Lievens CW, Hom MM, McLaurin EB, Yuan J, Safyan E, Liu H. Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% for treatment of presbyopia after laser vision correction: pooled analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials (GEMINI 1 and 2).
J Cataract Refract Surg 2024;
50:57-63. [PMID:
37702453 DOI:
10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001313]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 09/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of topical pilocarpine HCl 1.25% (Pilo) in treating presbyopia in individuals with or without a history of laser vision correction (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]).
SETTING
Multiple clinical sites.
DESIGN
Pooled analysis of 2 identically designed prospective, randomized, vehicle-controlled studies (GEMINI 1 and 2).
METHODS
Adults aged 40 to 55 years with presbyopia received once-daily Pilo or vehicle bilaterally for 30 days. Responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) were determined on day 30.
RESULTS
Among participants with a history of LASIK/PRK (n = 39 in the Pilo group, n = 41 in the vehicle group), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.7%, 38.9%, 41.7%, 37.8%, 16.2%, 13.9%, and 8.3% with Pilo and 0.0%, 2.6%, 10.5%, 5.1%, 7.7%, 2.6%, and 0.0% with vehicle. Responder rates in the LASIK/PRK subgroup were significantly higher with Pilo than vehicle at hours 0.25 ( P = .0087), 0.5 ( P = .0001), 1 ( P = .0022), and 3 ( P = .0005). In contrast, there were no significant differences in responder rates between Pilo-treated participants with and without LASIK/PRK. Among non-LASIK/PRK participants in the Pilo group (n = 336), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.8%, 32.7%, 39.0%, 28.0%, 17.4%, 12.6%, and 10.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
Pilo treatment effectively and similarly improved DCNVA in presbyopes with or without a history of laser vision correction.
Collapse