Changes in ocular signs and symptoms in patients switching from bimatoprost–timolol to tafluprost–timolol eye drops: an open-label phase IV study

Objectives: Bimatoprost–timolol (bimatoprost 0.03%–timolol 0.5% fixed-dose combination [FDC]) and tafluprost–timolol (tafluprost 0.0015%–timolol 0.5% FDC) eye drops are currently the only topical intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing therapies available as preservative-free (PF) prostaglandin and timolol FDC. The aim of this study was to investigate changes to ocular signs and symptoms when patients with ocular hypertension (OH) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG) switched from PF or benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved bimatoprost–timolol to PF tafluprost–timolol eye drops. Design: This was a 12-week, open-label, phase IV study. Setting: Sixteen centres in Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK. Participants: Patients with OH or OAG (IOP on medication ≤21 mm Hg), treated with PF or BAK-preserved bimatoprost–timolol for ≥4 weeks before screening, and presenting with conjunctival hyperaemia and ≥1 ocular symptom. Interventions: Patients were switched to PF tafluprost–timolol once daily in the treated eye(s). Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary endpoints were change from screening to week 12 in conjunctival hyperaemia and worst ocular symptom. The secondary outcome measures were changes from screening in ocular signs (other than conjunctival hyperaemia) and symptoms at week 12. Results: Of 123 enrolled patients, 121 were included in the intention-to-treat dataset, of which all were Caucasian and 54.5% were female; 76 patients used BAK-preserved bimatoprost–timolol and 45 used PF drops. Conjunctival hyperaemia and severity of worst ocular symptom following switch to PF tafluprost–timolol significantly reduced from screening to week 12 in all patients (p<0.001). The percentage of patients with ocular signs and symptoms was significantly reduced at week 12 compared with screening (p<0.001). IOP was not affected by the change of treatment. Conclusions: Switching from BAK-preserved or PF bimatoprost–timolol to tafluprost–timolol reduced both signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease with no clinically relevant effect on IOP

A 6-Month Study Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of the Preservative-free Fixed Combination of Tafluprost 0.0015% and Timolol 0.5% versus Each of Its Individual Preservative-Free Components

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of the preservative-free (PF) fixed combination (FC) of tafluprost 0.0015\% and timolol 0.5\% (once daily) were compared to those of the individual components (PF tafluprost 0.0015\% once daily and PF timolol 0.5\% twice daily) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension inadequately controlled on prior timolol or prostaglandin monotherapy for 6\ua0months.A stratified, double-masked, randomized, multicenter phase III study was conducted. A total of 189 prior timolol users were randomized within the timolol stratum (TS) to receive either FC (n\ua0=\ua095) or timolol 0.5\% (TIM; n\ua0=\ua094). Furthermore, a total of 375 prior prostaglandin analog (PGA) users were randomized within the prostaglandin stratum (PS) to receive either FC (n\ua0=\ua0188) or tafluprost 0.0015\% (TAF; n\ua0=\ua0187). To be eligible for participation in the study, the patients were required to have an intraocular pressure (IOP) of\ua0 6522\ua0mmHg when on timolol (TIM) or of\ua0 6520\ua0mmHg when on PGA in either treated eye at the screening and end-of-run-in visits. In addition to these, the study included visits at baseline, 2 and 6\ua0weeks, 3 and 6\ua0months and at a post-study visit. IOP was measured at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m.In the TS, a significant reduction from baseline IOP was seen with FC and TIM throughout the study. Average diurnal IOP change from baseline at month 3 was -8.55\ua0mmHg (32\%) for FC and -7.35\ua0mmHg (28\%) for TIM. The model-based treatment difference (FC-TIM) was -0.885\ua0mmHg [95\% confidence interval (CI) -1.745 to -0.024; p\ua0=\ua00.044] demonstrating the superiority of FC over TIM. In the PS, a significant reduction in IOP was seen with both FC and TAF throughout the study. The average diurnal IOP change from baseline at month 3 was -8.61\ua0mmHg (33\%) for FC and -7.23\ua0mmHg (28\%) for TAF. The model-based treatment difference (FC-TAF) was -1.516\ua0mmHg (95\% CI -2.044 to -0.988; p\ua0<\ua00.001) demonstrating the superiority of FC over TAF. In the TS, related ocular adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for patients treated with FC compared to TIM (16.8\% versus 6.4\%), whereas related non-ocular AEs were more frequent with TIM compared to FC (2.1\% versus 0.0\%). In the PS, AEs were similarly distributed between FC and TAF. The frequency of conjunctival hyperemia of FC was low (6.4\%).The preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost and timolol provided a substantial and significant IOP reduction in both strata. The IOP reduction was superior to both tafluprost 0.0015\% and timolol 0.5\% when given as monotherapies. Overall, the study treatments were safe and well tolerated.Santen Oy, Tampere, Finland

Benefits of switching from latanoprost to preservative-free tafluprost eye drops: a meta-analysis of two Phase IIIb clinical trials

Introduction: Glaucoma patients frequently exhibit ocular surface side effects during treatment with prostaglandin eye drops. The present work investigated whether glaucoma patients suffering from signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease while using preserved latanoprost eye drops benefited from switching to preservative-free tafluprost eye drops. Patients and methods: The analysis was based on 339 glaucoma patients enrolled in two Phase IIIb trials. The patients were required to have two symptoms, or one sign and one symptom of ocular surface disease at baseline, and at least 6 months preceding treatment with latanoprost eye drops preserved with benzalkonium chloride. All eligible patients were switched from latanoprost to preservative-free tafluprost for a total of 12 weeks. Ocular symptoms and ocular signs were evaluated at baseline and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after commencing treatment with tafluprost. Intraocular pressure (IOP), drop discomfort, and treatment preference were evaluated to investigate the clinical efficacy and patient-related outcomes. Results: After 12 weeks of treatment with preservative-free tafluprost, the incidences of irritation/burning/stinging, foreign body sensation, tearing, itching, and dry eye sensation had diminished to one-third of those reported for preserved latanoprost at baseline. The incidences of blepharitis and corneal/conjunctival fluorescein staining had in turn decreased to one-half of those reported for preserved latanoprost. Severity of conjunctival hyperemia was halved during treatment with preservative-free tafluprost, and there was significant improvement in tear break-up time and tear production. A further reduction in IOP (~1 mmHg) was seen with preservative-free tafluprost compared with preserved latanoprost. Drop discomfort was alleviated during preservative-free tafluprost treatment, and an outstanding majority of patients (72%) preferred preservative-free tafluprost over preserved latanoprost. Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirmed that IOP remained at the same level after replacing benzalkonium chloride-preserved latanoprost eye drops with preservative-free tafluprost eye drops. Preservative-free tafluprost significantly decreased the symptoms and signs of ocular surface disease and outrated latanoprost in drop comfort and treatment preference