-
1.
A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Povidone-Iodine 0.6% and Dexamethasone 0.1% Ophthalmic Suspension for Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis.
Ta, CN, Raizman, MB, Gross, RD, Joshi, S, Mallick, S, Wang, Y, Segal, B
American journal of ophthalmology. 2020;:56-65
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a topical ophthalmic suspension combination of povidone-iodine 0.6% (PVP-I) and dexamethasone 0.1% (DEX) for infectious and inflammatory components of bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS Subjects of all ages (those <3 months had to be full-term) with a diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized 3:1:3 to either PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I alone, or placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical resolution in the study eye, and the key secondary efficacy endpoint was bacterial eradication, both at the day 5 visit. Adverse events (AEs) were documented at all visits. RESULTS Overall, 753 subjects were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] population; PVP-I/DEX [n = 324]; PVP-I [n = 108]; placebo [n = 321]); mean and standard deviation (SD) age was 44.3 (22.9) years, and most were female (61.2%) and white (78.1%). In all treatment groups, mean treatment compliance was >98%. The modified ITT population for the efficacy analysis comprised 526 subjects. In the study eye at the day 5 visit, clinical resolution was achieved by 50.5% (111/220) subjects in the PVP-I/DEX group vs 42.8% (95/222) in the placebo group (P = .127), and bacterial eradication was achieved by 43.3% (94/217) and 46.8% (102/218), respectively (P = .500). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 32.8% (106/323), 39.8% (43/108), and 19.0% (61/321) of subjects in the safety population treated with PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I, and placebo, respectively (most mild in severity). CONCLUSION In this study, PVP-I/DEX did not demonstrate additional benefit in clinical efficacy compared with placebo in subjects with bacterial conjunctivitis.
-
2.
Study protocol for efficacy and safety of steroid-containing mouthwash to prevent chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in women with breast cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 study.
Kuba, S, Yamanouchi, K, Matsumoto, M, Maeda, S, Hatachi, T, Sakiko, S, Kawashita, Y, Morita, M, Sakimura, C, Inamasu, E, et al
BMJ open. 2020;(2):e033446
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Stomatitis is a frequent adverse event in patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Stomatitis can hamper oral nutrition resulting in malnutrition, reduce quality of life and introduce the need for dose reductions and interruption of chemotherapy; however, there is currently no standard approach for preventing chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone-based elixir mouthwash for preventing chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients with early breast cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this multicenter, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial, we will randomly assign 120 women with early breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy to use of a dexamethasone-based elixir or standard oral care, to compare their preventive effects on chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. Patients will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the intervention group will receive chemotherapy, oral care and a dexamethasone-based elixir (10 mL 0.1 mg/mL; swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 9 weeks), and patients in the control group will receive chemotherapy and oral care. The primary endpoint is the difference in incidence of stomatitis between the two groups. The sample size allows for the detection of a minimum difference of 20% in the incidence of stomatitis between the two groups. Secondary endpoints are severity of stomatitis, duration of stomatitis, completion rate of chemotherapy and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION All participants signed a written consent form, and the study protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Clinical Research Review Board of Nagasaki University (CRB7180001). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000030489).
-
3.
Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in Chinese patients: randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study.
Li, X, Wang, N, Liang, X, Xu, G, Li, XY, Jiao, J, Lou, J, Hashad, Y, ,
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2018;(1):59-69
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) for treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS This study was a six-month, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial with a 2-month open-label study extension. Patients with branch or central RVO received DEX (n = 129) or sham procedure (n = 130) in the study eye at baseline; all patients who met re-treatment criteria received DEX at month 6. Efficacy measures included Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS Time to ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline during the first 6 months (primary endpoint) was earlier with DEX than sham (p < 0.001). At month 2 (peak effect), the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline was DEX: 35%, sham: 12%; mean BCVA change from baseline was DEX: +10.6 letters, sham: +1.7 letters; and mean CRT change from baseline was DEX: -407 μm, sham: -62 μm (all p < 0.001). Outcomes were better with DEX than sham in both branch and central RVO. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Increases in IOP generally were controlled with topical medication. Mean IOP normalized by month 4, and no patient required incisional glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS DEX had a favorable safety profile and provided clinically significant benefit in a Chinese patient population with RVO. Visual and anatomic outcomes were improved with DEX relative to sham for 3-4 months after a single implant.
-
4.
Effect of Adding Dexamethasone to Continued Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A DRCR Network Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Maturi, RK, Glassman, AR, Liu, D, Beck, RW, Bhavsar, AR, Bressler, NM, Jampol, LM, Melia, M, Punjabi, OS, Salehi-Had, H, et al
JAMA ophthalmology. 2018;(1):29-38
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Some eyes have persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for DME. Subsequently adding intravitreous corticosteroids to the treatment regimen might result in better outcomes than continued anti-VEGF therapy alone. OBJECTIVE To compare continued intravitreous ranibizumab alone with ranibizumab plus intravitreous dexamethasone implant in eyes with persistent DME. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Phase 2 multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 40 US sites in 129 eyes from 116 adults with diabetes between February 2014 and December 2016. Eyes had persistent DME, with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 after at least 3 anti-VEGF injections before a run-in phase, which included an additional 3 monthly 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections. Data analysis was according to intent to treat. INTERVENTIONS Following the run-in phase, study eyes that had persistent DME and were otherwise eligible were randomly assigned to receive 700 μg of dexamethasone (combination group, 65 eyes) or sham treatment (ranibizumab group, 64 eyes) in addition to continued 0.3-mg ranibizumab in both treatment arms as often as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in mean visual acuity letter score at 24 weeks as measured by the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS). The principal secondary outcome was change in mean central subfield thickness as measured with the use of optical coherence tomography. RESULTS Of the 116 randomized patients, median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71 years); 50.9% were female and 60.3% were white. Mean (SD) improvement in visual acuity from randomization was 2.7 (9.8) letters in the combination group and 3.0 (7.1) letters in the ranibizumab group, with the adjusted treatment group difference (combination minus ranibizumab) of -0.5 letters (95% CI, -3.6 to 2.5; 2-sided P = .73). Mean (SD) change in central subfield thickness in the combination group was -110 (86) μm compared with -62 (97) μm for the ranibizumab group (adjusted difference, -52; 95% CI, -82 to -22; 2-sided P < .001). Nineteen eyes (29%) in the combination group experienced increased intraocular pressure or initiated treatment with antihypertensive eyedrops compared with 0 in the ranibizumab group (2-sided P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although its use is more likely to reduce retinal thickness and increase intraocular pressure, the addition of intravitreous dexamethasone to continued ranibizumab therapy does not improve visual acuity at 24 weeks more than continued ranibizumab therapy alone among eyes with persistent DME following anti-VEGF therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01945866.
-
5.
Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in retinal vein occlusion: real-life data from a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.
Eter, N, Mohr, A, Wachtlin, J, Feltgen, N, Shirlaw, A, Leaback, R, ,
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2017;(1):77-87
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the relationship between duration of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and the achievement of vision gain in patients receiving dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real-world clinical practice, and to define patterns of use of DEX implant and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with RVO in clinical practice. METHODS This prospective, open-label, multicenter, 6-month observational phase IV study conducted at 70 sites in Germany enrolled patients diagnosed with macular edema following branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO) who were given DEX implant. Follow-up visits and evaluations occurred in accordance with normal clinical practice. Re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other RVO therapies was at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at week 12. RESULTS The analysis population consisted of 573 patients (64 % BRVO, 36 % CRVO). Patients received a mean of 1.17 DEX implant treatments during the study period; 84.3 % of patients received a single DEX implant and 19.9 % received adjunctive other RVO treatment. Among patients with analyzable BCVA data at baseline and week 12 (n = 351), mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was -0.16 (standard deviation, 0.30) logMAR (+7.8 approximate Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) (p < 0.001), and 33.9 % of patients had gained at least 3 lines in BCVA from baseline. Mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was +9.5, +7.3, and +5.4 approximate ETDRS letters in patients with macular edema duration < 90 days, from 90 to 180 days, and >180 days respectively. Improvement in BCVA through week 24 and decreases in central retinal thickness were seen in both BRVO and CRVO. The most common adverse drug reaction was increased intraocular pressure. No glaucoma incisional surgeries were required. CONCLUSIONS DEX implant was effective in improving BCVA and central retinal thickness in patients with BRVO and CRVO in real-world clinical practice. The largest gains in BCVA over 6 months occurred in patients with recent onset macular edema, confirming the benefit of early treatment. DEX implant was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.
-
6.
Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Durie, BGM, Hoering, A, Abidi, MH, Rajkumar, SV, Epstein, J, Kahanic, SP, Thakuri, M, Reu, F, Reynolds, CM, Sexton, R, et al
Lancet (London, England). 2017;(10068):519-527
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 103 cells per mm3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1-21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00644228. FINDINGS Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·712, 96% CI 0·56-0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524-0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 82% (176/216) in the VRd group and 72% (153/214) in the Rd group, and 16% (34/216) and 8% (18/214) of patients who were assessable for response in these respective groups had a complete response or better. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 198 (82%) of 241 patients in the VRd group and 169 (75%) of 226 patients in the Rd group; 55 (23%) and 22 (10%) patients discontinued induction treatment because of adverse events, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Rd group, and two in the VRd group. INTERPRETATION In patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit profile. FUNDING NIH, NCI, NCTN, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology Company, and Celgene Corporation.
-
7.
Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.
Danis, RP, Sadda, S, Li, XY, Cui, H, Hashad, Y, Whitcup, SM
The British journal of ophthalmology. 2016;(6):796-801
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To assess long-term effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) monotherapy on retinal morphology in diabetic macular oedema (DME). METHODS Two multicentre, masked, phase III studies with identical protocols randomised patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT) ≥300 µm to DEX implant 0.7, 0.35 mg or sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 3 years (39 months if treated at month 36), with retreatment allowed at ≥6-month intervals. Patients needing other macular oedema (ME) therapy exited the study. Changes from baseline in CSRT, macular volume and ME grade, area of retinal thickening, macular leakage, macular capillary loss and diabetic retinopathy severity were assessed. RESULTS After 3 years, more eyes treated with DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg than sham showed improvement (although small) in ME grade (p<0.05 vs sham). DEX implant 0.7 mg delayed time to onset of two-step progression in diabetic retinopathy severity by ∼12 months. DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg produced small, non-sustained reductions in macular leakage but had no significant effect on macular capillary loss. CONCLUSIONS DEX implant 0.7 or 0.35 mg, administered at ≥6-month intervals over 3 years, produced sustained retinal structural improvement in DME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.
-
8.
Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.
Boyer, DS, Yoon, YH, Belfort, R, Bandello, F, Maturi, RK, Augustin, AJ, Li, XY, Cui, H, Hashad, Y, Whitcup, SM, et al
Ophthalmology. 2014;(10):1904-14
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis. PARTICIPANTS Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 μm by optical coherence tomography. METHODS Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at ≤40 scheduled visits. Patients who met retreatment eligibility criteria could be retreated no more often than every 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The predefined primary efficacy endpoint for the United States Food and Drug Administration was achievement of ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P ≤ 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 μm) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 μm) than sham (-41.9 μm; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy. CONCLUSIONS The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports.
-
9.
Antiemetic efficacy of single-dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving multiple cycles of multiple day-based chemotherapy.
Lorusso, V, Giampaglia, M, Petrucelli, L, Saracino, V, Perrone, T, Gnoni, A
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2012;(12):3241-6
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The goal of pharmacological prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) should be the elimination of both nausea and vomiting symptoms during all planned chemotherapy cycles. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron and dexamethasone to prevent CINV and to guarantee an adequate food intake (FI) in patients receiving several cycles of multiple day-based chemotherapy (MD-CT). METHODS Patients with advanced cancer but without a compromised nutritional status (bone mass index ≥ 18.5) were treated with 0.25 mg palonosetron plus 20 mg dexamethasone before MD-CT. The MD-CT regimen was either epirubicin plus ifosfamide or paclitaxel plus cisplatin and ifosfamide. Nausea, vomiting, and FI were monitored in a 7-day diary. Complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue therapy) was the primary endpoint, while complete control (CC: CR and no more than mild nausea) and the evaluation of FI were secondary endpoints. The endpoints were evaluated during the overall timescale (0-168 h) of the chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS Fifty patients were enrolled, 80% of whom achieved CR and 78% achieved CC. During the six chemotherapy cycles, CR and CC ranged from 76% to 88% and from 62% to 88%, respectively. Moreover, patients with CR had a significantly (p < 0.0001) higher weekly food intake compared with patients not achieving CR. CONCLUSIONS This trial was the first to assess the efficacy of palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of both nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of MD-CT. In this trial, the ability of patients to intake an adequate amount of food each week was correlated with nausea, thus providing clinicians with an objective parameter for the measurement of the effects of nausea. A single dose of palonosetron and dexamethasone was able to prevent CINV in most patients receiving 3 days of chemotherapy during all planned chemotherapy cycles.
-
10.
Updated survivals and prognostic factor analysis in myeloma treated by a staged approach use of bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone in transplant eligible patients.
Chim, CS
Journal of translational medicine. 2010;:124
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bortezomib, an NFkB inhibitor, is an active agent for the treatment of myeloma (MM). We have reported a promising complete remission (CR) rate for newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated by a staged approach, in which chemosensitive patients underwent autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) while less chemosensitive patients received salvage therapy with bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone prior to auto-HSCT. METHODS Herein, with an additional 13 months of follow-up, we reported the updated survivals, and examined potential prognostic factors impacting event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS With a median follow-up of 30 months, the projected OS was 73% and EFS was 50.2%. Age, gender, clinical stage and DAPK methylation could not account for the differential chemosensitivity. Advanced ISS stage and DAPK methylation adversely impacted OS whereas oligoclonal reconstitution predicted superior EFS. CONCLUSIONS Our staged approach illustrated an economical use of expensive targeted agents while preserving a good CR rate and OS. The comparable survivals of chemosensitive and less chemosensitive patients suggested the staged approach might have abolished the adverse prognostic impact of suboptimal chemosensitivity. Finally, the adverse impact of DAPK methylation and favorable impact of oligoclonal reconstitution in myeloma warrants further study.