Efficacy and Safety of OC-01 (Varenicline Solution) Nasal Spray on Signs and Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease: The ONSET-2 Phase 3 Randomized Trial
David Wirta, Patrick Vollmer, James Paauw, Kuei-Hsun Chiu, Eugenia Henry, Kristen Striffler, Jeffrey Nau, ONSET-2 Study Group, David Wirta, Jay Rubin, Charles Reilly, Lance Bergstrom, Karl Olsen, Gary Jerkins, Guruprasad Pattar, Bruce Segal, Carol Aune, John Goosey, Joel Geffin, Daniel Terveen, Kenneth Kenyon, Jung Dao, Kenneth Kenyon, Jared Peterson, Daniel Zimmer, Patrick Vollmer, Blair Boehmer, James Paauw, Yen Nieman, Eva Liang, David Wirta, Patrick Vollmer, James Paauw, Kuei-Hsun Chiu, Eugenia Henry, Kristen Striffler, Jeffrey Nau, ONSET-2 Study Group, David Wirta, Jay Rubin, Charles Reilly, Lance Bergstrom, Karl Olsen, Gary Jerkins, Guruprasad Pattar, Bruce Segal, Carol Aune, John Goosey, Joel Geffin, Daniel Terveen, Kenneth Kenyon, Jung Dao, Kenneth Kenyon, Jared Peterson, Daniel Zimmer, Patrick Vollmer, Blair Boehmer, James Paauw, Yen Nieman, Eva Liang
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray for treatment of patients with dry eye disease.
Design: Randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, phase 3 study.
Participants: Adults 22 years of age or older with a diagnosis of dry eye disease, artificial tear use, Ocular Surface Disease Index score of 23 or more, and Schirmer test score (STS) of 10 mm or less. Eligibility was not restricted by eye dryness score (EDS).
Methods: Patients (N = 758) were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to twice-daily treatment with 50-μl intranasal spray in each nostril of OC-01 0.03 mg (n = 260), OC-01 0.06 mg (n = 246), or vehicle (control; n = 252) for 4 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04036292).
Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients achieving a 10-mm improvement or more in STS at week 4. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 4 in STS and EDS in a controlled adverse environment (CAE) chamber and in the clinic. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.
Results: A statistically significantly greater percentage of patients achieved the primary end point in both OC-01 treatment groups compared with the vehicle group (OC-01 0.03 mg, 47.3%; OC-01 0.06 mg, 49.2%; vehicle, 27.8%; P < 0.0001 for both doses). Change from baseline in STS at week 4 was statistically significantly greater for patients receiving OC-01 than vehicle (P < 0.0001 for both doses). Eye dryness score assessed at week 4 improved with OC-01 treatment compared with vehicle, although the difference was not significant for EDS measured in the CAE chamber and showed (nominal) significance in the clinic. Overall, 86.5% of patients (654/756) reported at least 1 TEAE during the treatment period; most were mild, nonocular (sneezing, cough, throat irritation, and instillation site irritation) and were reported by fewer patients in the vehicle group than in the OC-01 treatment groups (OC-01 0.03 mg, 97.3%; OC-01 0.06 mg, 99.2%; vehicle, 57%).
Conclusions: OC-01 nasal spray was well tolerated and showed a clinically meaningful effect on signs and symptoms of dry eye disease.
Keywords: Dry eye disease; Nasal spray; Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; Pharmacologic neuroactivator; Phase 3 clinical trial; Varenicline.
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed