Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Prevention of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Epicardial injection of botulinum toxin may suppress POAF. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the safety and efficacy of AGN-151607 for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery. METHODS: This phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the safety and efficacy of AGN-151607, 125 U and 250 U vs placebo (1:1:1), for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery. Randomization was stratified by age (<65, ≥65 years) and type of surgery (nonvalvular/valve surgery). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of continuous AF ≥30 seconds. RESULTS: Among 312 modified intention-to-treat participants (placebo, n = 102; 125 U, n = 104; and 250 U, n = 106), the mean age was 66.9 ± 6.8 years; 17% were female; and 64% had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) only, 12% had CABG + valve, and 24% had valve surgery. The primary endpoint occurred in 46.1% of the placebo group, 36.5% of the 125-U group (relative risk [RR] vs placebo: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.10; P = 0.16), and 47.2% of the 250-U group (RR vs placebo: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.79-1.37; P = 0.78). The primary endpoint was reduced in the 125-U group in those ≥65 years of age (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.94; P = 0.02) with a greater reduction in CABG-only participants ≥65 years of age (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.01). Rehospitalization and rates of adverse events were similar across the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the rate of POAF with either dose compared with placebo; however, there was a lower rate of POAF in participants ≥65 years undergoing CABG only and receiving 125 U of AGN-151607. These hypothesis-generating findings require investigation in a larger, adequately powered randomized clinical trial. (Botulinum Toxin Type A [AGN-151607] for the Prevention of Post-operative Atrial Fibrillation in Adult Participants Undergoing Open-chest Cardiac Surgery [NOVA]; NCT03779841); A Phase 2, Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose Ranging Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A [AGN 151607] Injections into the Epicardial Fat Pads to Prevent Post-Operative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Open-Chest Cardiac Surgery; 2017-004399-68).

A 12-month, multicenter, parallel group comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus ranibizumab in branch retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE:: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant and intravitreal ranibizumab are indicated for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. This non-inferiority study compared dexamethasone with ranibizumab in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion. METHODS:: In this randomized, 12-month head-to-head comparison, subjects with branch retinal vein occlusion were assigned to dexamethasone 0.7 mg at day 1 and month 5 with the option of retreatment at month 10 or 11, or ranibizumab 0.5 mg at day 1 and monthly through month 5 with subsequent as-needed injections at month 6-month 11. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity at month 12; secondary outcomes included average change in best-corrected visual acuity, proportion of eyes with ≥10- and ≥15-letter gain/loss, change in central retinal thickness, and change in Vision Functioning Questionnaire-25 score. RESULTS:: In all, 307 of a planned 400 patients were enrolled in the study and received (mean) 2.5 dexamethasone injections (n = 154) and 8.0 ranibizumab injections (n = 153) over 12 months. The mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity at month 12 was 7.4 letters for dexamethasone versus 17.4 letters for ranibizumab (least-squares mean difference (dexamethasone minus ranibizumab), -10.1 letters; 95% confidence interval, -12.9, -7.2; p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION:: Dexamethasone and ranibizumab improved best-corrected visual acuity and anatomical outcomes; however, dexamethasone did not show non-inferiority to ranibizumab in this under-powered study. Dexamethasone was associated with an increased risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract progression, but a lower injection burden, compared to ranibizumab.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in retinal vein occlusion: real-life data from a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between duration of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and the achievement of vision gain in patients receiving dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real-world clinical practice, and to define patterns of use of DEX implant and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with RVO in clinical practice. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, multicenter, 6-month observational phase IV study conducted at 70 sites in Germany enrolled patients diagnosed with macular edema following branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO) who were given DEX implant. Follow-up visits and evaluations occurred in accordance with normal clinical practice. Re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other RVO therapies was at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at week 12. RESULTS: The analysis population consisted of 573 patients (64 % BRVO, 36 % CRVO). Patients received a mean of 1.17 DEX implant treatments during the study period; 84.3 % of patients received a single DEX implant and 19.9 % received adjunctive other RVO treatment. Among patients with analyzable BCVA data at baseline and week 12 (n = 351), mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was -0.16 (standard deviation, 0.30) logMAR (+7.8 approximate Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) (p < 0.001), and 33.9 % of patients had gained at least 3 lines in BCVA from baseline. Mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was +9.5, +7.3, and +5.4 approximate ETDRS letters in patients with macular edema duration < 90 days, from 90 to 180 days, and >180 days respectively. Improvement in BCVA through week 24 and decreases in central retinal thickness were seen in both BRVO and CRVO. The most common adverse drug reaction was increased intraocular pressure. No glaucoma incisional surgeries were required. CONCLUSIONS: DEX implant was effective in improving BCVA and central retinal thickness in patients with BRVO and CRVO in real-world clinical practice. The largest gains in BCVA over 6 months occurred in patients with recent onset macular edema, confirming the benefit of early treatment. DEX implant was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.

Preservative-free bimatoprost 0.03% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension commonly contain preservatives that can cause ocular surface damage in many patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of, and compliance to, preservative-free (PF) bimatoprost 0.03% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (IOP ≥18 mmHg) in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: This open-label study observed patients who were switched to PF bimatoprost 0.03% for medical reasons. IOP was measured at baseline and ~12 weeks later at the final visit, and the change in IOP was calculated. Tolerability and continuation of therapy were assessed at two follow-up visits. RESULTS: A total of 1,830 patients were included in the study, and complete IOP data were available for 1,543 patients. Mean IOP was reduced by 23% from 21.64 mmHg to 16.59 mmHg (P<0.0001). In subgroup analyses, the mean IOP was significantly reduced compared with baseline, regardless of prior therapy, including those previously treated with PF monotherapy. A total of 85.7% of physicians reported the IOP-lowering efficacy of PF bimatoprost 0.03% to be as expected or better than expected. Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 5.7% of patients, and there were no serious AEs reported. The most common AEs were eye irritation (1.7%) and hyperemia (1.4%). Physician-reported treatment compliance was reported as better than (48.7%) or equal to (43.6%) prior treatment in most patients. Most patients (82%) were expected to continue PF bimatoprost 0.03% after the end of the study. CONCLUSION: This observational study showed that, in clinical practice, switching to PF bimatoprost 0.03% was associated with a significant IOP reduction from baseline. There was a low AE rate. PF bimatoprost 0.03% may, therefore, be an effective treatment option for patients who are intolerant of preservatives or have an inadequate response to prior IOP-lowering treatments.

Two-year, prospective, multicenter study of the use of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in the clinical setting in France.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns of use and long-term efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO, CRVO) in French clinical practice. METHODS: A 24-month, prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, observational study (LOUVRE) conducted at 48 randomly selected sites in metropolitan France enrolled consecutive adult patients with macular edema following retinal vein occlusion (RVO) who were treated with DEX implant at baseline. Re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other RVO treatments was at the physician's discretion. The primary endpoint was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 6. Secondary endpoints included change in BCVA, intraocular pressure (IOP), adverse events, and RVO treatments administered through month 24. RESULTS: The analysis population of 375 patients (53.9 % BRVO, 46.1 % CRVO) received a mean of 2.6 DEX implant injections over 2 years; mean time between injections was 6.6 months. Mean (SD) change in BCVA from baseline was 5.1 (19.0) letters at month 6 (p < 0.001) and 4.6 (22.3) letters at month 24 (p < 0.001). During the study, 208 patients (55.5 %) received treatment other than DEX implant for RVO, usually laser or ranibizumab therapy, with first use of other therapy occurring at a mean of 8.7 months. Mean change from baseline BCVA at month 6 was 5.5 letters (p < 0.001, N = 254) in patients who had received only DEX implant and 4.2 letters (p = 0.006, N = 121) in patients who had received additional other RVO treatment during the first 6 months. At month 24, mean change from baseline BCVA was +20.7 letters in patients treated with a single DEX implant only (p < 0.001), +4.9 letters in patients treated with ≥2 DEX implants only (p = 0.029), and +2.3 letters in patients treated with DEX implant and other RVO treatment (p = 0.143). The most common adverse events (incidence) were cataract progression (39.7 %) and increased IOP (34.4 %). No glaucoma incisional surgeries were required. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety of DEX implant in the treatment of RVO-associated macular edema were demonstrated in the French clinical setting. Patients who switched from DEX implant to other RVO treatments did not have improved outcomes. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT01618266.

A prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study of Optive Plus(®) in the treatment of patients with dry eye: the prolipid study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of Optive Plus(®), an artificial tear containing castor oil, in patients with dry eye, in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: This was a prospective, noninterventional study of patients with dry eye who switched from a prior therapy or who were naïve to treatment (n=1,209). Patients were issued Optive Plus(®) artificial tears. Dry eye severity, tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer score, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score, and patient assessment of symptoms were recorded at baseline and at the follow-up visit (4 weeks after starting Optive Plus(®)). RESULTS: The cause of dry eye was determined to be aqueous deficiency, lipid deficiency, or a mixture of aqueous and lipid deficiency (in 19.5%, 20.1%, and 47.8%, respectively, of the total study population). The severity of dry eye decreased from baseline to the follow-up visit, showing a decrease of the more severe levels (2-4) and a concurrent increase in mild level (1) of the rating scale. Patients reported an improvement in dry eye symptoms over the duration of the study, specifically 74.2% (n=152), 85.4% (n=182), and 82.4% (n=417) of patients in the aqueous-deficient, lipid-deficient, and mixed-deficiency groups, respectively. TBUT was measured in 475 patients. Baseline measurements for mean and standard deviation were 9.0±3.5, 7.1±3.6, and 6.6±3.0 seconds for the aqueous-deficient, lipid-deficient, and mixed-deficiency groups, respectively. These increased to 10.5±3.5, 10.0±3.6, and 9.2±3.1 seconds at the final visit. Overall, 92.5% of all patients were satisfied with the use of Optive Plus(®), and 86% said they would purchase Optive Plus(®). Ten percent of patients reported adverse events, and 1.8% of all patients experienced treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Optive Plus(®) was well tolerated and effective in reducing the signs and symptoms of all types of dry eye but is recommended for lipid-deficient dry eye patients.