-
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.
Eldecalcitol is superior to alfacalcidol in maintaining bone mineral density in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis patients (e-GLORIA).
Matsumoto, T, Yamamoto, K, Takeuchi, T, Tanaka, Y, Tanaka, S, Nakano, T, Ito, M, Tomomitsu, T, Hirakawa, A, Soen, S
Journal of bone and mineral metabolism. 2020;(4):522-532
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Eldecalcitol increases bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces vertebral fracture in patients with primary osteoporosis. However, the effect of eldecalcitol on BMD and fracture in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) patients is unknown. This study was undertaken to compare the effect of eldecalcitol on BMD and fracture with that of alfacalcidol in GIO patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A randomized, open-label, parallel group study was conducted to identify the effectiveness and safety of monotherapy with 0.75 μg eldecalcitol compared with 1.0 μg alfacalcidol in GIO patients. RESULTS Lumbar spine BMD increased with eldecalcitol, but decreased with alfacalcidol at 12 and 24 months (between group difference 1.29%, p < 0.01, and 1.10%, p < 0.05, respectively). Total hip and femoral neck BMD were maintained until 24 months by eldecalcitol, but decreased by alfacalcidol (between group difference 0.97%, p < 0.05 and 1.22%, p < 0.05, respectively). Both bone formation and resorption markers were more strongly suppressed by eldecalcitol than by alfacalcidol. Eldecalcitol showed better effect on BMD than alfacalcidol in patients with no prevalent fracture and BMD > 70% of the young adult mean, and with ≤ 3 months of previous glucocorticoid treatment. No significant difference in the incidence of vertebral fracture was found, and the incidence of adverse events was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Eldecalcitol was more effective than alfacalcidol in maintaining BMD in GIO patients. Because eldecalcitol was effective in patients with no or short-term previous glucocorticoid treatment, as well as those without prevalent fracture or low BMD, eldecalcitol can be a good candidate for primary prevention of GIO. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER UMIN000011700.
-
4.
Minodronate combined with alfacalcidol versus alfacalcidol alone for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a multicenter, randomized, comparative study.
Soen, S, Yamamoto, K, Takeuchi, T, Tanaka, Y, Tanaka, S, Ito, M, Nakano, T, Hagino, H, Hirakawa, A, Matsumoto, T
Journal of bone and mineral metabolism. 2020;(4):511-521
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study compared the clinical usefulness of minodronate (50 mg/4 weeks) plus alfacalcidol (1 μg/day) (Group M) with that of alfacalcidol alone (1 μg/day) (Group A) for treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS The primary endpoints were the changes from baseline in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) and the cumulative incidence of vertebral fracture at 24 months; secondary endpoints included the changes from baseline in total hip (TH) BMD and bone turnover markers. RESULTS Of 164 patients enrolled, 152 (Group M, n = 75; Group A, n = 77) were included in the analysis of efficacy. At each time point and at 24 months, LS BMD and TH BMD were significantly higher in Group M than in Group A. The 152 patients were divided into two subgroups that were previously treated with glucocorticoids for ≤ 3 months or > 3 months. In both subgroups, the changes from baseline in LS BMD and TH BMD from baseline at 24 months had increased more in Group M than in Group A. There were no differences found in the incidence of vertebral fracture between the groups, because the number of enrolled patients was lesser than that initially expected. In Group M, both bone formation and resorption markers significantly decreased from baseline at 3 months and maintained at 6, 12, and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS Minodronate plus alfacalcidol was more effective than alfacalcidol alone in increasing BMD and was effective in increasing BMD for both prevention and treatment. Therefore, minodronate can be a good candidate drug for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.
-
5.
Randomized controlled European multicenter trial on the prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetics: ESCRS PREMED Study Report 2.
Wielders, LHP, Schouten, JSAG, Winkens, B, van den Biggelaar, FJHM, Veldhuizen, CA, Murta, JCN, Goslings, WRO, Kohnen, T, Tassignon, MJ, Joosse, MV, et al
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2018;(7):836-847
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of perioperative treatment strategies, in addition to topical bromfenac 0.09% and dexamethasone 0.1%, to reduce the risk for developing cystoid macular edema (CME) after uneventful cataract surgery in diabetic patients. SETTING Twelve European study centers. DESIGN Randomized clinical trial. METHODS Diabetic patients having phacoemulsification cataract surgery were randomly allocated to receive no additional treatment, a subconjunctival injection with 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, an intravitreal injection with 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or a combination of both. The main outcomes were the difference in central subfield mean macular thickness, corrected distance visual acuity, and the incidence of CME and clinically significant macular edema within 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS The study comprised 213 patients. At 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, the central subfield mean macular thickness was 12.3 μm and 9.7 μm lower, respectively, in patients who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide than patients who did not (P = .007 and P = .014, respectively). No patient who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide developed CME. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect on macular thickness. CONCLUSIONS Diabetic patients who received a subconjunctival injection with triamcinolone acetonide at the end of cataract surgery had a lower macular thickness and macular volume at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively than patients who did not. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect.
-
6.
CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF THE MULTIFACTORIAL NATURE OF DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA.
Chakravarthy, U, Yang, Y, Lotery, A, Ghanchi, F, Bailey, C, Holz, FG, Downey, L, Weber, M, Eter, N, Dugel, PU
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2018;(2):343-351
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To report functional and morphologic outcomes, based on diabetic macular edema (DME) chronicity and baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), from a subanalysis of the fluocinolone acetonide for macular edema (FAME) trials. METHODS Patients were categorized by DME duration (nonchronic [ncDME] or chronic [cDME] DME) and three nonexclusive baseline vision strata. Anatomic and visual acuity VA outcomes of these cohorts were compared with treatment assignment. RESULTS For all patients with ncDME and cDME who received sham control, 27.8% and 13.4%, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters, whereas 22.3% and 34.0% of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)-treated patients, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters. Among patients with ncDME who received sham control, as baseline vision decreased, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased; however, among those with cDME, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters did not change as baseline vision decreased. Conversely, among 0.2 μg/day FAc-treated patients, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased with decreasing baseline vision, regardless of DME chronicity. Anatomical outcomes were similar within treatment arms, regardless of the DME duration. CONCLUSION Patients with cDME and poor baseline vision who were exposed to low-dose FAc experienced BCVA improvements that were not observed in a similar group from the sham-control arm. These data support the multifactorial pathogenesis of cDME.
-
7.
Real-World Assessment of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in DME: Findings of the Prospective, Multicenter REINFORCE Study.
Singer, MA, Dugel, PU, Fine, HF, Capone, A, Maltman, J
Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina. 2018;(6):425-435
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). This study assessed the real-world effectiveness, safety, and reinjection interval of DEX in adult patients with DME. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter (18 U.S. sites), observational study. RESULTS The study population comprised 177 patients (180 eyes; 93.8% previously treated). Baseline mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were 54.4 letters and 424.6 μm, respectively. DEX was administered as monotherapy or with other DME therapy (55%/45%). The mean reinjection interval was 5.0 months. Mean maximum BCVA change from baseline after the first three DEX injections was +9.1 letters, +7.7 letters, and +7.0 letters, respectively (P < .001); 36.0% of eyes achieved 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement. Mean maximum CRT change from baseline was -137.7 μm (P < .001). CONCLUSION DEX used alone or with other DME therapy improved visual and anatomic outcomes in DME patients in clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:425-435.].
-
8.
Long-term Effects of Intravitreal 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant on Progression and Regression of Diabetic Retinopathy.
Wykoff, CC, Chakravarthy, U, Campochiaro, PA, Bailey, C, Green, K, Cunha-Vaz, J
Ophthalmology. 2017;(4):440-449
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the effects of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) on the progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and the impact of FAc on changes in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity scale (DRSS) grade during the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) A and B Phase III clinical trials. DESIGN Post hoc analysis of data from the 36-month prospective, randomized, FAME A and B trials. PARTICIPANTS Patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who received sham control or FAc 0.2 or 0.5 μg/day. METHODS A masked reading center (University of Wisconsin-Madison) determined DRSS grade and retinal perfusion status using standard 7-field stereo fundus photography and fluorescein angiography, respectively. Retinopathy changes over time were determined by DRSS step differences from baseline to month 36. Pairwise comparisons between the 3 treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test without adjustment for covariates, with the primary comparison between sham control and 0.2 μg/day FAc. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Study eye progression to PDR based on a composite clinical outcome of (1) progression from nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) to PDR based on graded fundus photographs, (2) panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), or (3) pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for PDR; and study eye changes on the DRSS. RESULTS In the integrated FAME data set, compared with sham control-treated subjects, time to first PDR event was significantly delayed in subjects treated with FAc (P < 0.001), and this effect was confirmed in subgroups with more severe DR and chronic DME at baseline. In addition, subjects with retinal nonperfusion at baseline showed greater reduction in progression to PDR with FAc treatment. Both FAc dosages demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean DR severity compared with sham treatment at months 6, 12, and 18. Numerically more subjects who received FAc experienced 2-or-more- or 3-or-more-step improvements in DR severity compared with subjects who received sham; conversely, fewer subjects treated with FAc experienced 2-or-more- or 3-or-more-step worsening in DR severity. The 3-or-more-step improvement with 0.5 μg/day FAc was statistically significantly different from sham control. CONCLUSIONS In subjects with DME, sustained intraocular delivery of FAc slows development of PDR and slows progression of diabetic retinopathy.
-
9.
Long-term safety of once-daily, dual-release hydrocortisone in patients with adrenal insufficiency: a phase 3b, open-label, extension study.
Nilsson, AG, Bergthorsdottir, R, Burman, P, Dahlqvist, P, Ekman, B, Engström, BE, Ragnarsson, O, Skrtic, S, Wahlberg, J, Achenbach, H, et al
European journal of endocrinology. 2017;(6):715-725
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the long-term safety and tolerability of a once-daily, dual-release hydrocortisone (DR-HC) tablet as oral glucocorticoid replacement therapy in patients with primary adrenal insufficiency (AI). DESIGN Prospective, open-label, multicenter, 5-year extension study of DR-HC conducted at five university clinics in Sweden. METHODS Seventy-one adult patients diagnosed with primary AI who were receiving stable glucocorticoid replacement therapy were recruited. Safety and tolerability outcomes included adverse events (AEs), intercurrent illness episodes, laboratory parameters and vital signs. Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using generic questionnaires. RESULTS Total DR-HC exposure was 328 patient-treatment years. Seventy patients reported 1060 AEs (323 per 100 patient-years); 85% were considered unrelated to DR-HC by the investigator. The most common AEs were nasopharyngitis (70%), fatigue (52%) and gastroenteritis (48%). Of 65 serious AEs reported by 32 patients (20 per 100 patient-years), four were considered to be possibly related to DR-HC: acute AI (n = 2), gastritis (n = 1) and syncope (n = 1). Two deaths were reported (fall from height and subarachnoid hemorrhage), both considered to be unrelated to DR-HC. From baseline to 5 years, intercurrent illness episodes remained relatively stable (mean 2.6-5.4 episodes per patient per year), fasting plasma glucose (0.7 mmol/L; P < 0.0001) and HDL cholesterol (0.2 mmol/L; P < 0.0001) increased and patient-/investigator-assessed tolerability improved. QoL total scores were unchanged but worsening physical functioning was recorded (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS In the first prospective study evaluating the long-term safety of glucocorticoid replacement therapy in patients with primary AI, DR-HC was well tolerated with no safety concerns observed during 5-year treatment.
-
10.
Retinal vascular calibre changes after intravitreal bevacizumab or dexamethasone implant treatment for diabetic macular oedema.
Wickremasinghe, SS, Fraser-Bell, S, Alessandrello, E, Mehta, H, Gillies, MC, Lim, LL
The British journal of ophthalmology. 2017;(10):1329-1333
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare changes in retinal vascular calibre after 2 years of treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (BVZ) or dexamethasone implant (DEX) in patients with centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DMO). METHODS At baseline, 88 eyes of 61 patients with DMO were recruited in a prospective, multicentre, randomised, single-masked clinical trial. Of these subjects, 22 BVZ-treated (52%) and 22 DEX-treated (48%) eyes of 34 patients (56%) had gradable retinal photographs at both the baseline and 24-month visits. Retinal vascular calibre was measured from digital fundus photographs and summarised as central retinal artery (CRAE) and vein (CRVE) equivalents in all gradable eyes at baseline and 24 months. RESULTS At 24 months, 40.9% of BVZ and 45.5% of DEX eyes gained 10 or more letters (p=0.77). There was concurrent reduction in mean central macular thickness, -157.7 μm in BVZ and -192.5 μm in DEX-treated eyes (p=0.40). DEX-treated eyes showed a statistically significant reduction in CRVE compared with BVZ-treated eyes, with a mean change from baseline of -31.78 to +4.34 µm, respectively (p<0.001). CRAE showed a non-statistically significant trend towards reduction over time in DEX-treated eyes compared with BVZ-treated eyes, with a mean change from baseline of -6.09 and +1.66, respectively (p=0.077). CONCLUSIONS DEX had a significant narrowing effect on venular diameter in eyes with DMO not seen with BVZ. The changes in retinal vascular calibre suggest that these agents have a differing actions effects retinal vasculature and thereby suggest a potentially different mechanism of action on reducing DMO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01298076.