Dataset Information

Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension with Preservative-Free Tafluprost/Timolol Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy: UK and Ireland Results from the VISIONARY Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), the only modifiable risk factor for open-angle glaucoma (OAG), is important for the preservation of vision and slowing of disease progression. Preservative-free tafluprost (0.0015%)/timolol (0.5%) fixed combination (PF Taf-T FC) is an approved combination therapy for OAG treatment. The VISIONARY study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of PF Taf-T FC in real-world clinical settings. Here, we present the results from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland.

Methods

This observational, multicentre, European, prospective study recorded data during routine clinic appointments on the use of PF Taf-T FC for the treatment of OAG and ocular hypertension (OHT) in patients whose disease was insufficiently controlled on a prostaglandin analogue (PGA) or beta blocker monotherapy or who did not tolerate these medications. Mean change in IOP, symptom severity, changes in clinical signs, and tolerability were investigated over 6 months.

Results

Eighty-two patients were recruited in the UK and Ireland. After 6 months of PF Taf-T FC treatment, mean IOP was significantly reduced from 22.0 to 16.2 mmHg in the UK group and from 18.6 to 14.1 mmHg in the Ireland group. In the UK (65 patients), 49 adverse events (AEs) were reported, of which 3 were serious. No AEs were reported in the Ireland group (17 patients). Overall, 91.9% of UK physicians reported PF Taf-T FC treatment to be the same or better than prior medication for improving clinical signs; 90.0% of UK patients reported PF Taf-T FC treatment to have good or very good tolerability.

Conclusions

Treatment with PF Taf-T FC resulted in significant reductions in mean IOP over 6 months. Patients and physicians reported that treatment was well tolerated. These data demonstrate real-world efficacy of PF Taf-T FC for the treatment of OAG and OHT in routine clinical practice in the UK and Ireland.

Trial registration

European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EU PAS) register number, EUPAS22204.

SUBMITTER: Ansari E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190000 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the 24-h efficacy, tolerability, and ocular surface health with preservative-free (PF) tafluprost and a PF triple drug regimen comprising tafluprost and dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) in open-angle glaucoma patients who were insufficiently controlled with preserved branded or generic latanoprost monotherapy and who exhibited signs or symptoms of ocular surface disease (OSD). METHODS:Prospective, observer-masked, crossover, comparison. Eligible consecutive open-angle glaucoma patients were randomized to either PF tafluprost or the triple PF regimen for 3 months. They were then crossed over to the opposite therapy for another 3 months. At the end of the latanoprost run-in period and after each PF treatment period, patients underwent habitual 24-h intraocular pressure (IOP) monitoring with Goldmann tonometry in the sitting position (at 10:00, 14:00, 18:00, and 22:00) and Perkins tonometry in the supine position (at 02:00 and 06:00). Tolerability and selected ocular surface parameters were evaluated at baseline and the end of each treatment period. RESULTS:Forty-three open-angle glaucoma patients completed the trial. Mean 24-h IOP on preserved latanoprost was 22.2 ± 3.9 mmHg. Compared with latanoprost monotherapy, PF tafluprost obtained a greater reduction in mean, peak, and fluctuation of 24-h IOP including the 02:00 and 06:00 time points (P < 0.05). With the exception of 24-h fluctuation, the triple PF regimen provided significantly lower IOP parameters than latanoprost or PF tafluprost (P < 0.001). Finally, PF tafluprost therapy displayed significantly improved tear film break-up times (6.7 vs 6.0 s), corneal staining (1.3 vs 2.2), and Schirmer I test results (9.1 vs 8.2 mm) compared with the preserved latanoprost baseline (all P < 0.01). The triple PF regimen demonstrated similar tear film break-up times (6.1 vs 6.0 s) and Schirmer I test results (8.2 vs 8.2 mm) to latanoprost, but revealed a significant improvement in the corneal stain test (1.7 vs 2.2; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this trial PF tafluprost therapy provided statistically greater 24-h efficacy and improved tolerability compared with preserved latanoprost. The combination of PF tafluprost and PF dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination was statistically and clinically more efficacious than both monotherapies and demonstrated similar ocular surface characteristics to preserved latanoprost monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02802137). FUNDING:Santen.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess ocular discomfort upon instillation and patient preference for brinzolamide/timolol relative to dorzolamide/timolol, in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.MethodsThis was a multicenter, prospective, patient-masked, randomized, crossover study. On day 0, patients received one drop of brinzolamide/timolol in one eye and one drop of dorzolamide/timolol in the contralateral eye. On day 1, patients were randomly assigned to receive one drop of either brinzolamide/timolol or dorzolamide/timolol in both eyes; on day 2, patients received one drop of the alternate treatment in both eyes. Measures included a patient preference question on day 2 (primary) and mean ocular discomfort scale scores on days 1 and 2 (secondary). Safety assessments included adverse events, visual acuity, and slit-lamp examinations.ResultsOf 120 patients who enrolled, 115 completed the study. Of these, 112 patients instilled both medications and expressed a study medication preference on day 2. A significantly greater percentage preferred brinzolamide/timolol to dorzolamide/timolol (67.0% versus 30.4%; P < 0.001). The ocular discomfort (expressed as mean [standard deviation]) with brinzolamide/timolol was significantly lower than with dorzolamide/timolol (day 2:1.9 [2.3] versus 3.7 [2.8], respectively [P = 0.0003]; both days combined: 2.1 [2.5] versus 3.5 [2.9], respectively [P = 0.00014]). On day 1, five patients receiving brinzolamide/timolol reported five nonserious adverse events (AEs): flu (n = 1), bitter taste (n = 2), and headache (n = 2). Four events, bitter taste (two events) and headache (two events), were considered related to brinzolamide/timolol. Events were mild in intensity, except bitter taste of moderate intensity reported by one patient. No AEs were reported at day 2. All AEs resolved without additional treatment. No clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in best-corrected visual acuity or slit-lamp examinations of ocular signs.ConclusionPatients had less discomfort with brinzolamide/timolol than with dorzolamide/timolol, and more expressed a preference for brinzolamide/timolol. Both treatments were generally safe and well tolerated.

Project description:The effects of preservatives of antiglaucoma medications on corneal surface and tear function have been widely shown in literature; it's not the same as regards the active compounds themselves. The purpose of our study was to compare Ocular Surface Disease (OSD) signs and symptoms of Tafluprost 0.0015% versus preservative free (PF) Timolol 0.1% eyedrops in ocular hypertensive (OH) and in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients.A cross-sectional study included patients in monotherapy for at least 36 months with Tafluprost 0.0015% (27) or PF Timolol 0.1% (24) and 20 healthy age and sex-matched volunteers. All subjects underwent clinical tests (Schirmer I and break-up time), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and were surveyed using Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Glaucoma Symptoms Scale (GSS) questionnaires. The groups were compared with ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Bonferroni's adjustment of p-values.No significant differences were found in questionnaires scores, clinical tests, IVCM variables between therapy groups. Tafluprost 0.0015% group showed significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity, sub-basal nerves tortuosity (p = 0.0000, 0.037, 0.006, 0.0000) and less GSS score, number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.037) than controls but similar clinical tests results (p > 0.05). PF Timolol group had significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity and sub-basal nerve tortuosity (p = 0.000, 0.014, 0.008, 0.002), less GSS score, BUT and number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.026, 0.003) than controls.Compared to PF Timolol 0.1%, Tafluprost 0.0015% showed similar safety with regards to tear function and corneal status and a similar tolerability profile. Both therapy groups show some alterations in corneal microstructure but no side effects on tear function except for an increased tear instability in PF Timolol 0.1% group. Ophtalmologists should be aware that even PF formulations may lead to a mild ocular surface impairment.

Project description:IntroductionFixed-combination glaucoma medications are commonly used to achieve target intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction in patients uncontrolled with monotherapy; however, ocular discomfort associated with eye drops can decrease adherence. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily fixed-combination brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (BRINZ/TIM-FC) in Latin American patients transitioned from fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% (BRIM/TIM-FC) because of insufficient IOP control or treatment intolerance.MethodsThis 8-week, open-label, prospective study was conducted at six sites in Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. Enrolled patients were aged ≥18 years with open-angle glaucoma (including primary, exfoliative, or pigment-dispersion glaucoma) or ocular hypertension with IOP of 19-35 mmHg in ≥1 eye at baseline (on BRIM/TIM-FC). Patients self-administered BRINZ/TIM-FC to both eyes at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. daily for 8 weeks. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were mean IOP change from baseline at week 8 and percentage of patients achieving target IOP (≤18 mmHg) at week 8, respectively. Exploratory endpoints included patient and investigator preference for treatment at week 8. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed as the safety endpoint.ResultsFifty patients (mean ± SD age, 66.7 ± 11.5 years) received BRINZ/TIM-FC, and 49 were included in the intent-to-treat population. Mean ± SD IOP was significantly reduced from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment with BRINZ/TIM-FC (-3.6 ± 3.0 mmHg; P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test; 17.1% reduction). Overall, 55.3% of patients achieved IOP ≤18 mmHg at week 8. Significantly more patients (89.4%) and investigators (95.7%) preferred BRINZ/TIM-FC to BRIM/TIM-FC (both P < 0.0001, exact binomial test). Of the 13 AEs observed, 8 were related to BRINZ/TIM-FC; the most common treatment-related AEs were eye irritation (n = 4) and abnormal sensation in the eye (n = 2).ConclusionBRINZ/TIM-FC provides an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients transitioned from BRIM/TIM-FC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fixed-combination ocular hypotensives have multiple advantages, but triple-therapy dorzolamide/brimonidine/timolol (dorz/brim/tim) is only available in Latin and South America, and information on its relative efficacy is limited. This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol (bim/tim) and dorz/brim/tim in Mexican patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS:In this investigator-masked, crossover study, patients with unmet target intraocular pressure (IOP) on once-daily bim/tim or twice-daily dorz/brim/tim received the opposite medication for 3 months before returning to their pre-baseline medication for 3 months. IOP was evaluated before and after morning instillation at months 2, 3, 5 and 6. Primary endpoints were mean IOP change and Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) score at each visit. The intent-to-treat population was the a priori analysis population, but due to the number of discontinuations, the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations were used for the primary efficacy and sensitivity analyses, respectively. RESULTS:Seventy-eight and 56 patients were included in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively. At month 3, statistically significant IOP reductions from baseline were observed in the bim/tim (P?<?0.01) and dorz/brim/tim (P?<?0.0001) groups, regardless of assessment time. At month 6, patients returned to bim/tim exhibited no significant IOP increase (regardless of assessment time), but patients returned to dorz/brim/tim exhibited a statistically significant IOP increase (P?<?0.001) when assessed before instillation of study treatment. Results were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations. In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at month 3 had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which declined to 58% (P?=?0.0061) at month 6 (ie, after 3 months of dorz/brim/tim treatment). In patients receiving dorz/brim/tim at month 3, 38% had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which remained comparable after return to bim/tim. OSDI scores and incidence of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this first direct comparison of the efficacy of dorz/brim/tim and bim/tim, patients switched from dorz/brim/tim to bim/tim demonstrated improved/lower IOP; when returned to dorz/brim/tim, IOP increased to levels seen at study initiation, suggesting that once-daily bim/tim may have greater IOP-lowering efficacy. Both bim/tim and dorz/brim/tim were well tolerated with minimal ocular surface damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01737853 (registered October 9, 2012).