Content validity of a novel patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes assessment to evaluate ocular symptoms associated with infectious conjunctivitis in both adult and pediatric populations.

BACKGROUND: Acute infectious conjunctivitis is a common condition most frequently caused by viruses or bacteria. Clinical outcome assessments have been used to assess signs and symptoms of bacterial and viral conjunctivitis, but have not been evaluated for content validity. We aimed to develop content-valid patient- (PRO) and observer-reported outcome (ObsRO) instruments to assess symptoms of ocular discomfort associated with viral or bacterial conjunctivitis in adult and pediatric patients. METHODS: Draft items were developed from a previous review of published studies from 2001 to 2015. Patients and caregivers of patients with a diagnosis of viral or bacterial conjunctivitis within the past 6 months were recruited. Concept elicitation with open-ended questions explored signs and symptoms, followed by cognitive interviewing to assess clarity and relevance of the draft items. Patients aged ≥8 years were interviewed for the PRO; parents/caregivers of children aged 1-10 years were interviewed for the ObsRO. Interviews were conducted in three rounds to allow changes. Concept saturation was documented using a saturation grid. Cognitive interview data were analyzed iteratively and focused on clarity, relevance and inconsistent interpretation of the instrument's content. RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients or parents/caregivers participated (round 1, n = 10; round 2, n = 6; round 3, n = 7). Data saturation was reached by the 16th interview. The most frequent spontaneously reported signs/symptoms were: discharge, red/pink eyes, itchiness, swelling/puffiness, watery eyes, pain, burning and foreign body sensation. Itching, pain/burning/stinging and foreign body sensation were most commonly reported as the top three most bothersome symptoms. Interview results indicated that items on pain, itching and foreign body sensation for the PRO and pain or discomfort for the ObsRO were relevant to the patients' experience of conjunctivitis and were clear and easy to understand. CONCLUSIONS: PRO and ObsRO items were found to be clear, relevant and appropriate in assessing key viral and bacterial conjunctivitis symptoms in adult and pediatric patients.

A randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine/dexamethasone ophthalmic suspension for acute viral conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 0.6%/dexamethasone (DEX) 0.1% ophthalmic suspension vs vehicle in patients with clinically suspected acute viral conjunctivitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled study. Adults with a clinical diagnosis of suspected acute viral conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to PVP-I/DEX ophthalmic suspension or vehicle bilaterally four times daily for 5 days (Days 1-5). Evaluation was on Days 1, 3 (+1-day window), and 6 (+1). Patients with signs of acute viral conjunctivitis at the Day 6 visit received open-label PVP-I/DEX for five additional days and were evaluated on Day 11-14. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical resolution of acute viral conjunctivitis in the study eye at the Day 6 visit. RESULTS: Overall, 132 patients were randomized and received treatment (PVP-I/DEX, n=66; vehicle, n=66); 38 patients continued into the open-label portion of the study. Not enough patients with confirmed adenoviral conjunctivitis (n=32/132) were enrolled to assess the primary endpoint, although there were some efficacy trends in the PVP-I/DEX group for global clinical score (sum of watery conjunctival discharge and bulbar conjunctival redness). There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and no patients discontinued due to a TEAE. In the masked phase, 56.1% of patients receiving PVP-I/DEX experienced at least one TEAE vs 43.9% in the vehicle group; 78.9% of patients in the open-label phase experienced at least one TEAE. Most TEAEs were mild in severity. CONCLUSION: PVP-I/DEX ophthalmic suspension administered for ≤14 days had a favorable safety profile and was generally well tolerated.

Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Trial of Povidone-Iodine/Dexamethasone Ophthalmic Suspension for Treatment of Adenoviral Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy/safety of an ophthalmic suspension of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 0.6% and dexamethasone 0.1% in patients with acute adenoviral conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-masked trial. METHODS: Adults with a positive Rapid Pathogen Screening Adeno-Detector Plus test were randomized 1:1:1 to PVP-I 0.6%/dexamethasone 0.1%, PVP-I 0.6%, or vehicle, bilaterally 4 times daily for 5 days (days 1-5). Patients were evaluated on days 3, 6, and 12 (+1-day window). Efficacy measures included clinical resolution and adenoviral eradication. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients were included in the efficacy analysis (PVP-I/dexamethasone, n = 48; PVP-I, n = 50; vehicle, n = 46). The proportion of patients with clinical resolution (primary study eye with last observation carried forward [LOCF]) at the day 6 visit was higher with PVP-I/dexamethasone (31.3%) than with vehicle (10.9%; P = .0158) and PVP-I (18.0%; P = nonsignificant). The proportion with adenoviral eradication (primary study eye with LOCF) was higher with PVP-I/dexamethasone than with vehicle at the day 3 (35.4% vs 8.7%; P = .0019) and day 6 (79.2% vs 56.5%; P = .0186) visits and vs PVP-I (day 3 visit, 32.0%; day 6 visit, 62.0%; each P = nonsignificant). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 69.0% (vehicle), 62.7% (PVP-I), and 53.4% (PVP-I/dexamethasone) of patients in the safety dataset. Discontinuation owing to AEs occurred in 37 patients (vehicle, n = 16; PVP-I, n = 12; PVP-I/dexamethasone, n = 9). CONCLUSION: PVP-I/dexamethasone appeared safe and well tolerated, and significantly improved clinical resolution and adenoviral eradication in patients with acute adenoviral conjunctivitis.

Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: Two individual phase 3 conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies of similar design have assessed the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.77% for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the integrated efficacy and safety of olopatadine HCl 0.77% from a larger dataset by pooling data from the two individual CAC studies. METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active- and vehicle-controlled CAC studies. The primary comparison was on ocular itching scores between olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus vehicle (at onset and 24 hours) and olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% (at 24 hours). Additional end points included conjunctival redness, total redness, and proportion of itching responders at onset and 24-hour duration of CAC. For both primary and secondary analysis, mixed model repeated measures analysis was used, except for proportion of ocular itching responders. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using a two-sample t-test. RESULTS: This analysis included 448 patients. Olopatadine HCl 0.77% was superior to vehicle (P<0.0001) at onset and 24-hour duration of action (difference in means: -1.14 to -1.52) and to olopatadine 0.2% (P=0.0009) at 24-hour duration of action in relieving ocular itch. Additionally, olopatadine HCl 0.77% substantially reduced conjunctival redness and total redness over vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% at onset and 24-hour duration of action. At 24 hours CAC, there were a higher proportion of itching responders with olopatadine HCl 0.77% compared to vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% (difference in proportion of responders: 43.17%, P<0.0001, and 17.25%, P=0.0012, respectively). No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms the findings from the individual studies. The rapid onset and prolonged duration of action (for 24 hours) of olopatadine HCl 0.77% supports once-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in healthy subjects with asymptomatic eyes: data from 2 independent clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.77% olopatadine from 2 independent (Phase I and Phase III, respectively) clinical studies in healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Phase I, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥18 years old (N=36) to assess the systemic pharmacokinetics of olopatadine 0.77% following single- and multiple-dose exposures. The Phase III, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥2 years old (N=499) to evaluate long-term ocular safety of olopatadine 0.77%. Subjects received olopatadine 0.77% or vehicle once daily bilaterally for 7 days in the pharmacokinetic study and 6 weeks in the safety study. RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic study, olopatadine 0.77% was absorbed slowly and reached a peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of 1.65 ng/mL following single-dose and 1.45 ng/mL following multiple-dose exposures in 2 hours (time to reach maximum plasma concentration [Tmax]). After reaching peak concentrations, olopatadine showed a similar mono-exponential decay following single and multiple doses with mean elimination half-life ranging from 2.90 to 3.40 hours. No accumulation in olopatadine exposure (Cmax and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours) was evident after multiple doses when compared to single dose. In the safety study, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 26.7% and 31.4% of subjects with olopatadine 0.77% and vehicle, respectively. Blurred vision was the most frequent ocular treatment-emergent adverse event in both treatment groups (olopatadine 0.77% vs vehicle, 4.8% vs 4.1%). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% had minimal systemic exposure or accumulation in healthy subjects and was well tolerated in both adult and pediatric subjects.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.

Phase 3 Randomized Double-Masked Study of Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily 0.77% Olopatadine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution in Subjects With Allergic Conjunctivitis Using the Conjunctival Allergen Challenge Model.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel once-daily 0.77% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: In this 5-week, multicenter, double-masked, phase 3, randomized trial, subjects aged ≥18 years with a history of AC and a confirmed positive bilateral CAC response were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive olopatadine 0.77%, olopatadine 0.2%, olopatadine 0.1%, or vehicle, respectively, following a single topical dose in each eye. The primary objective was superiority of olopatadine 0.77% over all comparators on ocular itching according to a 0 to 4 scale (0 = none and 4 = incapacitating itch) at 24-hour duration of action and over vehicle only at the onset of action (3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC for both). RESULTS: In total, 345 subjects were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior to the vehicle at alleviating ocular itching at all post-CAC time points at the onset of action and at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.9 to -1.5; P < 0.0001). Superiority in relieving ocular itching was also demonstrated for olopatadine 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% and 0.1% at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.3 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Additionally, olopatadine 0.77% significantly improved conjunctival redness and total redness compared with all comparators at the onset of action (differences in means: -0.3 to -0.6 and -0.8 to -2.0, respectively; both P < 0.05). No safety concerns for olopatadine 0.77% were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine 0.77% demonstrated a rapid onset and prolonged duration of action. It was superior to all comparators in alleviating AC-associated ocular itching with a favorable safety profile.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01743027.

Dissociable neural patterns of facial identity across changes in viewpoint.

We examined the neural response patterns for facial identity independent of viewpoint and for viewpoint independent of identity. Neural activation patterns for identity and viewpoint were collected in an fMRI experiment. Faces appeared in identity-constant blocks, with variable viewpoint, and in viewpoint-constant blocks, with variable identity. Pattern-based classifiers were used to discriminate neural response patterns for all possible pairs of identities and viewpoints. To increase the likelihood of detecting distinct neural activation patterns for identity, we tested maximally dissimilar "face"-"antiface" pairs and normal face pairs. Neural response patterns for four of six identity pairs, including the "face"-"antiface" pairs, were discriminated at levels above chance. A behavioral experiment showed accord between perceptual and neural discrimination, indicating that the classifier tapped a high-level visual identity code. Neural activity patterns across a broad span of ventral temporal (VT) cortex, including fusiform gyrus and lateral occipital areas (LOC), were required for identity discrimination. For viewpoint, five of six viewpoint pairs were discriminated neurally. Viewpoint discrimination was most accurate with a broad span of VT cortex, but the neural and perceptual discrimination patterns differed. Less accurate discrimination of viewpoint, more consistent with human perception, was found in right posterior superior temporal sulcus, suggesting redundant viewpoint codes optimized for different functions. This study provides the first evidence that it is possible to dissociate neural activation patterns for identity and viewpoint independently.