Study design and baseline findings from the progression of ocular findings (PROOF) natural history study of dry eye.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this research is to initiate a 5-year natural history study of dry eye disease (DED) using objectively assessed and patient-reported outcomes, to explore the hypothesis that DED is a progressive condition that has substantive and measurable impacts not only on the ocular surface, but on quality of life and visual functioning. Our objective for this report is to examine the baseline data. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, controlled, observational study of Level 2 (mild-to-moderate) DED patients based on International Task Force Delphi Panel severity grading, and controls, documented baseline measures (including tear film biomarkers and quality of life). Tear cytokine concentrations were also measured in the tear film. Patients were using artificial tears as needed. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen DED patients and 67 gender- and age-matched controls were enrolled. A majority were females and Caucasian and groups did not differ significantly in terms of gender, race, or age. Differences between DED and matched controls, at baseline, included mean scores for Ocular Surface Disease Index (31.7 vs 4.1, P < 0.0001), Schirmer test (5.7 vs 15.3 mm, P < 0.0001), corneal staining (1.4 vs 0.2, P < 0.0001), conjunctival staining (1.4 vs 0.3, P < 0.0001), and tear break-up time (5.7 vs 8.5 s, P < 0.0001). Tear cytokines levels were determined and included interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, epidermal growth factor, IL-13, IL-17, IL-1α, and inducible protein-10. The mean levels of IL-8 and IL-6 were slightly higher in the DED group at baseline. Blurred vision was reported as moderate/severe/very severe at baseline in 57.6% of DED patients vs.10.5% of normal controls (P < 0.0001). DED patients reported greater reductions in work and non-work productivity, as well as greater need for visits to ophthalmologists during the prior year. CONCLUSIONS: In this report of the baseline findings of a 5-year natural history study of DED, a striking disease burden is observed with regard to blurred vision, productivity, and visits to eye care practitioners in mild to moderate DED patients compared to normal subjects of similar ages and genders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00833235 on January 30, 2009.

The IMPACT study: a prospective evaluation of the effects of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% on ocular surface staining and visual performance in patients with dry eye.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% on ocular surface staining and visual performance in patients with dry eye. METHODS: This was a single-center, 6-month, open-label, Phase IV study. Patients with bilateral dry eye disease and a symptom score of ≥2 on the Ocular Discomfort and 4-Symptom Questionnaire, an Ocular Surface Disease Index score of >12, at least one eye with Schirmer's score <10 mm/5 minutes, and central corneal staining graded as ≥2 on the Ora Calibra™ Corneal and Conjunctival Staining Scale were enrolled. Cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (Restasis(®)) was instilled twice daily in each eye. The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular surface staining and visual function at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included Schirmer's test, tear film breakup time, symptoms, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients with the mean age of 59.4 years (range, 40-78 years) were enrolled; 35 (87.5%) were female and 37 (92.5%) completed the study. At 6 months, inferior corneal, central corneal, total corneal, and total ocular surface fluorescein staining were significantly improved from baseline in both eyes (P<0.001). Patient responses on the Ocular Surface Disease Index showed significant improvement in blurred vision and visual function related to reading, driving at night, working with a computer or bank machine, and watching television (P≤0.041). At 6 months, 35.1% of patients achieved ≥5 mm improvement and 18.9% achieved ≥10 mm improvement in the average eye Schirmer score. Mean tear film breakup time improved by >50% in both eyes (P>0.001). Patients reported significant improvement in ocular discomfort and dry eye symptoms (P<0.001). No patients discontinued treatment because of stinging or any other ocular adverse event. CONCLUSION: Dry eye patients with difficulties with day-to-day visual function demonstrated improvement in both signs and symptoms of dry eye and reported improved visual function after 6 months of treatment with cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%.

Principales causas de porque la población mexicana procrastina en su salud / Main causes of because the mexican population procrastina in your health

Introducción: La procrastinación en salud es un factor de riesgo para que se presenten tanto enfermedades agudas o crónico degenerativas, así como complicaciones en general. Objetivo: Identificar las principales causas de procrastinación en salud de la población mexicana. Metodología: El presente estudio fue de tipo cuantitativo descriptivo, la unidad de observación fue pacientes y personas que acudieron a un hospital de tercer nivel de la Ciudad de México y en población abierta, el muestreo fue no probabilístico. Se aplicó un cuestionario exprofeso “Escala de procrastinación en la atención de la salud” con 14 reactivos. Resultados: La muestra total fue 317 personas (200 en un hospital y 117 en población abierta). El 58% correspondió al sexo femenino, el 56% tenían entre 18 y 39 años de edad. El 39% cuentan con seguro popular, el 16% no tienen ninguno. El 99.3% procrastina en su salud. Las principales causas de procrastinación fueron: el 64% posterga ir al médico porque los servicios de atención son muy lentos, 14% refiere que no le resuelven su enfermedad, de estos el 42% lo complementa con remedios caseros; el 17% no termina el tratamiento por cuestiones económicas; el 38% asiste cuando ya tiene una complicación. El 50% se atiende en último momento por no tener tiempo para su atención; 27% por perder mucho tiempo para ser atendido, 25% por no tener dinero y el 20% le da miedo saber qué es lo que tiene. Conclusiones: La procrastinación en salud se debe en gran medida a la falta de calidad en la atención de los servicios de salud como tiempo de espera, resolución de la enfermedad y accesibilidad al tratamiento.

Introduction. Introduction: The procrastination in health is a risk factor for both acute and chronic degenerative diseases, as well as complications arise in general. Objective: To identify the main causes of procrastination in health of the Mexican population. Methodology: This study was quantitative descriptive, the unit of observation was patients and people who came even from Mexico City and in open population tertiary hospital, sampling was not probabilistic. A questionnaire was applied indifferent reagents 14 "scale of procrastination in health care". Results: The total sample was 317 people (200 in a hospital and open population 117). 58% corresponded to females, 56% were between 18 and 39 years old. The 39% have popular insurance, 16% have none. The 99.3% procrastina in your health. Were the main causes of procrastination: the 64% delayed going to the doctor because services are very slow, 14% concerned that not they solve their disease, these 42% complements it with home remedies; 17% does not end treatment for economic reasons; the 38% assists when you already have a complication. 50% served at last moment by not having time for your attention; 27% by lose much time to be served, 25% for not having money and 20% gives you fear know what they have. Conclusions: Procrastination in health is largely due to the lack of quality of care in health services as time waiting, resolution of disease and treatment accessibility.

Effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on ocular itch associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis: a pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis represent the majority of cases of ocular allergy. This analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% in preventing ocular itching associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Pooled data from two double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis were analyzed. Subjects randomized to receive treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% or placebo were challenged with seasonal (grass, ragweed, trees) or perennial (cat dander, cat hair, dog dander, dust mites, cockroach) allergens, 16 hours after treatment instillation. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 minutes post-CAC. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 minutes post-CAC. The proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score =0), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 189 subjects enrolled in the two studies were treated with alcaftadine or placebo. Overall, 129 subjects were challenged with seasonal allergens and 60 subjects were challenged with perennial allergens. Alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a statistically significant reduction in mean itch score at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC compared with placebo in subjects challenged with seasonal allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points) and those challenged with perennial allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points). A higher percentage of subjects treated with alcaftadine compared with placebo achieved minimal itch (P≤0.001 versus placebo at all time points) and zero itch (P<0.05 at all time points except 7 minutes for perennial) when challenged with either seasonal or perennial allergens. No treatment-related or serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and demonstrated effective relief of ocular itching in subjects challenged with allergens classic for triggering either seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Gatifloxacin 0.5% administered twice daily for the treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis in patients one year of age or older.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gatifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution administered twice daily for treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: Two identically designed, double-masked, multicenter studies in the United States and India enrolled patients 1 year or older with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Patients were randomized to gatifloxacin 0.5% or vehicle treatment for 5 days. Clinical success in clearing conjunctival hyperemia and discharge at day 6 (primary endpoint) and day 4 and microbiological cure were determined. Isolates from positive conjunctival samples were tested for sensitivity and susceptibility. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs). Data from these 2 studies were pooled for these analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1437 randomized patients, 658 constituted the modified intent-to-treat population. Patient characteristics were similar between the pooled treatment groups. Clinical success occurred for 58.0% of gatifloxacin 0.5%-treated versus 45.5% vehicle-treated patients at day 6 (P=0.001) and for 23.7% versus 15.4% in the respective groups at day 4 (P=0.007). Microbiological cure was higher with gatifloxacin 0.5% than vehicle at days 4 and 6 (P<0.001 for both time points). The combined minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates for gatifloxacin 0.5% was 2.0 µg/mL for gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. AEs were reported by 11.6% and 13.3% of patients in the gatifloxacin 0.5% and vehicle safety populations, respectively. One patient in each treatment group experienced a serious AE; neither was treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: The 0.5% concentration of gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution was safe and effective for treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis with twice-daily administration for 5 days.

Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated. METHODS: Pooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score<1) and zero itch (itch score=0) was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P=0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P=0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P<0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P=0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally well tolerated.

Health claims database study of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion treatment patterns in dry eye patients.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is a multifactorial, symptomatic disease associated with ocular surface inflammation and tear film hyperosmolarity. This study was designed to assess patterns of topical cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (Restasis®) use in dry eye patients and determine if there were any differences in use based on whether dry eye is physician-coded as a primary or nonprimary diagnosis. METHODS: Records for adult patients with a diagnosis of dry eye at an outpatient visit from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were selected from Truven Health MarketScan® Research Databases. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients with at least one primary versus no primary dry eye diagnosis who filled a topical cyclosporine prescription. Data analyzed included utilization of topical corticosteroids, oral tetracyclines, and punctal plugs. RESULTS: The analysis included 576,416 patients, accounting for 875,692 dry eye outpatient visits: 74.7% were female, 64.2% were ages 40-69 years, and 84.4% had at least one primary dry eye diagnosis. During 2008-2009, 15.9% of dry eye patients with a primary diagnosis versus 6.5% with no primary diagnosis filled at least one cyclosporine prescription. For patients who filled at least one prescription, the mean months' supply of cyclosporine filled over 12 months was 4.44. Overall, 33.9% of dry eye patients filled a prescription for topical cyclosporine, topical corticosteroid, or oral tetracycline over 2 years. CONCLUSION: Patients with a primary dry eye diagnosis were more likely to fill a topical cyclosporine prescription. Although inflammation is key to the pathophysiology of dry eye, most patients seeing a physician for dry eye may not receive anti-inflammatory therapies.

A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of once-daily dosing with alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution as compared with placebo in the prevention of ocular itching, and to directly compare the efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% with olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. METHODS: Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (n = 127) were enrolled in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Using the conjunctival allergen challenge model, this study was conducted over the course of approximately 5 weeks. Subjects were randomized into one of three treatment arms: alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, or placebo. Study medications were administered twice over the course of the trial. The primary efficacy measure for the study was ocular itching evaluated by the subject at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post challenge. Secondary endpoints, measured at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post challenge, included conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral redness, lid swelling, chemosis, and tearing. Duration of action was measured at 16 and 24 hours post-instillation of the study medication at visits 3 and 4, respectively. RESULTS: For the primary measure of ocular itching, both actives, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, were statistically superior to placebo at all three measured time points for both the 16-hour and 24-hour measures (P < 0.0001). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% had numerically lower mean ocular itching scores than eyes treated with olopatadine 0.2% at every time point, and this difference was statistically significant at the 3-minute time point 16 hours post instillation (P = 0.026). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% and with olopatadine 0.2% displayed significantly less lid swelling relative to placebo at every time point for the 16-hour and 24-hour post-instillation visits (P < 0.005). Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only active treatment that provided statistically significant relief of chemosis at every time point of the 24-hour post-instillation visit. CONCLUSION: Both the alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solutions provided highly effective relief of ocular itching at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Treatment differences between the actives were most pronounced at the earliest time point (3 minutes post-challenge) following conjunctival allergen challenge (16 hours), when alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was statistically superior to olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only treatment to provide significant relief from chemosis at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Both active treatments and placebo were generally safe and well tolerated.

Ex vivo corneal epithelial wound healing following exposure to ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

PURPOSE: Ketorolac 0.45% is a new formulation of topical ketorolac in which preservative (benzalkonium chloride, BAK) was removed and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) was added to improve tolerability and reduce dosing frequency. This study compared the effects of ketorolac 0.45% on corneal wound healing to prior ketorolac formulations (0.4% and 0.5%), bromfenac 0.09%, and nepafenac 0.1%. METHODS: Two parallel-group comparisons were performed in series. A 5-mm central epithelial wound was made in fresh porcine corneas. After 24 hours in minimum essential medium (MEM), corneas were incubated for 10 minutes with study drugs, Triton X-100 1% (positive control), or MEM (negative control), followed by 24 hours in MEM. The remaining wound area was stained, photographed, and quantified (pixels). Study 1 compared ketorolac 0.45% to ketorolac 0.4% and ketorolac 0.5%. Study 2 compared ketorolac 0.45% to bromfenac 0.09% and nepafenac 0.1%. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) original wound area was 200,506 ± 4,363 pixels, which was reduced to 59,509 ± 4850 at 48 hours after exposure to Triton X-100 1%. In study 1, the mean remaining wound areas at 48 hours in pixels were 2969 ± 1633 with MEM, 586 ± 299 with ketorolac 0.45% (significantly reduced, P < 0.05 vs all other treatments), 10,228 ± 7541 with ketorolac 0.4%, and 50,674 ± 33,409 with ketorolac 0.5% (significantly enlarged, P < 0.05 vs MEM). In study 2, the mean remaining wound areas at 48 hours were 565 ± 1263 with MEM, 322 ± 229 with ketorolac 0.45% (significantly reduced, P < 0.01 vs bromfenac 0.09% and nepafenac 0.1%), 29,093 ± 14,295 with bromfenac 0.09% (significantly enlarged, P <0.01 vs MEM) and 47,322 ± 13,736 with nepafenac 0.1% (significantly enlarged, P < 0.01 vs MEM and vs bromfenac 0.09%). CONCLUSION: Corneas treated with ketorolac 0.45% healed as rapidly as those treated with MEM, likely secondary to addition of CMC and removal of BAK. In the ex vivo corneal organ culture model, ketorolac 0.45% had statistically less impact on corneal re-epithelialization than prior ketorolac formulations (0.4% and 0.5%), bromfenac 0.09%, and nepafenac 0.01%.

Ocular penetration and anti-inflammatory activity of ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% against lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation.

PURPOSE: Anti-inflammatory activity of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is mediated by suppression of cyclooxygenase (COX) isoenzymes. This study compared ocular penetration and inflammation suppression of topical ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solutions in a rabbit model. METHODS: At hour 0, 36 rabbits received ketorolac 0.45%, bromfenac 0.09%, or an artificial tear 3 times once every 20 min. Half of the rabbits in each group then received intravenous injections of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-dextran at hour 1, and the other half at hour 10. Aqueous and iris-ciliary body (ICB) samples were collected in the former group at hour 2 (peak) and in the latter group at hour 11 (trough) An additional group of 6 animals received only FITC-dextran, and samples were collected 1 h later. Peak and trough nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug concentrations were compared with previously determined half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC(50)) for COX isoenzymes. RESULTS: Peak and trough aqueous and ICB concentrations of ketorolac were at least 7-fold or greater than those of bromfenac. At peak levels, both ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% significantly inhibited LPS-induced aqueous prostaglandin E(2) and FITC-dextran elevation (P < 0.01). At trough, both study drugs significantly inhibited LPS-induced aqueous prostaglandin E(2) elevation (P < 0.05), but only ketorolac 0.45% significantly reduced LPS-induced aqueous FITC-dextran elevation (P < 0.01). Aqueous and ICB ketorolac concentrations exceeded its IC(50) for COX-1 and COX-2 at peak and trough. Aqueous and ICB bromfenac levels exceeded its IC(50) for COX-2 at peak and trough, but not for COX-1 at trough aqueous levels and peak and trough ICB levels. CONCLUSIONS: Both ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% effectively suppressed inflammation at peak. At trough, only ketorolac 0.45% effectively suppressed inflammation as measured by FITC-dextran leakage. The difference in inflammation suppression may be due to differences in tissue concentrations and/or greater COX-1 suppression by ketorolac 0.45%.

Twice-daily, preservative-free ketorolac 0.45% for treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily, preservative-free ketorolac 0.45% (Acuvail; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California, USA) administration for treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. METHODS: Two multicenter, double-masked studies randomized 511 cataract surgery patients (2:1) to receive twice-daily ketorolac 0.45% or vehicle in the operative eye for 16 days, beginning 1 day before surgery. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with a summed ocular inflammation score of 0 for anterior chamber cell and flare on postoperative day 14. The main secondary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with no pain on postoperative day 1. RESULTS: On day 14, 52.5% of ketorolac patients and 26.5% of vehicle patients had an summed ocular inflammation score of 0 (P < .001). On day 1, 72.4% of ketorolac patients and 39.7% of vehicle patients had a pain score of 0 (P < .001). Median time to pain resolution was 1 day in the ketorolac group and 2 days in the vehicle group (P < .001). The percentage of ketorolac and vehicle patients who had a +3-line or more improvement in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was 60.5% versus 44.0% on day 14 (P = .002). Overall, adverse events were more prevalent in the vehicle group than in the ketorolac group (48.5% vs 35.2%; P = .004). Burning or stinging (per a composite Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) was reported by 1.5% of ketorolac patients and 0.6% of vehicle patients. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily ketorolac 0.45% was well tolerated and effectively treated inflammation and pain following cataract surgery.