Azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution: in purulent bacterial or trachomatous conjunctivitis

The second-generation macrolide azithromycin is available as a 1.5% ophthalmic solution for use in the treatment of bacterial or trachomatous conjunctivitis. This article reviews the pharmacological properties of azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution and its clinical efficacy and tolerability in patients with purulent bacterial conjunctivitis or trachomatous conjunctivitis caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. Azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution had good in vitro activity against Haemophilus influenzae and C. trachomatis, and achieved good concentrations in tear samples from healthy volunteers. Azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution for 3 days (1 drop twice daily) was noninferior to tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic solution for 7 days (1 drop every 2 hours) in paediatric and adult patients with purulent bacterial conjunctivitis, with regard to clinical cure and bacteriological resolution on day 9, in a randomized, investigator-masked, multicentre study. In children with trachomatous inflammation, 3-day treatment with azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution was noninferior to a single dose of azithromycin oral suspension, with regard to clinical cure rate in the worst eye at 60 days, in a randomized, double-masked, multicentre study. Azithromycin 1.5% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated in patients with bacterial or trachomatous conjunctivitis. Most events were of mild to moderate severity.     

Topical brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution: in glaucoma and ocular hypertension

A fixed combination of brimonidine (a highly selective alpha(2)-adrenergic agonist) and timolol (a non-selective beta-blocker) [brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution; brimonidine/timolol] is available for the topical treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension (OH). Brimonidine and timolol decrease elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) by complementary mechanisms of action and have an additive effect when coadministered to healthy volunteers and patients with glaucoma or OH. When assessed over a 3- or 12-month period in large, well designed clinical studies, brimonidine/timolol instilled twice daily (one drop in each eye) was superior to monotherapy with the individual components instilled two (brimonidine) or three (timolol) times daily, and noninferior to concomitant therapy with the individual components instilled twice daily, in lowering raised IOP in patients with glaucoma or OH. In small, randomised, comparative studies of 1 or 3 months' duration, the IOP-lowering effect of brimonidine/timolol twice daily was similar or superior to that of fixed combination dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (dorzolamide/timolol) twice daily (preliminary data). Brimonidine/timolol is generally well tolerated with a predictable local and systemic adverse event profile based on that of the individual components used alone and concomitantly. No unexpected or serious adverse events associated with the fixed combination were reported in key clinical trials. Brimonidine/timolol may be advantageous over dorzolamide/timolol with respect to ocular tolerability and comfort (preliminary data).     

Ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution

Ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution is a topical NSAID indicated in the US for the treatment of ocular pain and inflammation following cataract surgery. In animal studies, the ocular relative bioavailability of single-dose topical ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution was 2- to 3-fold higher than that of ketorolac 0.4% ophthalmic solution. In two identically designed, randomized, double-masked, multicentre trials in adult patients undergoing cataract extraction, the proportions of patients with a summed ocular inflammation score of zero for anterior chamber cell count plus anterior chamber flare on day 14 after surgery were significantly greater in those treated with topical ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution than in those treated with vehicle placebo. Compared with placebo, topical ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution significantly increased the proportion of patients who were pain-free on the day after surgery in both trials. Ketorolac 0.45% ophthalmic solution was generally well tolerated in clinical trials with lower overall incidences of treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events than placebo, and with no single treatment-related adverse event having a higher incidence than with placebo.     

Phase III efficacy and safety study of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

Research design and methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study. A total of 957 patients aged 1 year and older with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% or vehicle applied topically three times daily for 5 days.

Main outcome measures: Primary endpoints were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection at Visit 2 (Day 5?±?1). Secondary endpoints included clinical resolution and microbial eradication at Visit 3 (Day 8 or 9), individual clinical outcomes at follow-up visits, and safety.

Clinical trial registration: NCT number, NCT00347932.

Results: Three hundred and ninety patients had culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Clinical resolution and microbial eradication were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than with vehicle at Visit 2 (45.2% vs. 33.0%, p?=?0.0084; and 91.5% vs. 59.7%, p?<?0.0001, respectively) and Visit 3 (84.4% vs. 69.1%, p?=?0.0011; and 88.4% vs. 71.7%, p?<?0.0001, respectively). Results for secondary endpoints of individual clinical outcomes were consistent with primary endpoints. Fewer eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension experienced adverse events than those receiving vehicle (9.2% vs. 13.9%; p?=?0.0047).

Conclusions: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension produces clinical resolution and microbial eradication rates significantly better than vehicle and is safe for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

Limitations: A limitation of this study is the lack of a non-treatment control group.     

24-hour control of intraocular pressure with 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed-combination ophthalmic solution in open-angle glaucoma*

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the 24-hour efficacy and tolerability of 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed combination (DTFC) solution in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Research design and methods: Randomized, parallel, doublemasked, multicenter study. Patients with insufficiently controlled intraocular pressure (IOP≥22 mmHg) were randomized to DTFC (N=117) or timolol (N=115). IOP was measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 8 weeks, with measurements taken at 6 p.m., 8 p.m., 10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 2 p.m.

Main outcome measures: Statistically significant change in IOP from untreated baseline for DTFC at all hours at week 8. Secondary outcome measures included: IOP-lowering at week 6 at all individual time points, change from baseline to 8 weeks in mean daytime IOP (average of 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 6 p.m., and 8 p.m. IOPs) and night-time IOP (10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m.), and comparison of DTFC with timolol after 8 weeks.

Results: Patients receiving DTFC had a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in IOP at week 8 compared with baseline at all eight time points (p<0.001). Significant IOP reductions were also seen at all time points at week 6 (p<0.001). DTFC significantly lowered mean daytime IOP and night-time IOP (p<0.001 for both). Timolol alone also significantly reduced IOP from baseline at 8 weeks for all diurnal time points, and mean daytime and night-time IOP (p<0.001 for all). Compared with timolol alone, there were significantly greater reductions with DTFC at 10 a.m. (p=0.003) and 2 p.m. (p=0.016), and for mean daytime IOP (p=0.025) at 8 weeks. Significant between-treatment differences were not observed at other time points. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with no differences observed in the safety profiles between the treatment groups.

Conclusions: Both DTFC and timolol provided significant IOP reduction over the entire 24-hour measurement period. timolol during the daytime, but not at night. Although this study was not designed or powered to compare DTFC and timolol, DTFC exhibited greater IOP-lowering than timolol during the daytime, but not at night.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00108017.     

Topical dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution: a review of its use in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Topically administered dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (dorzolamide/timolol ophthalmic solution; Cosopt) is a fixed combination of two ocular hypotensive drugs (the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor dorzolamide and the beta-adrenoceptor antagonist timolol) that have an additive effect on lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) when administered together. This product is indicated for the treatment of elevated IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OH) who are insufficiently responsive to topical beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy. As such, it can be considered for use in individuals who, as a consequence of failing to achieve target IOP with beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy, require the addition or substitution of another class of topical antiglaucoma medication. Clinical trials have demonstrated that dorzolamide/timolol (1 drop per eye twice daily) is an effective and generally well tolerated fixed combination for lowering IOP in patients with open angle glaucoma or OH, including individuals uncontrolled on beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy. Compared with concomitant therapy with the individual components, the primary advantage of fixed combination dorzolamide/timolol is convenience.     

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Introduction: Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available as oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications of olopatadine therapy focus on the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes.

Areas covered: This article was created from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials of children and adults. The articles that have been selected, evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Expert opinion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It can function both as a viable alternative or addition to first line therapies such as intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines.     

Trimethoprim-polymyxin B sulphate ophthalmic ointment in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: a double-blind study versus chloramphenicol ophthalmic ointment

Forty-two patients with a clinical diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial. Patients were treated with either trimethoprim-polymyxin B sulphate or chloramphenicol ophthalmic ointments 4-times a day for 7 days. Analysis of clinical evaluation data showed that both treatments were effective and well tolerated, and that there were no statistically significant differences between them with regard to eradication of organisms or clinical improvement.     

Besifloxacin,a new ophthalmic fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

Besifloxacin is a new fluoroquinolone anti-infective developed for ophthalmic use. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% (Besivance?) was recently approved for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. The objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of microbiological, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and clinical studies with besifloxacin. Microbiological studies have demonstrated that besifloxacin has wide-spectrum and potent activity against common ocular pathogens, including Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens associated with bacterial conjunctivitis, and retained activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant staphylococci and multidrug-resistant strains. In preclinical and human studies, topically applied besifloxacin had a prolonged ocular concentration and minimal systemic exposure. In clinical studies, patients randomized to besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% experienced significantly higher rates of clinical resolution and microbial eradication than patients randomized to vehicle. Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% was also found to be as effective and well tolerated as moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%. The low minimum inhibitory concentrations and high attainment of pharmacodynamic targets with besifloxacin may contribute to a lower risk for the emergence of bacterial resistance, although further studies are needed. These data indicate that besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% is an important new option for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.     

Comparative efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension using the conjunctival allergen challenge model

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of olopatadine and levocabastine in reducing ocular allergic itching and vascular hyperemia (redness) induced by conjunctival allergen challenge. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-masked, contralateral study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. At Visit 1, subjects with a positive allergen skin test and a history of allergic conjunctivitis were administered increasing concentrations of allergen until at least a moderate grade 2 ocular itching and conjunctival redness response was obtained in both eyes. Allergic signs were graded on standardized 0-4 scales. Subjects who reacted positively were re-challenged at Visit 2 with the pre-determined concentration of allergen. Subjects who again responded with at least a grade 2 bilateral ocular itching and conjunctival redness score at Visit 2 were eligible for drug evaluation. At Visit 3, subjects received olopatadine in one eye and levocabastine in the contralateral eye according to a computer-generated randomization scheme generated prior to commencement of the study. Ocular discomfort was then graded in both eyes. Subjects were bilaterally challenged with the predetermined concentration of allergen 27 min after topical drug administration, such that the first post-challenge assessment was made 30 min post-drug instillation. Allergic signs and symptoms were evaluated at 3 min, 10 min, and 20 min postchallenge and safety and efficacy analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight subjects received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Ocular itching scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at 3 min and 10 min post-challenge (p < 0.001). Ocular redness scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at all time points post-challenge (p < 0.0001). Of all subjects, 4.41% reported ocular discomfort in the olopatadine eye and 26.5% in the levocabastine treated eye. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine treated eyes had significantly less itching and redness than levocabastine treated eyes after conjunctival allergen challenge. Olopatadine was also associated with less discomfort upon instillation than levocabastine.     

Comparative efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension using the conjunctival allergen challenge model

SUMMARY

Objective: To compare the efficacy of olopatadine and levocabastine in reducing ocular allergic itching and vascular hyperemia (redness) induced by conjunctival allergen challenge.

Research design and methods: The study was a randomized, double-masked, contralateral study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. At Visit 1, subjects with a positive allergen skin test and a history of allergic conjunctivitis were administered increasing concentrations of allergen until at least a moderate grade 2 ocular itching and conjunctival redness response was obtained in both eyes. Allergic signs were graded on standardized 0–4 scales. Subjects who reacted positively were re-challenged at Visit 2 with the pre-determined concentration of allergen. Subjects who again responded with at least a grade 2 bilateral ocular itching and conjunctival redness score at Visit 2 were eligible for drug evaluation. At Visit 3, subjects received olopatadine in one eye and levocabastine in the contralateral eye according to a computer-generated randomization scheme generated prior to commencement of the study. Ocular discomfort was then graded in both eyes. Subjects were bilaterally challenged with the predetermined concentration of allergen 27?min after topical drug administration, such that the first post-challenge assessment was made 30?min post-drug instillation. Allergic signs and symptoms were evaluated at 3?min, 10?min, and 20?min post-challenge and safety and efficacy analyses were performed.

Results: Sixty-eight subjects received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Ocular itching scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at 3?min and 10?min post-challenge (?p < 0.001). Ocular redness scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at all time points post-challenge (?p < 0.0001). Of all subjects, 4.41% reported ocular discomfort in the olopatadine eye and 26.5% in the levocabastine treated eye.

Conclusion: Olopatadine treated eyes had significantly less itching and redness than levocabastine treated eyes after conjunctival allergen challenge. Olopatadine was also associated with less discomfort upon instillation than levocabastine.     

Circadian IOP-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution compared to latanoprost 0.005%

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the intraocular pressure- (IOP) lowering efficacy over two consecutive 24-h periods of travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution (Travatan) compared to latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan) dosed once daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a double-masked trial conducted at the Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the IOP lowering efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost. During the eligibility visit, patients' IOP was measured throughout two consecutive 24-h periods every 4 h. Patients were then randomized to travoprost or latanoprost (one drop at 8 p.m. daily for 2 weeks). Sixty-two patients were randomized (travoprost n = 32; latanoprost n = 30). IOP was measured at week 2 every 4 h throughout two 24-h periods. All measurements were taken in both supine and sitting positions with the aid of Perkins applanation tonometry. Limitations of the study include a small sample size (due to the difficulty in recruiting patients in a study of this type) which enrolled only Caucasian patients and a short study duration. However, with 25 subjects per group, there was at least 90% power to detect a mean IOP change from baseline of 2.9 mmHg and 80% power to detect a difference of 2.5 mmHg between treatments. RESULTS: Patients on travoprost therapy showed lower mean IOP levels than those on latanoprost. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) at 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 40, and 48 h after the last dose for the supine position. The mean IOPs in the supine position throughout the first and the second 24-h period of the week 2 visit as well as for the 48-h visit were statistically lower (p < 0.05) for the travoprost group. Adverse events were mild and included hyperemia and corneal staining. Travoprost and latanoprost were both well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Mean IOP values were significantly lower for patients on travoprost for the majority of time points in the supine position.