Safety of KPI-121 Ophthalmic Suspension 0.25% in Patients With Dry Eye Disease: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Multicenter, Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled Studies.

PURPOSE: The safety of KPI-121 0.25%, an ophthalmic nanoparticle suspension of loteprednol etabonate, was evaluated in subjects with dry eye disease (DED) in one phase 2 and three phase 3 randomized trials of similar design. METHODS: Adults with DED received KPI-121 0.25% or vehicle drops 4 times daily (QID) for ≥2 weeks; 1430 subjects received KPI-121 0.25% and 1438 subjects received vehicle drops. Main safety assessments were adverse events (AEs) and intraocular pressure (IOP). As a common side effect associated with the use of ocular corticosteroids is elevated IOP, subjects with a history of or current diagnosis of glaucoma were excluded. RESULTS: Instillation site pain was the most common AE, reported by 5.2% of subjects in the KPI-121 0.25% group and 4.4% of subjects in the vehicle group; other AEs were reported by ≤0.8% of subjects in the KPI-121 group. IOP elevations, a side effect associated with the use of ophthalmic corticosteroids, were observed with low incidence: 0.6% and 0.2% of subjects in the KPI-121 and vehicle groups, respectively. An IOP elevation was defined as an increase from baseline of >5 mm Hg that resulted in an IOP of ≥21 mm Hg in either eye during use of the study product. CONCLUSIONS: KPI-121 ophthalmic suspension 0.25% seemed to be safe and well tolerated when dosed QID for 2 to 4 weeks in those DED subjects included in the 4 trials.

An evaluation of the efficacy of a cyclosporine-based dry eye therapy when used with marketed artificial tears as supportive therapy in dry eye.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of marketed artificial tears in relieving the signs and symptoms of dry eye when used as supportive therapy to a cyclosporine-based ophthalmic emulsion. METHODS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled in this randomized, investigator-masked, parallel study of 6 months' duration. Eligible patients needed a Schirmer I score without anesthesia of 7 mm or less at day -7 and to answer that they needed artificial tears at least "some of the time." Corneal staining of 3 or more (National Eye Institute grid, 15 points) at day -7 and day 0 in the same eye was also required. Patients were randomized to one of three regimens: Restasis (0.05% cyclosporine) twice per day with Systane used a minimum of once per day (Restasis + Systane); Restasis twice per day with Refresh Tears used a minimum of once per day (Restasis + Refresh); and Systane alone used four times per day. Signs and symptoms were measured at days -7, 0, 7, 14, 28, 42, 120, and 180. RESULTS: A statistical difference was seen in favor of Restasis + Systane versus Restasis + Refresh for corneal staining (P = 0.0048) change from baseline and a trend (P = 0.0725) for increased tear film breakup time at 6 months. There were no differences between treatment groups for Schirmer score, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival injection. Significant differences were seen in favor of Restasis + Systane versus Restasis + Refresh for less ocular burning (P = 0.0210), stinging (P = 0.0314), grittiness (P = 0.0128), and dryness (P = 0.0132). Systane was better than Restasis + Refresh for less burning (P = 0.0288), dryness (P = 0.0480), and scratchiness (P = 0.0294). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the choice of concomitant therapy used with Restasis has significant effects on outcome measures. Both supportive therapies were compatible with Restasis.