Dataset Information

A Randomized, Double-Masked, Active-Controlled, Crossover Phase III Equivalence Study of Generic Dorzolamide 2% versus Innovator Trusopt® Eye Drop Solution in Subjects with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of generic dorzolamide 2% eye drops solution versus the innovator formulation (Trusopt® eye drops solution) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Methods

This prospective, monocentric, double-masked, active-controlled crossover phase III study included 32 patients. After washout, patients were randomized to reference product (Trusopt®) or test product (dorzolamide 2% eye drops, Rompharm Company SRL) for a 4-week period. Subsequent washout and crossover were performed. Drops were applied t.i.d. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference in mean diurnal IOP. Goldmann applanation tonometry was performed at 8 am, 12 pm, and 4 pm at each visit, and safety was assessed by documentation of adverse events (AEs). Therapy adherence was documented by self-reporting and eye drop bottle weighing. An ANOVA with treatment, sequence, study period, and patient within the sequence as effects was performed and an additional post hoc ANCOVA including the baseline IOP was also performed.

Results

34 patients were randomized and analyzed in the safety population. The per-protocol population included 32 patients. According to the self-report, all patients were >80% compliant. Under the ANCOVA model, the 90% confidence interval for the average change of the IOP −0.27 mmHg (−1.17 mmHg–0.64 mmHg) is included by the acceptance range −1.5 mmHg to +1.5 mmHg after excluding 2 patients, which had falsely reported high therapy adherence. No clinically relevant difference was observed in frequency or severity of the AEs between both treatments.

Conclusions

This study showed the equivalence of the tested generic dorzolamide 2% eye drops solution to the reference product Trusopt® eye drops solution. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with (ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT00878917) on April 9, 2009).

SUBMITTER: Bell K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9329021 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

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:Ophthalmic carbonic anhydrase inhibitors have been shown to improve retinal and optic nerve blood flow. However, the relative tissue distributions of commercially available carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to the optic nerve are not known. The objective of this study was to compare the ocular pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution profiles of dorzolamide and brinzolamide after single and multiple topical applications. Pigmented rabbits were treated with single or multiple topical administrations of 30 ?l of Trusopt (dorzolamide hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, 2%) to one eye and 30 ?l of Azopt (brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension, 1%) to the other eye. Rabbits were euthanized at 10 predetermined time intervals over a period of 24 h, and ocular tissues and plasma samples were collected. For multiple dosing, rabbits were dosed twice per day with an 8-h interval between two doses, groups of rabbits were euthanized at 7, 14, and 21 days at 1 h after the last dose, and ocular tissues and plasma samples were collected. Drug levels in tissue samples were measured using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters (C(max), T(max), and AUC(0-24)) were estimated by noncompartmental analysis. After a single dose, dorzolamide delivery (AUC(0-24)) to the aqueous humor, anterior sclera, posterior sclera, anterior retina, posterior retina, anterior vitreous, and optic nerve was 2-, 7-, 2.6-, 1.4-, 1.9-, 1.2-, and 9-fold higher than those of brinzolamide. C(max) was 2- to 5-fold higher for dorzolamide than that of brinzolamide in all of the ocular tissue. After multiple dosing, dorzolamide levels in the aqueous humor, sclera, retina, vitreous humor, and optic nerve were higher than those of brinzolamide, but statistical significance was achieved only with aqueous humor, vitreous humor, and optic nerve. Dorzolamide levels in the aqueous humor, anterior vitreous, posterior vitreous, and optic nerve were 1.4- to 3.2-, 2.4- to 2.7-, 2.2- to 4.5-, and 2.4- to 5.2-fold higher than those of brinzolamide. Upon multiple dosing, both drugs accumulated in all of the tissues except the conjunctiva, where the drug levels were lower than those observed with single dosing. No significant differences were found in the AUC values of these two drugs in the cornea and conjunctiva after single and multiple dosing. Drug levels were significantly higher in anterior regions than posterior regions in the sclera, retina, and vitreous for both drugs.

Project description:BackgroudTo assess the noninferiority of a dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination (DTFC) versus latanoprost in terms of intraocular pressure (IOP) and to compare blood pressure (BP), ocular perfusion pressure (OPP) and diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (DOPP) between the latanoprost and DTFC groups in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).MethodsProspective, interventional, randomized, single-blinded, crossover design study. Patients with newly diagnosed NTG that had not been treated with a glaucoma medication in the most recent 2 months were recruited. In total, 44 patients with NTG were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Patients in group A were treated with DTFC, lubricant, and latanoprost for 4 weeks each, whereas patients in group B were treated with latanoprost, lubricant, and DTFC for 4 weeks each. Patients were examined on day 1 (without medication), week 4 (under medication), week 8 (without medication), and week 12 (under medication). At weeks 4 and 12, diurnal IOP, systolic and diastolic BP, and OPP were measured at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM.ResultsBaseline demographic characteristics showed no difference in terms of age, sex, central corneal thickness, spherical equivalent, or stage of glaucoma between the groups. The between-group difference was -0.19 ± 0.18 mmHg (mean ± SE, upper bound of one-sided 95% CI, 0.12). Diurnal IOP showed no difference between the groups with an average IOP reduction of 13.1% using latanoprost and 12.3% using DTFC. Diurnal systolic and diastolic BP were lower in the DTFC group than the latanoprost group; however, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Diurnal OPP and DOPP also showed no statistically significant difference between the groups.ConclusionsIOP lowering efficacy of DTFC was noninferior to that of latanoprost in newly diagnosed NTG patients. There was no difference in BP, OPP, or DOPP between the latanoprost and DTFC groups. This prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study demonstrated the noninferiority of DTFC versus latanoprost in terms of IOP in patients with NTG.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01175902.