Corneal damage and its recovery after instillation of preservative-free versus preserved latanoprost eye drops

Preservative-Free Bimatoprost 0.01% Ophthalmic Gel for Glaucoma Therapy: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

PRCIS

Noninferiority of efficacy was demonstrated for a preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% compared with BAK-containing bimatoprost 0.01% following a 12-week treatment period in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Improved tolerability, in particular conjunctival hyperemia, was also observed.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of a preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic gel (PFB 0.01% gel) compared with preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (PB 0.01%).

DESIGN

Phase III, international, multicenter, randomized, 2-parallel group, investigator-masked, 3-month treatment duration.

METHODS

Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized after a 7-week run-in/washout period to receive once-daily PFB 0.01% gel (n=236) or PB 0.01% (n=249) for 3 months. The primary efficacy measure was changed from baseline in IOP at week 12. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs) and assessment of conjunctival hyperemia.

RESULTS

The mean changes from baseline in IOP at week 12 in the PFB 0.01% gel and PB 0.01% were -9.72±2.97 and -9.47±3.06 mm Hg, respectively, at 8 am , -9.41±3.03 and -9.19±3.12 mm Hg at 10 am , and -8.99±3.36 and -8.54±3.44 mm Hg at 4 pm . Noninferiority of PFB 0.01% gel to PB 0.01% was demonstrated at week 12 based on predetermined criteria (upper 95% CI margin of 1.5 mmHg at all time points). The most frequently reported AE was conjunctival hyperemia; 13 (5.5%) patients with PFB 0.01% gel and 17 (6.8%) patients with PB 0.01%. The percentage of patients experiencing a worsening from baseline in conjunctival hyperemia score was lower with PFB 0.01% gel compared to PB 0.01% at week 6 (20.1% vs. 29.3%, respectively) and week 12 (18.3% vs. 30.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PFB 0.01% ophthalmic gel has the same efficacy in lowering IOP as PB 0.01% and demonstrated less aggravation of conjunctival hyperemia at weeks 6 and 12.

Cationic nanoemulsion vs. 0.15% sodium hyaluronate artificial tears in the healing process following modern surface keratorefractive surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of artificial tears containing either cationic nanoemulsion (CCN) or sodium hyaluronate artificial tears (SH) on early postoperative healing after modern surface refractive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, double-masked, parallel-group (1:1), comparative study, 129 patients (n = 255 eyes) were randomized to receive CCN (n = 128) or SH (n = 127) as an adjuvant treatment after either transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transPRK) or Epi-Bowman keratectomy (EBK). The patients' perspectives were gathered using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, and uncorrected (UCVA), and corrected (BCVA) visual acuity were assessed before and one week and one month after the procedure. In addition, corneal epithelization and subjective assessment of visual blur and eye irritation on drop instillation were assessed at one week postoperatively.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found between two groups in age, spherical equivalent refractive error, UCVA, BCVA or OSDI scores before the procedure. There was also no difference between groups in UCVA one week and one month after the procedure. However, statistically significantly lower OSDI scores were found one week and one month after the procedure in the CCN group. Moreover, blurred vision after use of the eye drops was observed less frequently in the CCN group than in the SH group.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCN and SH groups had similar postoperative UCVA. However the significantly lower OSDI scores and less frequently blurred vision after application of the eye drops in the CCN group suggest better subjective outcomes in this group.

The synergistic efficacy and safety of combined low-concentration atropine and orthokeratology for slowing the progression of myopia: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the efficacy and safety of combined low-concentration atropine and orthokeratology (OK) for slowing the progression of myopia.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of English and Chinese databases to collect potentially eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (REs) published between the establishment of the database and 1 January 2022. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, which indicated that compared with OK lenses alone, the combination of low-concentration atropine with OK lenses significantly slowed axial growth (WMD = -0.12 mm; 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and reduced the rate of change of the spherical equivalent refraction (WMD = 0.15 D; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.24, p < 0.001). Additionally, the combined treatment may cause a slight increase in pupil diameter (WMD = 0.62 mm; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.81, p < 0.001). No significant difference in the amplitude of accommodation, intraocular pressure, tear film break-up time or corneal endothelial cell density was found between the OK and combination therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of low-concentration atropine and OK lenses had a greater effect in slowing myopia progression during a 6-to-12-month treatment interval and was still effective over a 24-month period. Increased pupil diameter was the major side effect of the combination therapy, with no negative impact on the amplitude of accommodation, intraocular pressure, tear film break-up time or corneal endothelial cell density.

Comparison of ocular surface assessment and adherence between preserved and preservative-free latanoprost in glaucoma: a parallel-grouped randomized trial

Given that nonadherence is related to subject characteristics and drug tolerance and preserved eye drops tend to be more intolerable than preservative-free ones, we conducted a phase 4, parallel-grouped, investigator-blind, active-control, randomized, multicenter study. A total of 51 patients with intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 15 mmHg diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to the preserved latanoprost group (n = 26) and the preservative-free latanoprost group (n = 25). The efficacy variables were corneal/conjunctival staining grade, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), adherence at 12 weeks after the first administration; corneal/conjunctival staining grade at 4 weeks; and IOP, tear break-up time (TBUT), and hyperemia score at 4 and 12 weeks. The safety variables included visual acuity and drug tolerance questionnaire results. There was no statistically significant difference in corneal/conjunctival staining grade, OSDI, or TBUT between the groups at 4 and 12 weeks. However, the adherence rate was higher and the hyperemia score was lower in the preservative-free group than in the preserved group. The severity and duration of stinging/burning sensation were lower in the preservative-free group than in the preserved group. Overall, preservative-free latanoprost showed better ocular tolerance assessed by hyperemia scores and stinging/burning symptoms following higher adherence than preserved latanoprost.

Real-World Study on Patient Satisfaction and Tolerability After Switching to Preservative-Free Latanoprost

Purpose

Patient satisfaction is important in the treatment of glaucoma. Suboptimal compliance and impaired long-term outcome are a likely result of poor tolerability. The present multicentre, international, transverse, epidemiological survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction of patients who had received preservative-free latanoprost (PFL) for at least 3 months.

Patients and Methods

A total of 1872 patients from 6 European countries, treated with PFL for at least 3 months, were included in this survey. Prior to PFL treatment, patients were to be treatment naïve or currently treated for their glaucoma. During a single routine consultation, patients completed a questionnaire concerning global satisfaction and satisfaction based on tolerability.

Results

In total, 76.2% had been previously treated; 69.4% had received preserved and 6.8% preservative-free (PF) topical treatment. After 3 months of PFL treatment, a large majority of patients (95.3%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their PFL treatment and were, overall, significantly (p<0.0001) more satisfied with PFL than with their previous treatment; 4.2% were either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied. Overall, 97.3% of originally treatment-naïve patients were satisfied (50.1%) or very satisfied (47.2%) with their PFL. Ocular surface disease was diagnosed in 9.2% of patients (n=173) and was mainly mild (76.9%). Patient satisfaction with PFL was very high.

Conclusion

PFL may be considered a valuable first-choice treatment in glaucoma patients.