BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of once-daily dosing with alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution as compared with placebo in the prevention of ocular itching, and to directly compare the efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% with olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.MethodsSubjects with allergic conjunctivitis (n = 127) were enrolled in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Using the conjunctival allergen challenge model, this study was conducted over the course of approximately 5 weeks. Subjects were randomized into one of three treatment arms: alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, or placebo. Study medications were administered twice over the course of the trial. The primary efficacy measure for the study was ocular itching evaluated by the subject at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post challenge. Secondary endpoints, measured at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post challenge, included conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral redness, lid swelling, chemosis, and tearing. Duration of action was measured at 16 and 24 hours post-instillation of the study medication at visits 3 and 4, respectively.ResultsFor the primary measure of ocular itching, both actives, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, were statistically superior to placebo at all three measured time points for both the 16-hour and 24-hour measures (P < 0.0001). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% had numerically lower mean ocular itching scores than eyes treated with olopatadine 0.2% at every time point, and this difference was statistically significant at the 3-minute time point 16 hours post instillation (P = 0.026). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% and with olopatadine 0.2% displayed significantly less lid swelling relative to placebo at every time point for the 16-hour and 24-hour post-instillation visits (P < 0.005). Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only active treatment that provided statistically significant relief of chemosis at every time point of the 24-hour post-instillation visit.ConclusionBoth the alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solutions provided highly effective relief of ocular itching at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Treatment differences between the actives were most pronounced at the earliest time point (3 minutes post-challenge) following conjunctival allergen challenge (16 hours), when alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was statistically superior to olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only treatment to provide significant relief from chemosis at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Both active treatments and placebo were generally safe and well tolerated.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% on ocular surface staining and visual performance in patients with dry eye.MethodsThis was a single-center, 6-month, open-label, Phase IV study. Patients with bilateral dry eye disease and a symptom score of ≥2 on the Ocular Discomfort and 4-Symptom Questionnaire, an Ocular Surface Disease Index score of >12, at least one eye with Schirmer’s score <10 mm/5 minutes, and central corneal staining graded as ≥2 on the Ora Calibra™ Corneal and Conjunctival Staining Scale were enrolled. Cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (Restasis®) was instilled twice daily in each eye. The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular surface staining and visual function at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included Schirmer’s test, tear film breakup time, symptoms, and adverse events.ResultsA total of 40 patients with the mean age of 59.4 years (range, 40–78 years) were enrolled; 35 (87.5%) were female and 37 (92.5%) completed the study. At 6 months, inferior corneal, central corneal, total corneal, and total ocular surface fluorescein staining were significantly improved from baseline in both eyes (P<0.001). Patient responses on the Ocular Surface Disease Index showed significant improvement in blurred vision and visual function related to reading, driving at night, working with a computer or bank machine, and watching television (P≤0.041). At 6 months, 35.1% of patients achieved ≥5 mm improvement and 18.9% achieved ≥10 mm improvement in the average eye Schirmer score. Mean tear film breakup time improved by >50% in both eyes (P>0.001). Patients reported significant improvement in ocular discomfort and dry eye symptoms (P<0.001). No patients discontinued treatment because of stinging or any other ocular adverse event.ConclusionDry eye patients with difficulties with day-to-day visual function demonstrated improvement in both signs and symptoms of dry eye and reported improved visual function after 6 months of treatment with cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%.

No abstract

IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated.MethodsPooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score = 0) was also assessed.ResultsA total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P = 0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P = 0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P < 0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P = 0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionOnce-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally well tolerated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0155-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe aim of this research is to initiate a 5-year natural history study of dry eye disease (DED) using objectively assessed and patient-reported outcomes, to explore the hypothesis that DED is a progressive condition that has substantive and measurable impacts not only on the ocular surface, but on quality of life and visual functioning. Our objective for this report is to examine the baseline data.MethodsA multicenter, prospective, controlled, observational study of Level 2 (mild-to-moderate) DED patients based on International Task Force Delphi Panel severity grading, and controls, documented baseline measures (including tear film biomarkers and quality of life). Tear cytokine concentrations were also measured in the tear film. Patients were using artificial tears as needed.ResultsTwo hundred seventeen DED patients and 67 gender- and age-matched controls were enrolled. A majority were females and Caucasian and groups did not differ significantly in terms of gender, race, or age. Differences between DED and matched controls, at baseline, included mean scores for Ocular Surface Disease Index (31.7 vs 4.1, P < 0.0001), Schirmer test (5.7 vs 15.3 mm, P < 0.0001), corneal staining (1.4 vs 0.2, P < 0.0001), conjunctival staining (1.4 vs 0.3, P < 0.0001), and tear break-up time (5.7 vs 8.5 s, P < 0.0001). Tear cytokines levels were determined and included interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, epidermal growth factor, IL-13, IL-17, IL-1α, and inducible protein-10. The mean levels of IL-8 and IL-6 were slightly higher in the DED group at baseline. Blurred vision was reported as moderate/severe/very severe at baseline in 57.6% of DED patients vs.10.5% of normal controls (P < 0.0001). DED patients reported greater reductions in work and non-work productivity, as well as greater need for visits to ophthalmologists during the prior year.ConclusionsIn this report of the baseline findings of a 5-year natural history study of DED, a striking disease burden is observed with regard to blurred vision, productivity, and visits to eye care practitioners in mild to moderate DED patients compared to normal subjects of similar ages and genders.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00833235 on January 30, 2009.

Irregular discharges, previously studied on psychiatric or substance abuse treatment units, are a particular problem for dual diagnosis units. We examined demographic and clinical variables for their association with irregular discharge from an acute dual diagnosis inpatient unit, retrospectively reviewing 316 consecutive admissions. One hundred and nineteen patients (37.7%) were irregularly discharged (61 AMA, 31 administrative, 27 elopements), staying an average of 18.8 days compared with 51.4 days for those regularly discharged (p < .001). Younger age (p = .007) and discharge diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (p < .001) were associated with irregular discharge; the attending psychiatrist was also significant (p = .016). Demographic variables (sex, ethnicity, marital status, religion, employment, education, living circumstances), Axis I diagnosis, and type and number of substances abused were not predictive of discharge type. Patients irregularly discharged within the first week (40% of irregular discharges) were significantly less likely to have known legal involvement (p = .006). No significant temporal clustering of irregular discharges was found on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, nor was a seasonal pattern detected. These findings are generally consistent with several pre-DSM-III studies on nondual diagnosis units, but more specifically highlight the diagnosis of antisocial personality. Regarding program completion, they suggest that risk factors for irregular discharge (substance abuse, antisocial personality, characteristics of the doctor-patient relationship, problems of younger patients) have not been adequately addressed simply by creating dual diagnosis units. Further programming study appears warranted to address the problem of patient retention on dual diagnosis units.

Purpose: Anti-inflammatory activity of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is mediated by suppression of cyclooxygenase (COX) isoenzymes. This study compared ocular penetration and inflammation suppression of topical ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% ophthalmic solutions in a rabbit model. Methods: At hour 0, 36 rabbits received ketorolac 0.45%, bromfenac 0.09%, or an artificial tear 3 times once every 20 min. Half of the rabbits in each group then received intravenous injections of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-dextran at hour 1, and the other half at hour 10. Aqueous and iris-ciliary body (ICB) samples were collected in the former group at hour 2 (peak) and in the latter group at hour 11 (trough) An additional group of 6 animals received only FITC-dextran, and samples were collected 1 h later. Peak and trough nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug concentrations were compared with previously determined half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC 50 ) for COX isoenzymes. Results: Peak and trough aqueous and ICB concentrations of ketorolac were at least 7-fold or greater than those of bromfenac. At peak levels, both ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% significantly inhibited LPS-induced aqueous prostaglandin E 2 and FITC-dextran elevation (P < 0.01). At trough, both study drugs significantly inhibited LPS-induced aqueous prostaglandin E 2 elevation (P < 0.05), but only ketorolac 0.45% significantly reduced LPS-induced aqueous FITC-dextran elevation (P < 0.01). Aqueous and ICB ketorolac concentrations exceeded its IC 50 for COX-1 and COX-2 at peak and trough. Aqueous and ICB bromfenac levels exceeded its IC 50 for COX-2 at peak and trough, but not for COX-1 at trough aqueous levels and peak and trough ICB levels. Conclusions: Both ketorolac 0.45% and bromfenac 0.09% effectively suppressed inflammation at peak. At trough, only ketorolac 0.45% effectively suppressed inflammation as measured by FITC-dextran leakage. The difference in inflammation suppression may be due to differences in tissue concentrations and/or greater COX-1 suppression by ketorolac 0.45%.

No abstract