A randomized controlled trial comparing dexamethasone with loteprednol etabonate on postoperative photorefractive keratectomy

Efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate versus fluorometholone in the treatment of patients after corneal refractive surgery: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.5% versus fluorometholone (FML) 0.1% for treating patients after corneal refractive surgery with the aim of providing an evidence-based rationale for clinical drug selection.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang, and CNKI) were searched (from inception to December 2021) for comparative clinical studies that evaluated LE versus FML treatment for post-corneal refractive surgery patients. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total sample size of 2677 eyes were included in this analysis. FML 0.1% and LE 0.5% produced a similar incidence of corneal haze within 6 months after surgery (P = 0.13 at 1 month, P = 0.66 at 3 months, and P = 0.12 at 6 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean logMAR postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (WMD: - 0.00; 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.00; P = 0.29) and spherical equivalent (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.03; P = 0.35). LE 0.5% appears to have a higher tendency to reduce the incidence of ocular hypertension compared FML 0.1%, but there was no statistical significance (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.50; P = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LE 0.5% and FML 0.1% had comparable efficacy in preventing corneal haze and corticosteroid-induced ocular hypertension, with no difference in visual acuity in patients after corneal refractive surgery.

Efficacy and Safety of Loteprednol 0.5% and Fluorometholone 0.1% After Strabismus Surgery in Children

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of topical loteprednol and fluorometholone in children who underwent strabismus surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational case series. A total of 60 Korean children who underwent strabismus surgery between January 2016 and September 2016 were included. Patients were prescribed topical loteprednol etabonate 0.5% or fluorometholone 0.1% until 3 weeks after surgery. Four parameters (intraocular pressure [IOP], conjunctival injection, conjunctival inflammation, and patient discomfort) were assessed every week for up to 4 weeks after surgery. Main outcome measures were comparison of parameters between the 2 groups at each following week after surgery. In addition, factors associated with clinically meaningful IOP elevation were evaluated.

RESULTS

IOP was significantly elevated at the second and third postoperative week compared with baseline (P = 0.028 and 0.001) in the loteprednol group but not significantly in the fluorometholone group. The mean IOP of the loteprednol group at 1 and 3 weeks after surgery were significantly higher than that of the fluorometholone group (P = 0.032 and 0.017, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≤8 years (odds ratio 14.52, 95% confidence interval 1.16-139.05) was associated with IOP >21 mmHg. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in patient discomfort, conjunctival inflammation, and conjunctival injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Loteprednol and fluorometholone showed similar anti-inflammatory effect after strabismus surgery in children. Loteprednol appeared to have more effect on IOP elevation than fluorometholone, especially in children ≤8 years of age. When treating young patients with loteprednol, clinicians should be aware of IOP elevation.

A retrospective analysis of the use of loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5% following canaloplasty

Background

While loteprednol etabonate (LE) suspension 0.5% is approved for the treatment of postoperative ocular inflammation, there have been no reported studies of its use in glaucoma patients undergoing canaloplasty.

Methods

This was a retrospective medical chart review conducted at a single US center. Data were collected on patients with glaucoma who underwent canaloplasty with or without cataract surgery, and were prescribed LE suspension 0.5% postoperatively. Outcomes evaluated included postsurgical inflammation (anterior chamber [AC] cells and flare), intraocular pressure (IOP), number of IOP-lowering medications, and postsurgical complications.

Results

Data were collected on 204 patients (262 eyes) with a mean (SD) age of 71.6 (11.3) years. The most frequent LE dosing regimens at day 1, week 1, and month 1 postsurgery were QID (92.3%; 241/261), TID (52.6%; 133/253), and QD (65.5%; 78/119), respectively. Inflammation (AC flare and cells), mostly mild, was noted in 33.2% (86/259) of eyes on postoperative day 1 and 8.6% (21/244) of eyes at month 1. Mean IOP and mean number of IOP-lowering medications were significantly reduced from baseline (P<0.001) at all time points postoperatively. Complete (no IOP-lowering medication) or qualified (use of ≤2 IOP-lowering medications) surgical success was achieved in 78.8% and 90.6% of eyes, respectively, at month 6 and 63.4% and 92.7% of eyes at month 36. The most frequently observed postoperative complication was hyphema in 48.7% (126/259) eyes at day 1, which decreased to 0.4% (1/244) of eyes by month 1. IOP ≥30 mmHg was noted in 13 (5.3%) eyes at postoperative week 1 and rarely thereafter, and no patient discontinued therapy because of an IOP increase.

Conclusion

These real-world data suggest that canaloplasty with or without cataract surgery managed postoperatively with LE suspension 0.5% is effective and safe in the glaucoma patient.

Comparison of Loteprednol with Fluorometholone after Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy

Purpose:

To compare the efficacy and side effects of loteprednol versus fluorometholone after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods:

One hundred and twenty four eyes of 62 patients who underwent PRK were enrolled in this study. One eye of each subject was randomized to receive loteprednol 0.5% and the fellow eye was given fluorometholone 0.1%. Patients were followed up for three months.

Results:

There was no significant difference in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, corneal haze, intraocular pressure (IOP), and ocular discomfort and redness between groups at the final visit. At 3 months postoperatively, 20/25 or better UDVA was achieved in 95% of the loteprednol group and 92% of the fluorometholone group (P > 0.05). There was neither visually significant corneal haze nor ocular hypertension (IOP rise > 10 mmHg or IOP > 21 mmHg) in any group.

Conclusion:

The efficacy and side effects of loteprednol 0.5% and fluorometholone 0.1% after myopic PRK are comparable.

Impact of the Topical Ophthalmic Corticosteroid Loteprednol Etabonate on Intraocular Pressure

Corticosteroids are a mainstay therapeutic option for the treatment of ocular inflammation. However, safety remains a concern for clinicians, particularly with long-term use. Though highly effective at suppressing inflammatory and allergic responses, topical ophthalmic corticosteroids carry an inherent risk of side effects, including elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), a risk factor for the development of glaucoma. The corticosteroid loteprednol etabonate (LE) contains an ester rather than a ketone at the C-20 position, minimizing the potential for side effects, including IOP elevation. In early pivotal clinical trials of LE ophthalmic suspension for conjunctivitis (allergic, giant papillary), anterior uveitis, and post-operative inflammation, LE had minimal impact on IOP over short-term (<28 days) and long-term (≥28 days) use. Since then, new LE formulations—including a gel, an ointment, and a suspension of LE in combination with tobramycin—have become commercially available. Multiple studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of LE for inflammatory conditions have been reported, including those requiring longer-term treatment such as photorefractive keratectomy, corneal transplantation, and dry eye disease. We review the available published data on the effect of LE on IOP and report on the cumulative incidence of clinically significant IOP elevations (≥10 mm Hg from baseline) with short-term and long-term LE use. In all studies, LE consistently demonstrated a low propensity to elevate IOP, regardless of formulation, dosage regimen, or treatment duration, including in known steroid responders. The cumulative proportion of patients exhibiting clinically significant IOP increases was 0.8% (14/1725 subjects) in studies evaluating short-term LE treatment and 1.5% (21/1386 subjects) in long-term studies. Furthermore, use of LE was associated with significantly lower rates of IOP elevation ≥10 mm Hg as compared to prednisolone acetate or dexamethasone (when used in combination with tobramycin). The cumulative data to date substantiates a favorable IOP-safety profile for LE with both short-term and long-term use.

Loteprednol Etabonate 0.5%/Tobramycin 0.3% Compared with Dexamethasone 0.1%/Tobramycin 0.3% for the Treatment of Blepharitis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T) and dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T) ophthalmic suspensions in reducing select signs of blepharitis.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two studies (one from the USA; one from China) of adults (n = 627) with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis treated with LE/T or DM/T four times daily for 2 weeks (safety population). Efficacy analyses included 495 eyes (247 LE/T, 248 DM/T) with any baseline sign of blepharitis.

RESULTS

At Day 15, the least squares mean change from baseline in composite blepharitis severity was similar between LE/T (-2.86) and DM/T (-2.99) (90% CI for mean treatment difference: -0.35, 0.11). Intraocular pressure (IOP) increases ≥10 mmHg over baseline were reported for 1 US patient (DM/T group) and 19 Chinese patients (6 LE/T; 13 DM/T).

CONCLUSIONS

LE/T was similarly effective in reducing the signs of blepharitis compared with DM/T, but demonstrated a better safety profile with respect to changes in IOP.

A retrospective analysis of the postoperative use of loteprednol etabonate gel 0.5% following laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy surgery

BACKGROUND

While loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic gel 0.5% (LE gel) is approved for treatment of postoperative ocular inflammation and pain, there have been no reported studies in patients undergoing laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review conducted at five refractive surgical centers in the USA. Data were collected from primary LASIK or PRK surgery cases in which LE gel was used postoperatively as the clinician's routine standard of care and in which patients were followed-up for up to 6 months. Data extracted from charts included patient demographics, surgical details, LE gel dosing regimen, pre- and postsurgical refractive characteristics, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, and visual acuity. Primary outcomes included postoperative IOP elevations, adverse events, and early discontinuations.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 189 LASIK eyes (96 patients) and 209 PRK eyes (108 patients). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) years of age at surgery was 36.0 (11.7) and 33.9 (11.3) in LASIK and PRK patients. LE gel was prescribed most often four times daily during the first postoperative week, regardless of procedure; the most common treatment duration was 7-14 days in LASIK and ≥30 days in PRK patients. No unusual corneal findings or healing abnormalities were reported. Mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/24 in LASIK and 20/30 in PRK eyes. Mild/trace corneal haze was reported in 20% of PRK patients; two PRK patients with moderate/severe corneal haze were switched to another corticosteroid. Mean postoperative IOP did not increase over time in either LASIK or PRK eyes (P≥0.331); clinically significant elevations from baseline in IOP (≥10 mmHg) were noted in only three eyes of two PRK patients.

CONCLUSION

LE gel appears to have a high level of safety and tolerability when used for the management of postoperative pain and inflammation following LASIK and PRK surgery.