Étude de la dilatation pupillaire par l’insert ophtalmique Mydriasert®

[Same-eye comparison of pupillary dilation with an intraoperative standardized intracameral combination of mydriatics (Mydrane®) versus a preoperative ophthalmic (Mydriasert®) in standard cataract surgery in non-diabetic patients (French translation of the article)]

INTRODUCTION

Cataract surgery is the most commonly performed surgery in the world, and its success depends in part on the quality of mydriasis.

PURPOSE

To compare, for the same eye, the pupillary dilation obtained with Mydrane® (standardized intracameral solution of 0.02% tropicamide, combined with 0.31% phenylephrine and 1% lidocaine) intraoperatively versus Mydriasert® (0.28mg tropicamide insert and 5.4mg phenylephrine) with a contact time between 45 and 60 minutes in the preoperative period.

METHODS

Single center prospective study from November 2016 to January 2018 at the Laveran Army Instructional Hospital in Marseille. Patients referred for surgery were dilated at the preoperative consultation with Mydriasert®. The pupillary diameter after 45-60 minutes of contact with the insert was manually measured, by two different examiners, through the "iris image" tab of the Pentacam® elevation topography. Patients were dilated on the day of their cataract surgery with 0.2cc of Mydrane® injected in the anterior chamber through a paracentesis. Thirty seconds later, prior to injection of viscoelastic, an eye photograph was taken by screen capture. The pupillary diameter was evaluated by two different examiners with to the Piximeter 5.9 metrology software. The difference in pupil dilation between Mydriasert® and Mydrane® was tested with the paired series Student t-test.

RESULTS

In total, 111 eyes of 82 patients were included. Mydriasert® achieved a mean pupillary dilation of 7.21±0.79mm. The mydriasis obtained with Mydrane® averaged 6.35±0.8mm. This difference of 0.86mm was statistically significant (P<0.001) with a confidence interval of 95% [-0.97; -0.74].

CONCLUSION

On average, Mydrane® dilates the pupil less than Mydriasert®. However, the mydriasis obtained with Mydrane® remains comfortable for the performance of the capsulorhexis. It helps save preoperative time and affords additional anesthetic to the cataract surgery. Nevertheless, the use of Mydriasert® is beneficial when extra mydriasis is required.

Systemic exposure to intracameral vs topical mydriatic agents: in cataract surgery

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare systemic exposure to tropicamide/phenylephrine following intracameral or topical administration before cataract surgery.

Patients and methods

Mydriatics exposure was calculated in patients randomized to intracameral fixed combination of mydriatics and anesthetic ([ICMA]: tropicamide 0.02%, phenylephrine 0.31%, and lidocaine 1%, N=271) or mydriatic eye drops ([EDs]: tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%, N=283). Additional doses were permitted if required. Mydriatic plasma levels were determined by mass spectrometric HPLC in 15 patients per group before and after administration.

Results

Most ICMA patients (73.6%) received a single dose (200 µL) representing an exposure to tropicamide of 0.04 mg and phenylephrine of 0.62 mg. None of these patients received additional mydriatics. In the control group (three administrations), the exposure was 0.45 (11.3-fold higher than ICMA) and 10.2 (16.5-fold higher) mg. When additional ED was used in this group (9.2% of patients), it was 37.5-fold higher for tropicamide (10 drops, 1.5 mg) and 54.8-fold higher for phenylephrine (10 drops, 34 mg) than the recommended ICMA dose. Tropicamide plasma levels were not detectable at any time point in ICMA patients while it was detectable in all ED patients at 12 and 30 minutes. Phenylephrine was detectable in 14.3% of ICMA patients compared to all ED patients at least at one time point. More ED patients experienced a meaningful increase in blood pressure and/or heart rate (11.2% vs 6.0% of ICMA patients; P=0.03).

Conclusion

Systemic exposure to tropicamide/phenylephrine was lower and cardiovascular (CV) effects were less frequent with ICMA. This could be of particular significance in patients at CV risk.

Ophthalmic Insert versus Eye Drops for Mydriasis in Neonates: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Eye drop treatment routinely used to obtain mydriasis prior to fundoscopy in neonates requires repeated instillations of mydriatic agents that can lead to systemic side effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the mydriatic efficacy and tolerance of administration of phenylephrine and tropicamide via the ophthalmic insert Mydriasert® versus standard eye drop treatment in neonates.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-blinded, noninferiority study, 80 hospitalized neonates (age < 18 months) requiring bilateral fundus examination were randomized to receive eye drops (repeated instillations of 2.5% phenylephrine and 0.5% tropicamide) or the insert. The primary outcome was mydriasis suitable for fundoscopy 75 min after mydriatic agent introduction (T75).

RESULTS

Mydriasis was successfully achieved in both eyes at T75 in 97.5% (n = 39/40) of the insert group patients versus 90% (n = 36/40) receiving eye drops (between-group difference 7.5%, demonstrating noninferiority). Mydriasis remained stable in 60.0% of patients (n = 24/40) in the insert group versus 15% (n = 6/40) in the eye drop group (p < 0.0001). The insert group required fewer nursing interventions than the eye drop group (p = 0.0001). Mean blood pressure were significantly higher in the insert versus the eye drop group (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively); mean heart rate was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.37). In the insert group, 2 patients reported an adverse event (bradycardia, n = 1, and gastroesophageal reflux, n = 1; both appeared to be related to neonate pathology).

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of mydriasis achieved with Mydriasert® was noninferior to that obtained with eye drops. The insert appears to be safe to use in neonates without a history of increased vagal tone or gastrointestinal reflux.

Mydriatics release from solid and semi-solid ophthalmic formulations using different in vitro methods

The aim of the present paper was the development of semi-solid (hydrogels) and solid (film) ophthalmic formulations for the controlled release of two mydriatics: phenylephrine and tropicamide. The formulations - based on polyvinylalcohol and hyaluronic acid - were characterized, and release studies were performed with three different in vitro set-ups, i.e. Franz-type diffusion cell, vial method and inclined plane; for comparison, a solution and a commercial insert, both clinically used to induce mydriasis, were evaluated. Both gels and film allowed for a controlled release of drugs, appearing a useful alternative for mydriatics administration. However, the release kinetic was significantly influenced by the method used, highlighting the need for optimization and standardization of in vitro models for the evaluation of drug release from ophthalmic dosage forms.

Mydriasert pupillary dilation for cataract surgery: an economic and clinical study

Background

Mydriasert is an insoluble ophthalmic insert indicated for mydriasis prior to cataract surgery, which gradually releases the active ingredients: tropicamide (0.25 mg) and phenylephrine (5.38 mg). This study aimed to evaluate the cost of Mydriasert compared with conventional mydriatic eye drops to induce pupil dilation prior to cataract surgery using a budget impact model.

Methods

A cohort-based, decision tree, budget impact model was developed to estimate the drug, consumable and staff costs for achieving mydriasis with Mydriasert compared to mydriatic eye drops (tropicamide [1 %] plus phenylephrine [10 %]). Insights from structured interviews with clinicians (n = 5) experienced in using both Mydriasert and mydriatic eye drops and results from the current clinical study of patients undergoing cataract surgery (n = 144) at a Greater London district general hospital were used to obtain key input parameters for the model, and to validate the model approach.

Results

The base case analysis in a cohort of 1763 patients undergoing cataract surgery showed that when Mydriasert substituted mydriatic eye drops, annual total costs decreased by 18 % and annual total nurse time decreased from 235.1 hours to 44.1 hours over one year (2012–2013).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that despite its higher unit cost than mydriatic eye drops, Mydriasert resulted in overall savings in health-care costs, mainly associated with reduced nursing time. The economic model developed could assist National Health Service managers and local payers to estimate the budget impact of the introduction of Mydriasert into different clinical settings.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Ophthalmic Insert Mydriasert in Patients Undergoing Retinal Angiography

Purpose

To verify the efficacy to obtain mydriasis and cardiovascular safety of Mydriasert (ophthalmic insert containing tropicamide and phenylephrine) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients undergoing retinal angiography by comparing it with usually administered eyedrops (tropicamide 1% and phenylephrine 10%).

Methods

This was a prospective randomized study. A total of 154 eyes of 77 patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 78 eyes, group 2 consisted of 76 eyes, and the patients were monitored for pupillary dilation, blood pressure, heart rate, and possible adverse effects at 0, 20, 40, 60, and 90 minutes.

Results

No severe adverse effects were observed in either group. In the entire sample studied, the mean pupillary diameter was greater in the eyedrops group after 20 and 40 minutes, while mydriasis was similar in the 2 groups after 60 minutes. The diabetic patients treated with Mydriasert had less mydriasis than those treated with eyedrops after 20 and 40 minutes, and diabetic patients showed less mydriasis than the nondiabetic patients after 60 and 90 minutes. There was no significant between-group difference in mean heart rate or systolic and diastolic blood pressure at any of the time points.

Conclusions

Mydriasert assures an adequate degree of mydriasis for retinal angiography in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. There are no differences in efficacy or safety between the insert and the usually administered eyedrops, but the low total drug dose administered with the insert reduces the risk of cardiovascular side effects.

[Efficacy and efficiency of preoperative mydriasis: drops versus ocular insert]

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to compare eye drops and inserts in terms of the quality of preoperative mydriasis. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety and ease of use of each modality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective randomized and simple blinded study. Patients were randomized into two groups: the insert protocol (atropine 1%, diclofenac 0.1% collyrium and Mydriasert) or the eye drop protocol (atropine 1%, diclofenac 0.1%, tropicamide 0.5%, and phenylephrine 10% collyrium). Fifty-one patients were included: 25 in the insert protocol and 26 in the drop protocol. Mydriasis quality was evaluated by nurses and surgeons. The ease of use was estimated by the number of gestures required to obtain mydriasis and the difficulties encountered. Safety was evaluated at the patient's bedside.

RESULTS

Mydriasis of at least 6 mm was obtained in 92% of the patients in the insert protocol (23/25) and 85% of the patients in the drop protocol (22/26) (NS). Four patients lost their insert during the study. Of the patients in the insert group, 16% (4/25) experienced stinging in their eyes, as did 23% (6/26) of patients in the group using drops (NS). To reach effective mydriasis, the insert protocol required fewer nurse gestures per patient than the drop protocol (3.0 versus 8.3; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

With the protocol using an insert, preoperative mydriasis is not inferior to that obtained with drops only and is more efficient in terms of nurse time and number of gestures. Nurses should be trained in appropriate handling of the insert and avoiding the loss of the device.

Pharmacodynamics of a new ophthalmic mydriatic insert in healthy volunteers: potential alternative as drug delivery system prior to cataract surgery

Cataract surgery requires a satisfactory degree of mydriasis throughout the entire operation. A phase I, open-labelled, randomised, cross-over trial was conducted in 18 healthy volunteers to compare mydriasis obtained with subsequent administration of phenylephrine 10% and tropicamide 0.5% eyedrops or a new insoluble-matrix retropalpebral ophthalmic insert containing 5.38 mg phenylephrine and 0.28 mg tropicamide. Phenylephrine serum concentrations were measured over 6 hr following each treatment administration. Secondary end-points included cardiovascular, general and local tolerance and quantification of bacterial colonisation of the conjunctiva and the cultured insert, respectively. When normalized to the pupil diameter after conventional treatment, the diameter achieved with the insert was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.48, P=0.38). Moreover, standard eye drops provided faster effective mydriasis than the insert, starting 30 min. as compared to 90 min. upon treatment administration (P<0.01, repeated-measures ANOVA). Phenylephrine concentrations remained almost undetectable for both treatments and no change in heart rate or blood pressure were observed throughout the study. Only three superficial punctuate keratitis were diagnosed with the insert and two with the eye drops. No significant bacterial contamination of conjunctiva swab and cultured insert was observed. The new insoluble-matrix retropalpebral ophthalmic mydriatic insert produced similar but delayed effective and prolonged mydriasis as compared to the standard delivery system. In addition to its potential usefulness in patients undergoing cataract surgery, such new ophthalmic delivery system may be an advantage in children who need to undergo fundus photography due to the single administration and excellent tolerance as well.