The Critical Importance of Recognition, Evaluation, and Management of Mental Health on Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy - A Synthetic Narrative Review: Current Concepts.

Mental health and wellness influence patients with hip pain and dysfunction secondary to Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, acetabular dysplasia, and labral injury. Disorders of mental wellness may impact hip preservation surgery patients both before and after surgery. Major depression and generalized anxiety are the two most common diagnoses that affect hip preservation surgery patients. There are dozens of unique questionnaires that can subjectively and objectively characterize the mental health of patients with hip pain. Pain threshold and pain tolerance are two issues that must be recognized to optimally predict treatment outcome in an informed consent shared decision-making discussion. Patient expectations may also significantly influence preoperative symptoms and postoperative outcome. Pain threshold, pain tolerance, and patient expectations are entities traditionally viewed as qualitative and unmeasurable. However, many valid and reliable methods exist to quantitatively assess these patient-specific variables. Recent original research and synthetic review publications have consistently concluded similar findings: patients with disorders of mental wellness generally have lower preoperative patient-reported outcome scores, do improve following surgery, albeit to a lesser magnitude than non-mental disorder patients, and ultimately have lower postoperative scores at their final follow. As with most Orthopedic Surgery literature, the investigation of mental health and hip preservation is primarily via retrospective level four evidence with small numbers of patients from a single-center and single-surgeon at short-term follow-up. Although hip preservation surgeons are Orthopedic Surgeons by training and practice, they must be able to recognize mental wellness disorders and either treat or refer when suspected or identified.

A multicenter, open-label study of netarsudil for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the real-world efficacy of netarsudil, either as monotherapy or concomitant therapy, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) requiring modification of intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering treatment. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, interventional, open-label, Phase 4 study, clinical trial registration number: NCT03808688. Netarsudil ophthalmic solution 0.02% was prescribed at the recommended once-daily dosage, with treatment regimens determined by the investigators. Netarsudil could be used alone or in combination with other IOP-lowering medications, consistent with standard clinical practice. Primary efficacy endpoint: percentage reduction from baseline IOP at week 12. RESULTS: Among 261 enrolled patients, 242 received ≥1 netarsudil dose and had ≥1 follow-up IOP measurement (efficacy population). Mean IOP in patients who were treatment-naïve at baseline and using netarsudil as monotherapy (n = 24) decreased by 16.9%. Netarsudil monotherapy was comparable in efficacy to prior therapy across subgroups, and those who replaced prostaglandin analog (n = 57) monotherapy demonstrated reduction of 2.5% from prostaglandin analog-treated baseline values. Among patients who used netarsudil as concomitant therapy (n = 151), reductions in mean IOP (± standard deviation) to week 12 were seen across subgroups who added netarsudil to a single agent (4.3 ± 2.88 mmHg; 20.5%) or ≥2 classes of concomitant therapy (4.5 ± 4.08 mmHg; 20.9%) and who used netarsudil to replace ≥1 other drug classes (0.4 ± 2.47 mmHg; 1.7%). Of 260 netarsudil-treated patients, 41 (15.8%) discontinued, including 29 (11.2%) due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world treatment of patients with OAG or OHT, netarsudil consistently maintained IOP control when it replaced previous IOP-lowering therapies and provided additional IOP-lowering efficacy when added to other treatments.

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.

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.

Bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension previously treated with latanoprost: two randomized 12-week trials.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% as monotherapy in patients treated with latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy who require additional IOP lowering for their ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: Two prospective, investigator-masked, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter studies enrolled patients with baseline IOP ≥20 mmHg after ≥30 days of latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy. Patients were randomized to 12 weeks of study treatment (study 1, bimatoprost 0.01% once daily or bimatoprost 0.01% once daily plus brimonidine 0.1% three times daily; study 2, bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or bimatoprost 0.03% once daily plus fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% twice daily). Patient evaluations at weeks 4 and 12 included IOP at 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm and safety assessments. Results in the monotherapy study arms (bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03%) are presented. RESULTS: Latanoprost-treated baseline mean diurnal IOP (± standard error of the mean) was 22.2±0.3 mmHg and 22.1±0.4 mmHg in the bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arms, respectively (P=0.957). In both treatment arms, mean (± standard error of the mean) reduction in IOP from latanoprost-treated baseline was statistically significant at each time point at both follow-up visits (P<0.001), ranging from 3.7±0.4 (17.0%) mmHg to 4.4±0.4 (19.9%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.01% and from 2.8±0.5 (12.8%) mmHg to 3.9±0.5 (16.7%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.03%. Mean percentage IOP reduction from latanoprost-treated baseline was numerically greater with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03% throughout follow-up. The incidence of conjunctival hyperemia of mild or greater severity increased from latanoprost baseline after 12 weeks of treatment only in the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arm. CONCLUSION: Many patients who do not reach their target IOP on latanoprost can achieve additional IOP lowering and maintain monotherapy by replacing latanoprost with bimatoprost. Reductions in IOP from latanoprost baseline were larger with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03%, and bimatoprost 0.01% had a more favorable tolerability profile.

Evaluation of eye drop administration technique in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate eye drop administration by patients at multiple visits in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with topical ocular hypotensive medication in a multicenter, investigator-masked trial. At baseline, patients were given a questionnaire for self-assessment of difficulty with drop administration. At baseline and 12 weeks, patients demonstrated drop instillation using a bottle of artificial tears. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient self-assessment of difficulty with drop administration and observed patient difficulty with drop administration, defined as bottle touching eye/adnexa, drop missing the ocular surface, or administering more than 1 drop. RESULTS: Of 164 enrolled patients, 50% had previously been treated with ocular hypotensive medication for ≥3 years. Only 11.4% of patients reported difficulty with eye drop administration at study entry. At baseline, 18.2% of patients touched their eye/adnexa with the bottle and 10.3% missed the eye. At 12 weeks, 18.5% and 8.6% of patients, respectively, had similar difficulties. Overall, difficulty with drop instillation was observed in 42.1% of patients. Difficulty at both visits was seen in 35.3% of patients who reported difficulty at entry and in 17.2% of patients who denied difficulty. The relative risk of demonstrating difficulty at either visit was 2.0 times greater for patients who self-reported difficulty at study entry (P = 0.004). The relative risk of demonstrating difficulty at week 12 was 3.8 times greater for patients with observed difficulty at baseline (P < 0.001). Limitations of the study design included self-administration of drops to the eye of the patient's choice and observation in an office setting. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with experience instilling topical glaucoma medications continue to have difficulties with eye drop administration, including patients who do not self-report difficulty. The risk of difficulty with eye drop administration is increased in patients who self-report difficulty and in patients who have been previously observed to have difficulty. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT01253902.

Ocular surface tolerability of prostaglandin analogs and prostamides in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: There has been increased attention on the potential impact of the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK) on the ocular surface. This study compared the ocular surface tolerability of once-daily bimatoprost 0.01% and latanoprost 0.005% (both preserved with 0.02% BAK), and travoprost 0.004% preserved with sofZia™. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter (15 sites), investigator-masked study enrolled patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had received latanoprost monotherapy for at least 1 month. Patients were randomized to oncedaily bimatoprost (n = 56), travoprost (n = 53), or latanoprost (n = 55) monotherapy for 3 months. Follow-up visits were at weeks 1, 4, and 12. The primary outcome measure was physician-graded conjunctival hyperemia (scale 0 to 3) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included corneal staining (scale 0 to 3) and tear break-up time (TBUT). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean (standard deviation [SD]) outcome measures including conjunctival hyperemia (bimatoprost: 0.48 [0.52], travoprost: 0.49 [0.52], latanoprost: 0.51 [0.54]), corneal staining (bimatoprost: 0.31 [0.49], travoprost: 0.25 [0.46], latanoprost: 0.24 [0.45]), or TBUT (bimatoprost: 9.7 s [6.1], travoprost: 9.5 s [5.8], latanoprost: 9.8 s [5.0]) among subjects at latanoprost-treated baseline (P ≥ 0.664). At week 12, there were no significant differences in conjunctival hyperemia (bimatoprost: 0.42 [0.48], travoprost: 0.46 [0.44], latanoprost: 0.44 [0.57]), corneal staining (bimatoprost: 0.31 [0.45], travoprost: 0.32 [0.48], latanoprost: 0.22 [0.30]), or TBUT (bimatoprost: 9.7 s [5.7], travoprost 9.7 s [5.0], latanoprost: 9.3 s [4.0]) among the treatment groups (P ≥ 0.379). At week 1, there was a statistically significant among-group difference in mean change from baseline in hyperemia (+0.04, bimatoprost; +0.20, travoprost; 0.00, latanoprost; P = 0.018). There were no statistically significant among-group differences in mean corneal staining, mean TBUT, or change from baseline at any visit. CONCLUSIONS: Despite preservative differences, there were no significant differences in objective clinical measures of ocular surface tolerability after 3 months of treatment with bimatoprost (with 0.02% BAK), travoprost (with sofZia), and latanoprost (with 0.02% BAK).

Fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol versus latanoprost in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a 12-week, randomized, comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%-timolol 0.5% compared with latanoprost 0.005% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked clinical trial. After washout of any previous IOP-lowering medications, patients with IOP of 24 mmHg or higher were randomized to twice-daily fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%-timolol 0.5% (n = 73) or once-daily latanoprost 0.005% (n = 75, dosed in the evening, with vehicle control in the morning to maintain masking) for 12 weeks. IOP was measured at 8 a.m. (before dosing), 10 a.m., and 3 p.m. at baseline, week 6, and week 12. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the identifier 00811564 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was diurnal IOP (averaged over 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 3 p.m.) at week 12. Safety measures included biomicroscopy. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in mean diurnal IOP at baseline (p = 0.118). At week 12, the mean (SD) diurnal IOP was 17.8 (2.9) mmHg with brimonidine-timolol and 17.9 (3.9) mmHg with latanoprost (p = 0.794). The percentage of patients achieving at least a 20% decrease from baseline diurnal IOP at week 12 was 87.7% in the brimonidine-timolol group and 77.3% in the latanoprost group (p = 0.131). Measured biomicroscopic changes from baseline to week 12 were infrequent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol was as effective as latanoprost in reducing IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Both treatments demonstrated favorable ocular tolerability. The duration of the study was 12 weeks, and additional studies will be needed to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol and latanoprost during long-term treatment.

Short-term effects of brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol on ocular perfusion pressure and blood flow in glaucoma.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the comparative short-term effects of brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol on ocular perfusion pressure and retrobulbar blood flow in patients with primary open angle glaucoma (OAG). METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study, intraocular pressure (IOP), blood pressure (BP), ocular perfusion pressure (OPP), and retrobulbar hemodynamics were assessed in 15 patients with OAG (mean age 68.1 years, eight women) with well controlled IOP. IOP was measured by Goldman applanation tonometery and color Doppler imaging was utilized to assess the retrobulbar blood vessels before and 1 month after treatment with topical brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol. Statistical analysis was performed by Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test for multiple comparisons with Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The Friedman test and subsequent post-hoc analysis indicated that IOP, BP, OPP, and retrobulbar blood flow velocities did not significantly differ between brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol after 1-month treatment administration in patients with OAG and well controlled IOP. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with OAG, short-term treatment with brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol results in similar effects on OPP and retrobulbar blood flow velocities.

Demonstration of an online tool to assist managed care formulary evidence-based decision making: meta-analysis of topical prostaglandin analog efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate the use of an online service for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of topical prostaglandin analogs in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. METHODS: An online service provider (Doctor Evidence) reviewed and extracted data from the peer-reviewed literature through September 2009. Randomized controlled studies of at least three months' duration assessing at least two prostaglandin analogs in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension, or normal-tension glaucoma were included. The primary endpoint was mean IOP. Summary estimates were created using random-effects models. The Q Chi-square test was used to assess statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. On average, greater IOP-lowering was seen with bimatoprost relative to latanoprost (1 mmHg, P = 0.025) and travoprost (0.8 mmHg, P = 0.033) based on mean IOP after 12-26 weeks of treatment. No statistical difference was observed in IOP-lowering between latanoprost and travoprost (P = 0.841). Findings were similar to previously published meta-analyses of topical prostaglandin analogs. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews relying on meta-analytic techniques to create summary statistics are considered to be the "gold standard" for synthesizing evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the process is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and outside the capability of most formulary managers. We have demonstrated the effectiveness of a commercial service that facilitates the process of conducting such reviews.

Twelve-week, randomized, multicenter study comparing a fixed combination of brimonidine-timolol with timolol as therapy adjunctive to latanoprost.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additive intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% compared with timolol 0.5% at peak and trough effect when used as therapy adjunctive to latanoprost 0.005% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who require additional IOP lowering. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked, parallel-group study, patients were treated with latanoprost monotherapy for at least four weeks prior to baseline. At baseline on latanoprost, patients with IOP ≥21 mmHg in at least one eye were randomized to twice-daily fixed brimonidine-timolol (n = 102) or timolol (n = 102), each adjunctive to latanoprost for 12 weeks. IOP was measured at 8 am and 10 am at baseline, week 6, and week 12 and evaluated in the per protocol population. The primary efficacy endpoint was peak IOP lowering at 10 am, week 12. Safety measures included adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline mean IOP was similar at 10 am in the treatment groups (brimonidine-timolol 23.4 mmHg; timolol 23.0 mmHg). The mean additional reduction from latanoprost-treated baseline IOP was 8.3 mmHg (35.5%) with fixed brimonidine-timolol and 6.2 mmHg (27.0%) with timolol at 10 am, week 12 (P < 0.001). Patients treated with fixed brimonidine-timolol adjunctive to latanoprost were significantly more likely than patients treated with adjunctive timolol to achieve an IOP <18 mmHg (P = 0.028) and a ≥20% reduction in IOP from baseline (P = 0.047) at both 8 am and 10 am in week 12. Adverse events occurred in 14.7% of fixed brimonidine-timolol patients and 12.7% of timolol patients. Biomicroscopy findings were similar between the treatment groups after 12 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol reduced IOP significantly more effectively than timolol when used as adjunctive therapy to latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Both fixed brimonidine-timolol and timolol were well tolerated as agents adjunctive to latanoprost.