RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: The trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8 A.M., 10 A.M., and 4 P.M.) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments. RESULTS: A total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (P < 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group. CONCLUSIONS: The SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Market segmentation analysis identifies discrete segments of the population whose beliefs are consistent with exhibited behaviors such as purchase choice. This study applies market segmentation analysis to low myopes (-1 to -3 D with less than 1 D cylinder) in their consideration and choice of a refractive surgery procedure to discover opportunities within the market. METHOD: A quantitative survey based on focus group research was sent to a demographically balanced sample of myopes using contact lenses and/or glasses. A variable reduction process followed by a clustering analysis was used to discover discrete belief-based segments. The resulting segments were validated both analytically and through in-market testing. RESULTS: Discontented individuals who wear contact lenses are the primary target for vision correction surgery. However, 81% of the target group is apprehensive about laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). They are nervous about the procedure and strongly desire reversibility and exchangeability. CONCLUSION: There exists a large untapped opportunity for vision correction surgery within the low myope population. Market segmentation analysis helped determine how to best meet this opportunity through repositioning existing procedures or developing new vision correction technology, and could also be applied to identify opportunities in other vision correction populations.
