Changes in ocular signs and symptoms in patients switching from bimatoprost-timolol to tafluprost-timolol eye drops: an open-label phase IV study

Rupert Richard Alexander Bourne, Kai Kaarniranta, Katrin Lorenz, Carlo Enrico Traverso, Jouni Vuorinen, Auli Ropo, Rupert Richard Alexander Bourne, Kai Kaarniranta, Katrin Lorenz, Carlo Enrico Traverso, Jouni Vuorinen, Auli Ropo

Abstract

Objectives: Bimatoprost-timolol (bimatoprost 0.03%-timolol 0.5% fixed-dose combination [FDC]) and tafluprost-timolol (tafluprost 0.0015%-timolol 0.5% FDC) eye drops are currently the only topical intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing therapies available as preservative-free (PF) prostaglandin and timolol FDC. The aim of this study was to investigate changes to ocular signs and symptoms when patients with ocular hypertension (OH) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG) switched from PF or benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved bimatoprost-timolol to PF tafluprost-timolol eye drops.

Design: This was a 12-week, open-label, phase IV study.

Setting: Sixteen centres in Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK.

Participants: Patients with OH or OAG (IOP on medication ≤21 mm Hg), treated with PF or BAK-preserved bimatoprost-timolol for ≥4 weeks before screening, and presenting with conjunctival hyperaemia and ≥1 ocular symptom.

Interventions: Patients were switched to PF tafluprost-timolol once daily in the treated eye(s).

Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary endpoints were change from screening to week 12 in conjunctival hyperaemia and worst ocular symptom. The secondary outcome measures were changes from screening in ocular signs (other than conjunctival hyperaemia) and symptoms at week 12.

Results: Of 123 enrolled patients, 121 were included in the intention-to-treat dataset, of which all were Caucasian and 54.5% were female; 76 patients used BAK-preserved bimatoprost-timolol and 45 used PF drops. Conjunctival hyperaemia and severity of worst ocular symptom following switch to PF tafluprost-timolol significantly reduced from screening to week 12 in all patients (p<0.001). The percentage of patients with ocular signs and symptoms was significantly reduced at week 12 compared with screening (p<0.001). IOP was not affected by the change of treatment.

Conclusions: Switching from BAK-preserved or PF bimatoprost-timolol to tafluprost-timolol reduced both signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease with no clinically relevant effect on IOP.

Trial registration number: EudraCT2014-005273-37; Results.

Keywords: clinical pharmacology; clinical trials; glaucoma; intraocular pressure; medical ophthalmology; ocular surface.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: RRAB has received travel expenses from Santen. KK has received a consultant fee from Santen for an advisory board. KL has no conflicts of interest to report. CET has received department funding for the conduction of this study, personal fees and non-financial support from Santen not related to this study or manuscript, and department funding from Novartis and Allergan. JV has received fees for statistical services from Santen. AR is an employee at Santen Oy.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition by previous bimatoprost–timolol treatment. After initial screening, three patients did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of nine (7.4%) patients discontinued the study; five discontinued because of AEs and four withdrew from the study. AE, adverse event; BAK, benzalkonium chloride; PF, preservative-free.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of week 12 outcomes with screening in conjunctival hyperaemia and worst ocular symptom after switching from bimatoprost–timolol to tafluprost–timolol (A) change in conjunctival hyperaemia from screening (n=121) to week 12 (n=114); (B) breakdown of changes in conjunctival hyperaemia severity by subgroup at week 12 compared with screening. One patient in the ITT dataset violated inclusion criterion 2 and only had mild conjunctival hyperaemia at screening; (C) severity of worst ocular symptom at screening and week 12 in all patients; and (D) changes in severity of worst ocular symptom by subgroup at week 12 compared with screening. BAK, benzalkonium chloride; ITT, intention-to-treat; PF, preservative-free.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Secondary endpoints (A) abnormal ocular signs at screening (n=121); (B) abnormal ocular signs at week 12 (n=114); (C) abnormal ocular symptoms at screening; (D) abnormal ocular symptoms at week 12. BAK, benzalkonium chloride; PF, preservative-free.

References

    1. Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, et al. . Glaucoma. Lancet 2017;390:2183–93. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31469-1
    1. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, et al. . Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121:2081–90. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
    1. The AGIS Investigators. The advanced glaucoma intervention study, 6: effect of cataract on visual field and visual acuity. The AGIS Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1639–52. 10.1001/archopht.118.12.1639
    1. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. . Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268–79.
    1. EGS-European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 4th edn Savona, Italy: Publicomm, 2014.
    1. Holló G, Vuorinen J, Tuominen J, et al. . Fixed-dose combination of tafluprost and timolol in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: comparison with other fixed-combination products. Adv Ther 2014;31:932–44. 10.1007/s12325-014-0151-7
    1. Li T, Lindsley K, Rouse B, et al. . Comparative effectiveness of first-line medications for primary open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2016;123:129–40. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005
    1. Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:418–23. 10.1136/bjo.86.4.418
    1. Goldberg I, Gil Pina R, Lanzagorta-Aresti A, et al. . Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:926–31. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304064
    1. Ranno S, Sacchi M, Brancato C, et al. . A prospective study evaluating IOP changes after switching from a therapy with prostaglandin eye drops containing preservatives to nonpreserved tafluprost in glaucoma patients. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:1–6. 10.1100/2012/804730
    1. Uusitalo H, Chen E, Pfeiffer N, et al. . Switching from a preserved to a preservative-free prostaglandin preparation in topical glaucoma medication. Acta Ophthalmol 2010;88:329–36. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01907.x
    1. Uusitalo H, Egorov E, Kaarniranta K, et al. . Benefits of switching from latanoprost to preservative-free tafluprost eye drops: a meta-analysis of two Phase IIIb clinical trials. Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:445–54. 10.2147/OPTH.S91402
    1. Stewart WC, Konstas AG, Nelson LA, et al. . Meta-analysis of 24-hour intraocular pressure studies evaluating the efficacy of glaucoma medicines. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1117–22. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.10.004
    1. Holló G, Hommer A, Antón López A, et al. . Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost 0.0015%/timolol 0.5% versus concomitant use of the ingredients. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2014;30:468–75. 10.1089/jop.2013.0229
    1. Skalicky SE, Goldberg I, McCluskey P. Ocular surface disease and quality of life in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153:1–9. 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.033

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere