Safety and Efficacy of AGN-190584 in Individuals With Presbyopia: The GEMINI 1 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

George O Waring 4th, Francis W Price Jr, David Wirta, Cathleen McCabe, Majid Moshirfar, Qiang Guo, Anu Gore, Haixia Liu, Eleonora Safyan, Michael R Robinson, George O Waring 4th, Francis W Price Jr, David Wirta, Cathleen McCabe, Majid Moshirfar, Qiang Guo, Anu Gore, Haixia Liu, Eleonora Safyan, Michael R Robinson

Abstract

Importance: AGN-190584 (Allergan, an AbbVie company) is an optimized topical formulation of pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.25%, designed for managing presbyopia and enhanced with a proprietary vehicle.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.25%, in individuals with presbyopia.

Design, setting, and participants: This vehicle-controlled, participant- and investigator-masked, randomized, phase 3 clinical study, GEMINI 1, enrolled individuals with presbyopia, aged 40 to 55 years, at 36 sites in the United States from December 21, 2018, to October 31, 2019. Analysis took place between February 2020 and December 2021.

Interventions: AGN-190584 or the AGN-190584 formulation vehicle was administered bilaterally, once daily for 30 days.

Main outcomes and measures: The proportion of participants with improvement of 3 or more lines in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at hours 3 and 6 on day 30 were the primary and key secondary efficacy end points, respectively. Safety measures included adverse events.

Results: Of 323 participants who were randomized, 235 (72.8%) were female and 292 (90.4%) were White. The mean (SD) age was 49.6 (3.5) years, and the baseline mean (SD) mesopic DCNVA was 29.2 (6.3) letters. A total of 163 individuals were randomized to AGN-190584 and 160 were randomized to vehicle. GEMINI 1 met its primary and key secondary efficacy end points. On day 30, hour 3, the percentage of participants with improvement of 3 or more lines in mesopic DCNVA was 30.7% (50 of 163) in the AGN-190584 group and 8.1% (13 of 160) in the vehicle group (difference, 22.5% [95% CI, 14.3%-30.8%]; adjusted P < .001). At hour 6, those percentages were 18.4% (30 of 163) and 8.8% (14 of 160), respectively (difference, 9.7% [95% CI, 2.3%-17.0%]; adjusted P = .01). At hour 8, the between-group difference in 3 or more lines of mesopic DCNVA gains was not statistically significant, but clinically relevant prespecified outcome measures demonstrated AGN-190584 superiority to vehicle in least-squares mean (SE) mesopic DCNVA change from baseline at hour 8 (5.4 [0.51] vs 3.6 [0.52] letters; P = .009) and photopic distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity at hour 8 (3.9 [0.44] vs 2.4 [0.45] letters; P = .01) and hour 10 (3.5 [0.46] vs 1.7 [0.47] letters; P = .004). No participants with mesopic DCNVA improvement of 3 or more lines at hour 3 had losses of more than 5 letters in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular-corrected distance visual acuity. The onset of effect was at 15 minutes. AGN-190584 demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Conclusions and relevance: AGN-190584 demonstrated superiority over vehicle in mesopic DCNVA on day 30, hours 3 and 6, with an acceptable safety profile. AGN-190584 is a safe and efficacious topical therapy for presbyopia through 30 days.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03804268.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Waring reported personal fees from Allergan (an AbbVie company) during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Dr Price reported grants from AbbVie, Alcon, Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Kala Pharmaceuticals, Allergan (an AbbVie company), and EyePoint; ownership interests in Staar Surgical, RxSight, and Strathspey Crown; and personal fees from Haag-Streit and Gebauer outside the submitted work. Dr Wirta has consulted for Allergan (an AbbVie company) and Eyenovia and has received grant support from Aerpio, Allergan (an AbbVie company), Annexon, Dompe, Eyenovia, Mallinckrodt, Nicox, Novaliq, Novartis, SilkTech, and Santen. Dr McCabe reported personal fees from Allergan (an AbbVie company) during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bausch and Lomb, Alcon, Visus, Surface Pharma, Johnson and Johnson Vision, and Zeiss outside the submitted work. Drs Gore and Robinson reported a patent to 10,610,518 on presbyopia treatments issued. Ms Safyan and Drs Guo, Gore, Liu, and Robinson are full-time employees of AbbVie Inc and may hold AbbVie stock. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Participant Disposition
Figure 1.. Participant Disposition
The adverse events leading to study discontinuation were bradycardia (n = 1) and dyschromatopsia and bilateral visual field defect (n = 1) in the AGN-190584 group and corneal abrasion (n = 1) and headache and migraine (n = 1) in the vehicle group. aParticipants could fail screening owing to multiple reasons.
Figure 2.. High-Contrast, Binocular Visual Outcomes at…
Figure 2.. High-Contrast, Binocular Visual Outcomes at Day 30
Mesopic and photopic conditions were defined as lighting 10 to 11 lux and 251 lux or more, respectively, measured at the target. DCIVA indicates distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity; DCNVA, distance-corrected near visual acuity. aP < .05.

References

    1. Fricke TR, Tahhan N, Resnikoff S, et al. . Global prevalence of presbyopia and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia: systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(10):1492-1499. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013
    1. Waring GO, Rocha KM. Characterization of the dysfunctional lens syndrome and a review of the literature. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2018;6(4):249-255. doi:10.1007/s40135-018-0190-3
    1. Mercer RN, Milliken CM, Waring GO IV, Rocha KM. Future trends in presbyopia correction. J Refract Surg. 2021;37(S1):S28-S34. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20210408-06
    1. Waring GO IV, Chang DH, Rocha KM, Gouvea L, Penatti R. Correlation of intraoperative optical coherence tomography of crystalline lens diameter, thickness, and volume with biometry and age. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;225:147-156. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.12.021
    1. Haddad JS, Rocha KM, Yeh K, Waring GO IV. Lens anatomy parameters with intraoperative spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in cataractous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:253-260. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S184208
    1. Krag S, Andreassen TT. Mechanical properties of the human posterior lens capsule. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(2):691-696. doi:10.1167/iovs.02-0096
    1. Krag S, Andreassen TT. Mechanical properties of the human lens capsule. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22(6):749-767. doi:10.1016/S1350-9462(03)00063-6
    1. Schachar RA. Pathophysiology of accommodation and presbyopia: understanding the clinical implications. J Fla Med Assoc. 1994;81(4):268-271.
    1. Smith P. On the growth of the crystalline lens. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK. 1883;3:79-99.
    1. Kandel H, Khadka J, Goggin M, Pesudovs K. Impact of refractive error on quality of life: a qualitative study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;45(7):677-688. doi:10.1111/ceo.12954
    1. American Optometric Association . Optometric clinical practice guideline: care of the patient with presbyopia. Revised December 2010. Accessed September 8, 2021.
    1. Lord SR, Dayhew J, Howland A. Multifocal glasses impair edge-contrast sensitivity and depth perception and increase the risk of falls in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(11):1760-1766. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50502.x
    1. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68:124-143. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.09.004
    1. Benozzi G, Perez C, Leiro J, Facal S, Orman B. Presbyopia treatment with eye drops: an eight year retrospective study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9(7):25. doi:10.1167/tvst.9.7.25
    1. Renna A, Vejarano LF, De la Cruz E, Alió JL. Pharmacological treatment of presbyopia by novel binocularly instilled eye drops: a pilot study. Ophthalmol Ther. 2016;5(1):63-73. doi:10.1007/s40123-016-0050-x
    1. Ostrin LA, Glasser A. Comparisons between pharmacologically and Edinger-Westphal-stimulated accommodation in rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(2):609-617. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-0990
    1. Wendt M, Glasser A. Topical and intravenous pilocarpine stimulated accommodation in anesthetized rhesus monkeys. Exp Eye Res. 2010;90(5):605-616. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2010.02.005
    1. Cameron ME. Headaches in relation to the eyes. Med J Aust. 1976;1(10):292-294. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1976.tb140626.x
    1. Urriquia MTB, Marin JDF Jr. Efficacy of topical pilocarpine in the management of primary aqueous tear deficiency: an initial study. Philipp J Ophthalmol. 2014;39(1):6-11.
    1. Price FW, Hom M, Moshirfar M, et al. . Combinations of pilocarpine and oxymetazoline for the pharmacological treatment of presbyopia: two randomized phase 2 studies. Ophthalmol Sci. 2021;1:100065. doi:10.1016/j.xops.2021.100065
    1. Giyanani J, Shabaik Y, Penzner J, Gore A. Novel, fast-equilibrating, ophthalmic vehicle for enhanced patient comfort and tolerability for pilocarpine delivery (poster 895110). Poster presented at: American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists PharmSci 360 Annual Meeting; October 26-November 5, 2020; virtual.
    1. World Medical Association . World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
    1. National Eye Institute . National Eye Institute visual functioning questionnaire–25 (VFQ-25) version 2000. Published January 2000. Accessed October 12, 2021.
    1. Johnson N, Shirneshan E, Coon CD, et al. . Development of the Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10(4):1057-1075. doi:10.1007/s40123-021-00391-w
    1. Shirneshan E, Coon CD, Johnson N, et al. . Development of the Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire for use in evaluating the impact of presbyopia. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(1):125. doi:10.1186/s41687-021-00378-y
    1. Schwiegerling J. Field guide to visual and ophthalmic optics. SPIE. Published 2004. Accessed January 28, 2022. doi:10.1117/3.592975
    1. Evans DG, Coon C, Nichols K, Shirneshan E, Campbell J. Interpreting clinically meaningful near vision improvement in presbyopia with AGN-190584 in the GEMINI 1 phase 3 trial. Presented at: American Academy of Optometry Annual Meeting; November 4, 2021; Boston, MA.
    1. Csaky KG, Richman EA, Ferris FL III. Report from the NEI/FDA Ophthalmic Clinical Trial Design and Endpoints Symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(2):479-489. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1132
    1. Tahhan N, Papas E, Fricke TR, Frick KD, Holden BA. Utility and uncorrected refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1736-1744. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014
    1. Lu Q, Congdon N, He X, Murthy GVS, Yang A, He W. Quality of life and near vision impairment due to functional presbyopia among rural Chinese adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4118-4123. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-6353
    1. Lamoureux EL, Fenwick E, Moore K, Klaic M, Borschmann K, Hill K. Impact of the severity of distance and near-vision impairment on depression and vision-specific quality of life in older people living in residential care. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(9):4103-4109. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3294
    1. Patel I, Munoz B, Burke AG, et al. . Impact of presbyopia on quality of life in a rural African setting. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(5):728-734. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.028
    1. McDonnell PJ, Lee P, Spritzer K, Lindblad AS, Hays RD. Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(11):1577-1581. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.11.1577
    1. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) . How can presbyopia be corrected? Updated June 4, 2020. Accessed Aug 11, 2021.
    1. Hartenbaum D, Maloney S, Vaccarelli L, Liss C, Wilson H, Gormley GJ. Comparison of dorzolamide and pilocarpine as adjunctive therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Ther. 1999;21(9):1533-1538. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(00)80008-9
    1. Kałużny J, Sobecki R, Czechowicz-Janicka K, et al. . Efficacy and safety of latanoprost versus pilocarpine/timolol maleate fixed combination in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(8):860-865. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.01324.x
    1. Laibovitz R, Boyle J, Snyder E, Strohmaier K, Adamsons I. Dorzolamide versus pilocarpine as adjunctive therapies to timolol: a comparison of patient preference and impact on daily life. Clin Ther. 1996;18(5):821-832. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(96)80042-7
    1. Nagasubramanian S. A comparison of the ocular hypotensive efficacy, safety and acceptability of brimonidine 0.2% twice daily versus pilocarpine 2.0% thrice daily as adjunct therapy with beta-blockers. In: Glaucoma Update VI. Springer; 2000. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57056-8_31
    1. Anderson RA, Cowle JB. Influence of pH on the effect of pilocarpine on aqueous dynamics. Br J Ophthalmol. 1968;52(8):607-611. doi:10.1136/bjo.52.8.607
    1. David R, Goldberg L, Luntz MH. Influence of pH on the efficacy of pilocarpine. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978;62(5):318-319. doi:10.1136/bjo.62.5.318
    1. Birmingham AT, Galloway NR, Spencer SA. A comparison of the pupilloconstrictor effect of pilocarpine solution administered to the conjunctival sac as a single drop or as a continuous infusion in normal subjects. Br J Ophthalmol. 1976;60(8):568-572. doi:10.1136/bjo.60.8.568

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel