Search

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the ocular surface characterized by loss of homeostasis of the tear film and accompanied by symptoms such as ocular discomfort and visual disturbance. DED is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care in the United States and across the world. Despite this, there are a limited number of pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of DED in the United States and Europe. This review examines the different pivotal trials for DED medications and the impact the vehicle in each trial.In recent clinical trials, the vehicle of the active formulation of the medication is often used as the active comparator. A literature review of published dry eye clinical trials was performed to identify the pivotal clinical trials of DED medications and to compare treatment effect and further understand the impact of the vehicle on clinical trial outcomes.The pivotal clinical trials for the currently approved treatments for dry eye have widely varying study designs. The variations include differences in inclusion criteria, outcome measures and efficacy endpoints, and whether or not the use of concomitant artificial tears is allowed. These differences make it difficult for accurate comparisons to be made between DED medications. Each trial demonstrated that the vehicle alone has some beneficial effect on signs and symptoms of dry eye disease.This review discusses the varying trial designs and vehicles used in the pivotal studies for the four approved dry eye medications in the United States and Europe, as well as novel vehicles under development and clinical trial recommendations.

Paul M Karpecki,1,2 Sidney L Weiss,3 William G Kramer,4 Patrick O’Connor,5 David Evans,6 Josh Johnston,7 April L Jasper,8 Angela Justice,9 Abayomi B Ogundele,9 Doug Devries10 1Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA; 2Gaddie Eye Centers, Louisville, KY, USA; 3i-novion, Inc., Randolph, NJ, USA; 4Kramer Consulting, LLC, North Potomac, MD, USA; 5Auven Therapeutics, Delray Beach, FL, USA; 6Total Eye Care, Memphis, TN, USA; 7Georgia Eye Partners, Atlanta, GA, USA; 8Advanced Eyecare Specialists, West Palm Beach, FL, USA; 9Sun Ophthalmics, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Princeton, NJ, USA; 10Eye Care Associates of Nevada, Sparks, NV, USA Purpose: To evaluate the ocular safety of OTX-101 0.09% – a novel, nanomicellar, clear, aqueous solution of cyclosporine (CsA) – and to determine the systemic exposure to CsA following ophthalmic administration. Patients and methods: Healthy volunteers ≥18 years of age were recruited for participation in this phase 1, open-label, single-center, single-arm, study. Subjects received one drop of OTX-101 0.09% in each eye every 12 hours for 7 days, and once on day 8. Blood samples were collected predose, and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours post-first dose on day 1 and day 8. CsA levels in whole blood samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters (maximal whole blood concentration [Cmax, ng/mL], time to Cmax [Tmax, hours]), and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the last measurement [AUC(0–t), h·ng/mL]) were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Safety assessments included subject-reported adverse events (AEs), vital signs, visual acuity, intraocular pressure measurement, biomicroscopy, and direct ophthalmoscopy. Results: A total of 16 subjects were enrolled; 15 subjects completed the study. Blood sample analysis indicated limited systemic exposure to CsA; three subjects had a CsA concentration greater than or equal to the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) on day 1; only four subjects had three consecutive CsA concentration measurements ≥LLOQ on day 8; the mean±SD for Cmax was 0.17±0.02 ng/mL, Tmax was 1.5±0.58 hours, and AUC(0–t) was 0.53±0.06 h·ng/mL. Three subjects reported three AEs (eye pain, eye pruritis, and eye irritation) during the study. No clinically significant changes in the safety assessments were noted. Conclusion: The OTX-101 formulation was well tolerated. Systemic exposure to CsA was negligible in healthy volunteers after twice-daily ocular administration. No evidence for systemic accumulation of CsA was observed. Keywords: dry eye disease, cyclosporine, pharmacokinetic, systemic exposure