates for implanted eyes decreased from 42.3% during the 1-year pre-implantation period to 25.9% during the 3-year post-implantation period (P = 0.0003) and increased for nonimplanted fellow eyes from 19.8 to 59.7% (P < 0.0001). More implanted eyes gained ≥3 lines of BCVA compared to nonimplanted fellow eyes (P ≤ 0.0046); and implanted eyes required less adjunctive systemic therapy and fewer periocular injections (P < 0.0001). Elevations of intraocular pressure (≥10 mm Hg) were frequent in implanted eyes (67.8%, 0.59-mg implant; 71.3%, 2.1-mg implant); nearly all (94.9%) phakic implanted eyes required cataract surgery. CONCLUSION: The FA intravitreal implant significantly reduced uveitis recurrence rates and led to improvements in visual acuity and reductions in adjunctive therapy. Lens clarity and intraocular pressure require monitoring.

An update on the surgical management of pterygium and the role of loteprednol etabonate ointment.

Pterygium, a sun-related eye disease, presents as wing-shaped ocular surface lesions that extend from the bulbar conjunctiva onto the cornea, most commonly on the nasal side. Pterygia show characteristic histological features that suggest that inflammation plays a prominent role in their initial pathogenesis and recurrence. Appropriate surgery is the key to successful treatment of pterygia, but there is also a rationale for the use of anti-inflammatory agents to reduce the rate of recurrence following surgery. Multiple surgical techniques have been developed over the last two millennia, but these initially had little success, due to high rates of recurrence. Current management strategies, associated with lower recurrence rates, include bare sclera excision and various types of grafts using tissue glues. Adjunctive therapies include mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil, as well as the topical ocular steroid loteprednol etabonate, which has been shown to have a lower risk of elevated intraocular pressure than have the other topical ocular steroids. Here, the surgical management of pterygium is presented from a historical perspective, and current management techniques, including the appropriate use of various adjunctive therapies, are reviewed, along with an illustrative case presentation and a discussion of the conjunctival forceps designed to facilitate surgical management. Despite thousands of years of experience with this condition, there remains a need for a more thorough understanding of pterygium and interventions to reduce both its incidence and postsurgical recurrence. Until that time, the immediate goal is to optimize surgical practices to ensure the best possible outcomes. Loteprednol etabonate, especially the ointment formulation, appears to be a safe and effective component of the perioperative regimen for this complex ocular condition, although confirmatory prospective studies are needed.

Loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic gel 0.5% following cataract surgery: integrated analysis of two clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate (LE) gel 0.5% compared with vehicle in the treatment of postoperative inflammation and pain following cataract surgery, using the integrated analysis of data from two identical, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trials. METHODS: Patients with anterior chamber cell (ACC) inflammation ≥ grade 2 (6-15 cells) 1 day post-surgery were randomized to receive 1 or 2 drops of LE gel 0.5% or vehicle 4 times per day instilled in the study eye for 14 days. Primary outcome measures included the proportion of patients with complete resolution of ACC and grade 0 (no) pain on postoperative Day 8. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), changes from baseline in intraocular pressure (IOP) and visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, and funduscopy findings. Gel comfort was graded by patients according to drop sensation. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 813 patients (409 LE gel 0.5% and 404 vehicle). At postoperative Day 8, 30.8% and 15.1% of patients randomized to LE gel 0.5% or vehicle, respectively, had complete resolution of ACC, while 74.3% and 43.8% of patients, respectively, had grade 0 pain (P < 0.001 for both). Tolerability assessments for ocular itching, photophobia, and tearing favored LE gel 0.5% compared with vehicle at different time points beginning at Day 3. Two patients in the LE gel 0.5% group and 1 patient in the vehicle group exhibited a transient treatment-emergent increase in IOP ≥ 10 mmHg. Treatment-related AEs were generally mild to moderate and occurred less frequently with LE gel 0.5% than with vehicle. Reports of treatment-related blurred vision were rare (n = 2, vehicle). CONCLUSION: LE gel 0.5% was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of postoperative pain and inflammation following ocular surgery, with minimal risk of IOP elevation.

Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% when used in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: We undertook a post hoc analysis of clinical outcomes in patients with bacterial conjunctivitis due to P. aeruginosa across four prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, controlled, clinical studies of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6%. Efficacy outcomes included bacterial eradication and clinical resolution of the baseline infection at follow-up visits. Bacterial eradication was defined as the absence of ocular bacterial species present at or above threshold at baseline, while clinical resolution was defined as grade 0 ocular discharge and bulbar conjunctival injection. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events, changes in visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings. Patient outcomes were summarized and bacterial eradication and clinical resolution rates integrated. RESULTS: Of 1317 patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis across four clinical studies, nine (0.7%) were infected with P. aeruginosa at baseline, and of these, five were randomized to treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6%. Bacterial eradication of the baseline infection was observed at both follow-up visits in all five patients. Clinical resolution was achieved in two of five patients by the first follow-up visit and four of five patients by the second follow-up visit. There were no adverse events reported in these patients. There were no clinically meaningful biomicroscopy findings or changes in ophthalmoscopy or visual acuity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of bacterial conjunctivitis due to P. aeruginosa was low. Treatment of patients with P. aeruginosa infections with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% led to bacterial eradication of P. aeruginosa by the first follow-up visit and high rates of clinical resolution.

Advances in corticosteroid therapy for ocular inflammation: loteprednol etabonate.

Topical corticosteroids are effective in reducing anterior segment inflammation but are associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) including elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract formation. Retrometabolic drug design has advanced the development of new corticosteroids with improved therapeutic indices. Engineered from prednisolone, loteprednol etabonate (LE) has a 17α-chloromethyl ester, in lieu of a ketone group, and a 17ß-etabonate group. LE is highly lipophilic and binds with high affinity to the glucocorticoid receptor; any unbound LE is metabolized to inactive metabolites. LE has been studied in several anterior segment inflammatory conditions (giant papillary conjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, anterior uveitis, and keratoconjunctivitis sicca), and in postoperative ocular inflammation and pain. Combined with tobramycin, it is effective in blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Elevations in IOP are infrequent with LE, and the absence of a C-20 ketone precludes formation of Schiff base intermediates with lens proteins, a common first step implicated in cataract formation with ketone steroids.

Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in adults and children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% given thrice daily for 5 days is safe and effective in the treatment of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days compared with vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study. METHODS: A total of 474 patients aged ≥1 year with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% or vehicle administered twice daily for 3 days. There were three study visits: day 1 (the baseline visit), day 4/5 (visit 2), and day 7 ± 1 (visit 3). The co-primary efficacy endpoints were bacterial eradication and clinical resolution at day 4/5 in designated study eyes of patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Secondary efficacy endpoints were bacterial eradication and clinical resolution at day 7 ± 1, individual clinical outcomes of ocular discharge and bulbar conjunctival injection at all visits; and microbial and clinical outcomes for overall bacterial species and individual Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species at each follow-up visit. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), changes in visual acuity and biomicroscopy findings at each visit, and changes in ophthalmoscopy findings at day 7 ± 1. RESULTS: Bacterial eradication and clinical resolution rates were significantly higher in the besifloxacin group than in the vehicle group (115/135 [85.2%] vs 77/141 [54.6%], p < 0.001, and 89/135 [65.9%] vs 62/141 [44.0%], p < 0.001, respectively) at day 4/5. Rates of bacterial eradication continued to be significantly greater in the besifloxacin group (115/135 [85.2%] vs 91/141 [64.5%], respectively; p < 0.001) at day 7 ± 1; however, the rates of clinical resolution did not differ significantly between the groups (103/135 [76.3%] and 94/141 [66.7%], p = 0.209) at this visit. Ocular discharge and bulbar conjunctival injection at each visit were consistent with the primary outcomes. Clinical resolution and bacterial eradication with Gram-positive or Gram-negative organisms were consistent with the overall findings. All AEs in both groups were of mild or moderate severity and were considered unrelated to the treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days was effective and safe in adults and children with bacterial conjunctivitis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00972777.

Safety and tolerability of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects.

BACKGROUND: Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension (LE/T) is indicated for steroid-responsive inflammatory ocular conditions where superficial bacterial ocular infection or a risk of bacterial ocular infection exists. LE/T was shown to be safe in healthy volunteers and patients aged 18 years and older with minimal effect on intraocular pressure (IOP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of LE/T in pediatric subjects by examining data from two clinical studies. METHODS: Two randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group (one two-arm, the other four-arm) studies were conducted in subjects aged 0-6 years (N = 245). One study assessed LE/T compared with vehicle in the management of lid inflammation (n = 108) and the other compared LE/T with loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5% (LE), tobramycin ophthalmic solution 0.3% (tobramycin), and vehicle in the treatment of blepharoconjunctivitis (n = 137). In the first study, subjects were randomized to LE/T or vehicle administered four times daily (qid) for the first 7 days followed by twice daily (bid) for 7 days along with warm compresses bid for the entire 2 weeks. In the second study, subjects were randomized to LE/T, LE, tobramycin, or vehicle administered qid for 14 days. Treatment-emergent ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AEs) and bilateral vision were assessed at all study visits in both studies. In addition, in the lid inflammation study, IOP was assessed at all visits. The primary safety endpoint in both studies was the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs. RESULTS: The incidence of LE/T treatment-emergent AEs was low. A total of four ocular AEs were reported for three LE/T-treated subjects in the first study (conjunctivitis [two events], meibomian gland dysfunction, and corneal staining), and one ocular AE was reported for an LE/T-treated subject in the second study (eye pain). A total of 13 non-ocular AEs were reported for eight LE/T-treated subjects in the two trials. The most prevalent non-ocular AEs were pyrexia (three events) and rash (two events). There were no differences in the incidence of specific ocular and non-ocular AEs between the LE/T group and the comparator treatment group. In both studies, there were no clinically meaningful reductions in vision at follow-up visits. Mean IOP and IOP changes from baseline, assessed in the lid inflammation study, were not different between LE/T and vehicle treatment groups at any study visits. CONCLUSION: The results of these two clinical trials demonstrate the short-term safety of treatment with topical LE/T in pediatric subjects (0-6 years of age) with lid inflammation or blepharoconjunctivitis.

Post-cataract outcomes in patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis treated with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant.

PURPOSE: 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. DESIGN: Post hoc, subgroup analysis of data from a 3-year, dose-masked, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the FA implant for the treatment of NIPU. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VA, anterior and posterior chamber inflammation at 1 and 3 months after surgery, and rate of uveitis recurrence and serious postoperative ocular adverse events. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Integrated analysis of three bacterial conjunctivitis trials of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%: microbiological eradication outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess clinical antimicrobial efficacy results obtained with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, administered three times a day (TID) for 5 days, integrated across three clinical trials of bacterial conjunctivitis and to investigate any microbiological eradication failures. METHODS: Clinical microbiological eradication data from three randomized, double-masked, parallel group studies of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis (two vehicle controlled; one active controlled with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution, 0.5%) were integrated. All bacterial samples isolated at baseline above the species-specific threshold value were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Samples isolated at subsequent visits were subjected to susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) to investigate the cause of eradication failures and the potential for drug resistance development. RESULTS: Visit 2 (day 4 or 5) and visit 3 (day 8) overall microbiological eradication rates were 92.2% and 88.4% for besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension compared with 61.4% and 72.5% for vehicle and 91.6% and 85.7% for moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution. Visit 2 and visit 3 microbiological eradication rates for Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates and for individual species were consistent with the overall eradication rates. The majority of observed eradication failures in any treatment group were due to the persistence of the pathogen isolated at baseline. Eradication failures in the besifloxacin treatment group were not associated with lower antimicrobial susceptibility at baseline. PFGE data showed that the majority of bacterial strains in eyes with eradication failures were identical to the strain isolated at baseline; these eradication failures were not associated with a lower antimicrobial susceptibility at the follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: Treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 0.6%, administered TID for 5 days resulted in microbiological eradication rates that were ≥ 90% across the three clinical studies for the common pathogens of bacterial conjunctivitis. The few eradication failures were not due to fluoroquinolone resistance at baseline and/or resistance development during treatment.

Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema: a 3-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We studied the 3-year efficacy and safety results of a 4-year study evaluating fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implants in eyes with persistent or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Prospective, evaluator-masked, controlled, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: We included 196 eyes with refractory DME. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 0.59-mg FA implant (n = 127) or standard of care (SOC additional laser or observation; n = 69). The implant was inserted through a pars plana incision. Visits were scheduled on day 2, weeks 1, 3, 6, 12, and 26, and thereafter every 13 weeks through 3 years postimplantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was ≥15-letter improvement in visual acuity (VA) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included resolution of macular retinal thickening and Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Score (DRSS). Safety measures included incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, VA improved ≥3 lines in 16.8% of implanted eyes at 6 months (P=0.0012; SOC, 1.4%); in 16.4% at 1 year (P=0.1191; SOC, 8.1%); in 31.8% at 2 years (P=0.0016; SOC, 9.3%); and in 31.1% at 3 years (P=0.1566; SOC, 20.0%). The number of implanted eyes with no evidence of retinal thickening at the center of the macula was higher than SOC eyes at 6 months (P<0.0001), 1 year (P<0.0001; 72% vs 22%), 2 years (P=0.016), and 3 years (P=0.861). A higher rate of improvement and lower rate of decline in DRSS occurred in the implanted group versus the SOC group at 6 months (P=0.0006), 1 year (P=0.0016), 2 years (P=0.012), and 3 years (P=0.0207). Intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥30 mmHg was recorded in 61.4% of implanted eyes (SOC, 5.8%) at any time and 33.8% required surgery for ocular hypertension by 4 years. Of implanted phakic eyes, 91% (SOC, 20%) had cataract extraction by 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: The FA intravitreal implant met the primary and secondary outcomes, with significantly improved VA and DRSS and reduced DME. The most common AEs included cataract progression and elevated IOP. The 0.59-mg FA intravitreal implant may be an effective treatment for eyes with persistent or recurrent DME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Human aqueous humor concentrations of besifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin after topical ocular application.

PURPOSE: To determine the concentrations of besifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin in human aqueous humor after topical instillation of commercially available besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6%, moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, and gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%, and to assess these concentrations relative to the minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of strains (MIC(90)) for each drug against bacterial pathogens identified in recent cases of postoperative endophthalmitis. SETTING: Six clinical sites, United States. DESIGN: Randomized open-label controlled clinical trial. METHODS: The aqueous humor drug concentrations were compared 60 minutes ± 5 minutes after instillation of 1 topical drop to patients aged 18 years or older having uncomplicated cataract surgery. Concentrations of besifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin were determined using a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry method. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were randomized, and aqueous humor samples were analyzed for 103 patients. Mean aqueous humor concentrations were 0.13 µg/mL ± 0.58 (SD), 0.67 ± 0.50 µg/mL, and 0.13 ± 0.08 µg/mL for besifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin, respectively. Both besifloxacin and moxifloxacin achieved aqueous humor concentrations equal to or slightly higher than their respective MIC(90) for methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis; none of the fluoroquinolones achieved concentrations above their MIC(90) for ciprofloxacin-resistant strains of S aureus and S epidermidis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the aqueous humor drug concentrations measured in this study, it is unlikely that any of the fluoroquinolones tested would be therapeutically effective in the aqueous humor against the most frequently identified drug-resistant staphylococcal isolates from recent cases of postoperative endophthalmitis. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosures are found in the footnotes.

Efficacy and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Besifloxacin is a topical fluoroquinolone with potent in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of ocular pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% given 3 times daily for 5 days has been reported to be more effective than its vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling suggests that besifloxacin might also be effective given twice daily. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days compared with vehicle (formulation without besifloxacin) in the treatment of adults and children with bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients aged ≥1 year with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to receive besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension or vehicle administered twice daily for 3 days. There were 3 study visits: the baseline visit, visit 2 (day 4 or 5), and visit 3 (day 7±1). Participants recorded the times of medication instillation in a patient diary. The primary end points were clinical resolution and bacterial eradication of the baseline bacterial infection at visit 2 in patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Secondary end points were clinical resolution and bacterial eradication of the baseline bacterial infection at visit 3, individual clinical outcomes (ocular conjunctival discharge and bulbar conjunctival injection) at the follow-up visits, and microbial and clinical outcomes for overall bacterial species and individual gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial species. Tolerability assessments included ocular adverse events (AEs), changes in visual acuity, biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings, and nonocular AEs. RESULTS: Of 202 patients randomized to treatment (mean [SD] age, 25.2 [24.3] years; 56.9% female; 76.7% white), 109 had culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis (53 besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 56 vehicle). At visit 2, the besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension group had significantly greater rates of clinical resolution compared with the vehicle group (37/53 [69.8%] vs 21/56 [37.5%], respectively; P < 0.001), as well as significantly greater rates of bacterial eradication (46/53 [86.8%] vs 32/56 [57.1%]; P < 0.001). At visit 3, rates of bacterial eradication were also significantly greater in the besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension group compared with the vehicle group (46/53 [86.8%] vs 39/56 [69.6%]; P = 0.038). Results for the individual clinical outcomes and microbial and clinical outcomes by gram-positive and gram-negative species were consistent with the primary efficacy outcomes. The incidence of ocular AEs did not differ significantly between treatment groups (4/94 [4.3%] vs 8/98 [8.2%]). Ocular AEs in all treated eyes in the respective groups included bacterial conjunctivitis (3/157 [1.9%] and 5/154 [3.2%]), conjunctivitis (3/157 [1.9%] and 4/154 [2.6%]), and allergic conjunctivitis (2/157 [1.3%] and 1/154 [0.6%]). These events were of mild or moderate severity. Changes in visual acuity and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings were comparable between groups. There were few nonocular AEs (2/94 [2.1%] vs 3/98 [3.1%]; P = NS), none of them considered treatment related. CONCLUSION: In these adults and children with bacterial conjunctivitis, treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days was effective and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00972777.

Safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic ointment 0.5% for the treatment of inflammation and pain following cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic ointment 0.5% (LE ointment), a new topical ointment formulation, with vehicle for the treatment of inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. METHODS: Two randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled studies were conducted. Patients aged ≥18 years with a combined postoperative anterior chamber cells and flare (ACI) ≥ Grade 3 following uncomplicated cataract surgery participated in seven study visits. Patients self-administered either topical LE ointment or vehicle four times daily for 14 days. Efficacy outcomes included the proportion of patients with complete resolution of ACI and the proportion of patients with no (Grade 0) pain at postoperative day 8. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events, ocular symptoms, changes in intraocular pressure and visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and funduscopy findings. RESULTS: Data from the two studies were combined. The integrated intent-to-treat population consisted of 805 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 69.0 [9.2] years; 58.0% female and 89.7% white). Significantly more LE ointment-treated patients than vehicle-treated patients had complete resolution of ACI (27.7% versus 12.5%) and no pain (75.5% versus 43.1%) at day 8 (P < 0.0001 for both). Fewer LE ointment-treated patients required rescue medication (27.7% versus 63.8%), and fewer had an ocular adverse event (47.2% versus 78.0%, P < 0.0001) while on study treatment. The most common ocular adverse events with LE ointment were anterior chamber inflammation, photophobia, corneal edema, conjunctival hyperemia, eye pain, and iritis. Mean intraocular pressure decreased in both treatment groups. Four patients had increased intraocular pressure ≥10 mmHg (three LE ointment and one vehicle) prior to rescue medication. Visual acuity and dilated funduscopy results were similar between the treatment groups, with the exception of visual acuity at visits 5 and 6, which favored LE ointment. CONCLUSION: LE ointment was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery.

Limitations of current antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

Bacterial conjunctivitis is a common ocular infection that is generally treated empirically with a broad-spectrum antibiotic. The more common pathogens causing bacterial conjunctivitis include Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Moraxella species. Several antibiotics traditionally used to treat bacterial conjunctivitis are no longer widely prescribed because of increased bacterial resistance and/or safety concerns. The introduction of the fluoroquinolone class of anti-infectives offered effective and better tolerated treatment options. Nonetheless, successful therapy for bacterial conjunctivitis continues to be limited by several factors. A primary concern is the development of bacterial resistance that may be impacted not only by widespread antibiotic use but also by antibacterial pharmacokinetics, such as maintenance of insufficient bactericidal concentrations at the site of infection. In addition, poor adherence to prescribed regimens that require frequent administration, along with undesirable adverse events, affects the development of bacterial resistance and the success of treatment regimens. This article reviews current antibacterial agents used to treat bacterial conjunctivitis, factors that limit their successful use in treatment, and options for future development of more effective topical ophthalmic anti-infective agents.

Safety and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: data from six clinical and phase I safety studies.

BACKGROUND: Besifloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone, specifically a chloro-fluoroquinolone, 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 < or = 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.