throbber
Two Multicenter, Randomized Studies of
`the Efficacy and Safety of Cyclosporine
`Ophthalmic Emulsion in Moderate to Severe
`Dry Eye Disease
`
`Kenneth Sall, MD, 1 Onex Dara Stevenson, MD, 2 Thomas K. Mundmf, MD, 3 Brenda L. Reis, PhD4 and
`th~ CsA Phase 3 Study Group
`
`Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of cyclosporin A ([CsA] 0.05% and 0.1 % ophthalmic
`e1 .1ulsions) to vehicle in patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease.
`Design: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, 6-month, vehicle-controlled.
`Participants: A total of 877 patients with defined moderate to severe dry eye disease (292 to 293 in each
`trAatment group).
`Methods: Two identical clinical trials; patients were treated twice daily with either CsA, 0.05% or 0.1 %, or
`VEhicle. The results of these two trials were combined for analysis.
`Main Outcome Measures: Efficacy: corneal and interpalpebral dye staining, Schirmer tear test (with and
`w.thout anesthesia), tear break-up time, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), facial expression, patient subjec(cid:173)
`tive rating scale, symptoms of dry eye, investigator's evaluation of global response to treatment, treatment
`success, and daily use of artificial tears. Safety: occurrence of adverse events, best-corrected visual acuity,
`in~raocular pressure, biomicroscopy, and blood trough CsA concentrations.
`Results: Treatment with CsA, 0.05% or 0.1%, gave significantly (P :S; 0.05) greater improvements than
`vr:.hicle in two objective signs of dry eye disease (corneal staining and categorized Schirmer values). CsA 0.05%
`treatment also gave significantly greater improvements (P < 0.05) in three subjective measures of dry eye disease
`(blurred vision, need for concomitant artificial tears, and the physician's evaluation of global response to
`trPatment). There was no dose-response effect. Both CsA treatments exhibited an excellent safety profile, and
`there were no significant topical or systemic adverse safety findings.
`Conclusions: The novel ophthalmic formulations CsA 0.05% and 0.1 % were safe and effective in the
`treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease yielding improvements in both objective and subjective
`measures. Topical CsA represents a new pharmacologically based treatment for dry eye disease that may
`provide significant patient benefits. Ophthalmology 2000;107:631-639 © 2000 by the American Academy of
`Ophthalmology.
`
`D~,;spite the millions of individuals who have dry eye dis(cid:173)
`ea~e, 1
`4 there is currently no therapeutic treatment for this
`-
`condition. Individuals plagued by the discomf01t, burning,
`irritation, photophobia, and other symptoms of dry eye
`disease may also have blurred vision, gradual contact lens
`in,olerance, and the inability to produce emotional tears, as
`
`Manuscript no. 993 16.
`
`O ~oginally received June 16, 1999.
`Accepted: December 8, 1999.
`1 ~all Eye Surgery Center, Bellflower, California.
`2 ~Ievenson Medical and Surgical Eye Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
`3 Charlotte, North Carolina.
`4 h llergan, Inc., Irvine, California.
`Repri nt requests to: Linda Lewis, 575 Anton Blvd, Suite 900, Costa Mesa,
`CA 92626.
`Su?ported by a grant from Allergan Inc.
`Dr. Reis is an employee of Allergan, lnc. None of the other authors has a
`fir .. mcial interest in any of the products mentioned in this paper.
`
`well as an increased risk of ocular swf ace damage and
`ocular infection. 5- 9 Yet, at this time, the only treatments
`available are palliative in nature, consisting of lubricating
`eyedrops or puncta! occlusion procedures that attempt to
`supplement the patient's natural tears or improve the resi(cid:173)
`dence time of the limited quantity of tears that the patient
`can produce.
`Until recently, attempts to develop therapeutic treatments
`for dry eye disease were hampered by a limited understand(cid:173)
`ing of the underlying pathophysiologic processes. Although
`the exact mechanism is still not completely understood,
`there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that dry eye
`disease is the result of an underlying cytokine and receptor(cid:173)
`mediated inflammatory process affecting botl1 the lacrimal
`14 Tllis hypothesis is fur(cid:173)
`gland and the ocular surface.2• 10 -
`18 and human 20
`2 1
`ther supported by results from animal 15
`-
`-
`(Foulks et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:S646;
`Helms et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37; S646;
`Kunert et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40(4):877 1;
`
`© 2000 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
`Pu'1lished by Elsevier Science Inc.
`
`ISSN 0 161·6420/00/$-sce front matter
`PH SOI61 -6420(99)00176-1
`
`631
`
`APOTEX 1004, pg. 1
`
`

`

`Oph thalm ology Volume 1 07, Number 4, April 2000
`
`Turner et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40[4]:S558)
`studies that demonstrate that topical treatment with the
`immunomodulatory agent cyclosporin A (CsA) can have
`beneficial effects on the underlying inflammatory patho(cid:173)
`logic condition of dry eye disease, as well as improve the
`signs and symptoms of this condition.
`Evidence of the inflammatory nature of dry eye disease
`and the success of preliminary investigations into the effects
`of topical CsA treatment led to a large-scale multicenter,
`vehicle-controlled, dose-ranging (phase 2) clinical trial of
`the efficacy and safety of CsA treatment in moderate to
`severe dry eye disease. This study demonstrated that such
`treatment was safe and resulted in significant improvements
`in the signs and symptoms of the disease.2 1
`The objective of the studies described here was to com(cid:173)
`pare the efficacy and safety of twice daily CsA, 0.05 % and
`0.1 %, ophthalmic emulsions to vehicle in the treatment of
`moderate to severe dry eye disease in patients with or
`without Sjogren's syndrome. In addition, specialized assays
`were performed on conjunctival biopsy specimens from a
`subset of patients to investigate the levels of several inflam(cid:173)
`matory markers and the density of conjunctival goblet cells
`before and after treatment. The results of these specialized
`studies will be reported separately; preliminary reports have
`been presented (Kunert et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
`1999;40[4]:S771 ; Turner et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
`1999;40[ 4]:S558).
`
`Materials and Methods
`
`Study Design
`
`Two identical multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel(cid:173)
`group clinical trials were conducted to compare two concentrations
`of CsA ophthalmic emulsion to its vehicle. The 6-month treatment
`phase was preceded by a 2-week run-in phase to standardize all
`patients to a common regimen of artificial tear use. The results of
`these two trials were combined for analysis.
`Both trials were conducted in compliance with G ood Clinical
`Practices, investigational site Institutional Review Board Regula(cid:173)
`tions, Sponsor and Investigator Obligations, Informed Consent
`Regu lations, and the Declaration of Helsinki. Potential patients
`signed a prescreening informed consent. A second wri tten in(cid:173)
`formed consent was obtained from all patients before actual en(cid:173)
`rollment, and a separate informed consent was obtained for the
`subset of patients who participated in the pharmacokinetic evalu(cid:173)
`ations.
`Patients. Adult patients of either sex were eligible for partic(cid:173)
`ipation if they had a diagnosis of moderate to severe dry eye
`disease as defined by the following criteria (detailed descriptions
`of each parameter are given under " Outcome Measures"): ( 1)
`Schirmer test without anesthesia of :s 5 mm/5 min in at least one
`eye (if Schi rmer test without anesthesia of = 0 nun/5 min, then
`Schirmer with nasal stimulation had to be > 3 mm/ 5 min in the
`same eye); (2) sum of corneal and interpalpebral conjunctival
`staining of~ +5 in the same eye where corneal staining was ~
`+2; (3) a baseline Ocular Slllface Disease Index ([OSDI]; see
`later) score of 0. 1 with no more than three responses of "not
`applicable"; and (4) a score of ~ 3 on the Subjective Facial
`Expression Scale (see later). Signs and symptoms must have been
`present despite conventional management, which may have in(cid:173)
`cluded artificial tear drops, gels and ointments, sympathomi metic
`
`agents, parasympathomimetic agents, and puncta! occlusion. Eli(cid:173)
`gible patients were enrolled if they were deemed capable of
`following the study protocol and considered likely to complet-: the
`treatment period and return for all scheduled visits; if they had
`normal lid position and closure, and a best-corrected ETDRS
`visual acuity score of +0.7 LogMar or better in each eye.
`Patients were excluded from the study if they had partici!Jated
`in an earlier clinical trial with CsA ophthalmic emulsion or had
`used systemic or topical ophthalmic cyclosporine within 90 days
`before the study. Other exclusion criteria included the preser re or
`history of any systemic or ocular disorder or condition (including
`ocular surgery, trauma, and disease) that could possibly intn fere
`with the interpretation of the study resul ts; current or recent use of
`topical ophthalmic or systemic medications that could affect 1 dry
`eye condition; known hypersensiti vity to any component of the
`study or procedural medications; requi red contact lens wear u ring
`the study; recent (within I month) or anticipated use of temporary
`puncta! plugs during the study; permanent occlusion of laLdmal
`puncta within 3 months of the study; or if they were pregnant,
`lactating, or planning a pregnancy. Patients were also excluJed if
`they appeared to have end-stage lacrimal gland di sease (Schirmer
`reading with nasal stimulation of< 3 mm/5 min) or if their dry eye
`disease was the result of destruction of conjunctival goblet C~'lls or
`scarring. Any patient who no longer met the criteria for moderate
`to severe dry eye (as defined previously) after completir g the
`2-week run-in phase was excluded from enrollment in the tTeat(cid:173)
`ment phase of the study.
`Patients could be discontinued before the completion of the
`study because of adverse events, pregnancy, protocol viol;,tions,
`lack of efficacy, or administrative or personal reasons.
`Study Medications. CsA, 0.05% and 0. 1 %, ophthalmic emul(cid:173)
`sions and the vehicle of CsA ophthalmic emulsion were the study
`medications, with indi vidually packaged preservative-free anificial
`tears (REFRESH Lubricant Eye Drops, Allergan, Inc.) provided as
`an adjuncti ve treatment to be used as frequently as needeu. The
`doses of CsA used were based on the results of an earlier dose(cid:173)
`ranging study? ' Both the CsA emulsions and vehicle were sterile,
`nonpreserved castor oil in water emulsions whose precise rormu(cid:173)
`lation is proprietary. All the study medications were supplied in
`unit dose via ls.
`Concomitant Medications. Any therapy considered necessary
`for the maintenance of patient welfare was given at the dis~ retion
`of the investigator and noted on the case report form. lf the
`medication would not interfere with the response to study medi(cid:173)
`cation, the patient was kept in the study. During the study, all
`concomitant medication treatment regimens were kept as constant
`as pennitted by accepted medical practice. Systemic and topical
`ophthalmic medications that could interfere with the response to
`study medications or the interpretation of the study result~ were
`prohibited during the study. This included cyclosporine, other
`immunomodulatory agents, general anesthetics, antihist~-nines,
`cholinergic agents, antimuscarinics, 13-blocki ng agents, tricyclic
`antidepressants, phenothiazines, topical ophthalmic steroid~ estro(cid:173)
`gen-progesterone (or other estrogen derivatives), or any topical
`ocular medi cations other than the assigned study medicali..Jn and
`assigned artificial tears.
`Study P rotocol. During the 2-week run-in phase, all patients
`were instructed to use the assigned artificial tears only (as needed).
`During the treatment phase, patients were instructed to illstill I
`drop of study medication twice dai ly in each eye for 6 PlOilths;
`once on waking in the morning and once at bedtime. Patients were
`allowed to use the assigned artificial tears as needed up 10 mo~th
`4. To avoid dilution of the study medication, patients were Ill"
`structed not to use artificial tears within 30 minutes before ' r after
`use of the study medication. To minimize the habitual conco1~1it~n:
`use of artificial tears, patients were asked to stop using a ttficJa
`
`632
`
`APOTEX 1004, pg. 2
`
`

`

`Sall et al · CsA in Dry Eye Disease
`
`ttJJS 1 week before their month 4 study visit. At this visit, patients
`were encouraged to use artificial tears less than eight times a clay
`fa the rest of the study period.
`During the treatment phase, patients returned for evaluation
`al£er I, 3, 4, and 6 months of treatment.
`
`Outcome Measures
`Etficacy. The objective signs monitored were corneal and inter(cid:173)
`p~lpebral conjunctival staining, Schirmer tear test (with and with(cid:173)
`out anesthesia), and tear break-up time. The subjective endpoints
`us~d were the OSDI, the facial expression subjective rating scale,
`symptoms of dry eye, investigator's evaluation of global response
`to treatment, treatment success, and artificial tears use. All these
`variables were evaluated at baseline and at each study visit, except
`fo, tear break-up time, which was not evaluated at the ! -month
`visit; the investigator's evaluation of global response to treatment,
`which could not be meaningfully assessed at baseline; and the
`Schirmer tear test with anesthesia, which was only evaluated at
`baseline, month 3, and month 6.
`For corneal fluorescein staining, the entire cornea was exam(cid:173)
`ined using slit-lamp evaluation with a yellow barrier fi lter and
`co11alt blue illumination. Staining was graded using the Oxford
`Scheme 6-point scale (from 0 to 5), with each investigator using
`the same set of photographs (provided by the study sponsor) as a
`guide. Lissamine green was then instilled, and interpalpebral con(cid:173)
`jlll ctival staining was evaluated more than 30 seconds, but less
`than 2 minutes, later. Using wh ite light of moderate intensity, the
`inh.:rpalpebral regions of the temporal and nasal conjunctiva were
`graded using the same Oxford Scheme. The sum of corneal and
`intt:rpalpebral staining was therefore on a 0 to 15 point scale. On
`all scales, a negative change from baseline indicated an improve(cid:173)
`ment.
`The Schirmer tear test was peif'ormed both with and without
`anesthesia and graded on a 5-point scale as follows: I (< 3 mm/5
`min), 2 (3-6 mm/5 min), 3 (7-10 mm/5 min), 4 (1 1- 14 mm/5
`min), and 5 (> 14 mrn/5 min) using the worse eye. A positive
`chrnge from baseline indicated improvement. Categorized values
`were used to reduce overall withi n-patient variability known to
`oclur for Schirmer wetting scores. The categories were chosen a
`priori on the basis of cutoff points suggested by a review of the
`meJ ical literature and consultation with clinical investigators.
`Ti me until random location tear break-up between blinks was
`measured only up to 10 seconds and recorded only if the value was
`less than I 0 seconds.
`The OSDI questionnaire was used to evaluate the impact of a
`patiP-nt's dry eye disease on vision-related functioning.22 It con(cid:173)
`sisted of 12 questions that were each rated from 0 = none of the
`tim•· to 4 = all of the time. An overall score was calculated by
`dividing the sum of the responses fo r all questions answered by the
`tota' possible score. Thus, overall scores ranged from 0 = no
`disability to 1 = complete disability. A negative change fro m
`basdine indicated an improvement in vision-related functioning.
`The Subjective Facial Expression Rating Scale23 consisted of
`nim. facial schematics ranging from I (the happiest face) to 9 (the
`unhappiest face) analyzed in five grades from 1 (pictures 1 and 2)
`to 5 (pictures 8 and 9). A negative change from baseline indicated
`an improvement.
`~ymptoms of ocular discomfort, such as stinging/burning, itch(cid:173)
`ing. sandiness/grittiness, blurred vision, dryness, light sensitivity,
`pain or soreness, were graded using a 5-point scale ranging from
`0 = do not have th is symptom to +4 = always notice this
`symptom). A negative change from baseline indicated an improve(cid:173)
`mer !.
`The investigator completed a global evaluation of the overall
`effe t of the study medication relative to the qualification visit
`
`l
`
`using a 7-point scale in which 0 = completely cleared, I = = 90%
`improvement, 2 = =75% improvement, 3 = = 50% improvement,
`4 = =25% improvement, 5 = condition unchanged, and 6 =
`condition worsened. Treatment success was defined as a global
`evaluation of = 90% improvement or better.
`Patient use of concomi tant artificial tears was also monitored.
`At each study visit, patients were queried about the average num(cid:173)
`ber of times they used artificial tears each day during the past week
`and the number of days during the past week when they did not use
`any artificial tears.
`Safety. The primary safety variable monitored was the occur(cid:173)
`rence of adverse events. The severi ty of each adverse event ob(cid:173)
`served was rated from mi ld (awareness of sign or symptom, but
`easily tolerated) to severe (incapacitating with inability to work or
`do usual activity). The relationship of the event to the study
`medication was assessed by the investigator as none, unlikely,
`possible, probable, or definite.
`Other safety variables monitored included best-corrected visual
`acuity (using the ETDRS chart), intraocular pressure (usi ng Gold(cid:173)
`man applanation tonometry), and biom icroscopy (using slit-lamp
`examination without pupil dilation). Pharmacokinetic testing was
`also done on a subset of patients to determine blood trough CsA
`concentrations during treatment.
`Safety variables were evaluated at baseline and at all study
`visits, except for intraocular pressure, which was only evaluated at
`baseline and month 6, and CsA blood levels, which were evaluated
`at baseline and months I and 6.
`
`Other Measures
`
`Blood was collected from all patients for autoantibody testing to
`aid in the prospective identification of individuals with Sjogren's
`syndrome. Frozen samples were sent to a central laboratorx (Co(cid:173)
`vance Central Laboratories Inc, Indianapolis, IN) fo r log in and
`inventory before shipment to the Scripps Reference Laboratory
`(San D iego, CA) for the actual tests. Blood samples were evalu(cid:173)
`ated for the presence of antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor,
`and class SS-A and class SS-B Sjogren's antibodies.
`Blood was also collected from a subset of patients for deter(cid:173)
`mination of mean blood CsA trough concentration. Frozen samples
`were sent to the sponsor (Ailergan, Inc.) for analysis, under Good
`Laboratory Practices regulations, using liquid chromatography(cid:173)
`mass spectrometry mass/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with a
`quantitation limit of 0.1 ng/m l.
`
`Statistical M ethods
`
`All analyses presented in this report were conducted on the intent(cid:173)
`to-treat patient population (all patients random ized). A last-obser(cid:173)
`vation carried-forward method was used to input missing data,
`although baseline data (before study treatment) were not canied
`forward. For efficacy variables collected on both eyes, only the
`data from the "worse" eye were included in the analyses. The
`"worse" eye was defined as the eye with the worse Schirmer tear
`test value (without anesthesia) and the worse sum of corneal and
`interpalpebral conjunctival staining. If both eyes were comparable,
`then the right eye was used. The "worse" eye was defined o n the
`basis of the baseline measurements, and data from this eye were
`used for all subsequent analyses. However, it should be noted that
`data were collected on both eyes throughout the study. All safety
`analyses included data from both eyes.
`Desc ripti ve s tatistics were used to summarize all continuous
`variables (such as all staining variables and the OSDI score) and
`categorical variables (such as the Subjective Facial Expression
`Rating Scale, symptoms of dry eye disease, and categorized
`Schirmer values). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOY A), with
`
`633
`
`APOTEX 1004, pg. 3
`
`

`

`Ophthalmology Volume 107, Number 4 , April 2000
`
`Table I. Patient Disposition
`
`Enrolled
`Completed
`Discontinued
`Lack of efficacy
`Adverse events
`Lost to follow-up
`Personal reasons
`Protocol or enrollment violations*
`O ther•
`
`CsA 0.05%
`
`293
`235 (80.2%)
`
`I (0.3%)
`19 (6.5%)
`4 (1.4%)
`9(3.1%)
`19 (6.5%)
`6(2.0%)
`
`CsA 0.1 o/o
`
`292
`218 (74.7%)
`
`3( 1.0%)
`29 (9.9%)
`3 ( 1.0%)
`14 (4.8%)
`21 (7.2%)
`4( 1.4%)
`
`Vehicle
`
`292
`2 18 (74.7%)
`
`3 \ 1.0%)
`13 ' 4.5%)
`11 (3.8%)
`9 0.1%)
`30 \ 10.3%)
`8 (2.7%)
`
`CsA = cyclosporin A.
`* Protocol or enrollment violations included improper en try, non-compliance, and use of prohibited medications.
`t Other included pregnancy, relocation, and removal from the study by the sponsor.
`
`group and in vestigator effects and interaction, was used to test fo r
`among-group differences in continuous variables. T he Cochran(cid:173)
`Mantel-Haenszel24 procedure with modified ridits, stratified by
`site, was used to test for differences in change f rom baseline
`among treatment groups in categorical variables and fo r among(cid:173)
`group d ifferences in global response d istributions. The paired 1 test
`method was used to analyze within-group changes from baseli ne in
`conti nuous variables, whereas the Wilcoxon signed rank test was
`used to analyze within-group changes from baseline in categorical
`variables.
`Statistical adjustment of P values for multiple comparisons
`have been addressed by use of the Fisher's least significant differ(cid:173)
`ence protected tests to ensure that the experimental-wise error rate
`was 0.05. Specifically, a pair wise comparison between either
`cyclosporine group and vehicle groups is considered statisticall y
`sig nificant if and only if ( I) the overall comparison among the
`three groups is significant at the 0.05 level, and (2) the pair wise
`comparison between cyclosporine and vehicle is significant at the
`0.05 level. In addition, althoug h patients were evaluated at multi(cid:173)
`ple time points throughout the study, the primary endpoint is on the
`last observation while on treatment during the 6-month study
`period, and no further adjustments need to be made.
`Each trial was powered separately, whereby given an expected
`sample size of 100 per group, the power to detect a three-grade
`differe nce between treatment groups in the change from baseline
`for the sum of corneal and interpalpebral conjunctival staining was
`greater than 0.86, using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank s um test with
`an estimated standard deviation of 6.49.
`A two-sided test with a P value ::;; 0.05 was cons idered statis(cid:173)
`tically significant.
`
`Patient Treatment Assignment
`
`Qualified patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the
`three study med ications in a I: I: I ratio using a block size of 3.
`Only a sing le randomization was used per trial. There was no
`stratification by either site or baseline factors.
`
`Study Masking
`
`Results
`
`Participant Flow and Follow-up
`
`A total of 877 patients was enrolled in approx imately eqll tl num(cid:173)
`bers in the three treatment groups and more than 76% (671/877)
`completed the study (Table 1). T he first patient was enu lled in
`July 1997 and the last patient completed the 6-month treatment
`period and evaluation in Septe mber 1998. M ost of the patiL.lts who
`exited the study prematurely did so as a result of protocol or
`enro ll ment violations, personal reasons, lost to follow-up, J r other
`no ntreatment-related reaso ns. Only 0.8% of patients (7/877) were
`discontinued because of lack of efficacy; I of 293 (0.3%) in the
`CsA 0.05% group, 3 of 292 ( I .0%) in the CsA 0.1 % g rouo, and 3
`of 292 ( 1.0%) in the vehicle gro up. Only 7.0% (61/877) were
`discontinued because of adverse events; 19 of 293 (6.5 o/· ) in the
`CsA 0.05% group, 29 of 292 (9.9%) in the CsA 0. 1% group, and
`13 of 292 ( 4.5%) in the vehicle group.
`
`Patient Demographics
`
`The demographic characteristics of the study population hre listed
`in Table 2. O verall, most of the patients were women (82%;
`7 15/877) and Caucasian (84%; 740/847). There were no statisti(cid:173)
`cally signi ficant differences between the treatment groups in any of
`the demographic variables measured. The use of prior therapy, or
`the types of concomitant medications used during the o•udy for
`other medical conditions, were similar among the treatment
`groups .
`Sjogren's syndrome was defined as the presence of ocular
`symptoms, oral symptoms, and a Schirmer test ::;; 5 mm, <. well as
`the presence of at least one of the following autoantibodi~s:
`antinuc lear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and Sjog ren's at.tibodtes
`class SS-A and SS-B. Of the 877 enrolled patients, 270 (30.8%)
`were determined to have Sjogren 's syndrome on the basi~ of the~e
`criteria. The nu mber of patients with Sjogren's syndrome identt·
`tied may underestimate the number in the study popul ation be·
`cause some patients left the studies without having auto1ntibodY
`data collected and therefore could not meet the criteria for
`Sjogren's syndrome.
`
`The study medication was packaged, labeled, and m asked in a
`manner consistent with Good Manufac turing Practices for inves(cid:173)
`tigational supplies. Ide ntical unit-dose vials were used to hold the
`study treatments, which were each of an identical milky color.
`
`Efficacy Analysis
`Corneal Staining. At baseline, the mean values for corn• .1! sta~;
`ing in the d ifferent treatment groups ranged between 2.6 1 an~ 2 .. f.
`(usi ng the Oxford scale fro m 0 to 5), with no statistical!_. stgnt
`
`634
`
`APOTEX 1004, pg. 4
`
`

`

`Salt et al · CsA in Dry Eye Disease
`
`T able 2. Patient Demographics
`
`CsA 0.05%
`(n = 293)
`58.7 ± 13.9
`
`49 (16. 7%)
`244 (83.3%)
`
`253 (86.3%)
`8 (2.7%)
`8 (2 .7%)
`23 (7.8% )
`1 (0.3% )
`
`97 (33.1%)
`126 (43.0%)
`20 (6.8%)
`0(0.0%)
`48 (16.4%)
`2 (0.7%)
`96 (32.8%)
`
`CsA 0.1 %
`(n = 292 )
`60. 1 ± 13.3
`
`54 (18.5%)
`238 (81.5%)
`
`243 (83.2%)
`16 (5.5%)
`6 (2.1%)
`26 (8.9%)
`I (0.3%)
`
`95 (32.5%)
`127 (43.5%)
`26 (8.9%)
`2 (0.7%)
`38 (1 3.0%)
`4 ( 1.4%)
`83 (28.4%)
`
`Vehicle
`(n = 292)
`59.9 ± 14.3
`
`59 (20.2%)
`233 (79.8%)
`
`244 (83.6%)
`15 (5.1 %)
`6 (2.1%)
`26 (8.9%)
`1 (0.3%)
`
`109 (37.3%)
`116 (39.7%)
`18 (6.2%)
`0(0.0%)
`46 (15.8%)
`3 ( 1.0%)
`91 (31.2%)
`
`Age (mean± SO)
`Sn
`Male
`Female
`Race
`Caucasian
`African-American
`Asian
`Hispanic
`O ther
`lrb color
`Blue
`J rown
`G reen
`J lack
`Hazel
`.)ther
`Sjogren's syndrome patients
`
`Cs '\ = cyclosporin A .
`
`ic~ nt differe nces among the groups . There was a statistically
`significant improvement fro m baseline in corneal stain ing (de(cid:173)
`crease in mean score) within all treatment groups at all follow-up
`visits (P < 0.00 I ). The improvement in corneal staining was
`sirn ificantly greater in both CsA groups than the vehicle group (P
`s: 0.044) at month 4, and in the CsA 0.05% group at month 6 (P
`= 0.008). There was also a trend (P = 0.062) toward a signifi(cid:173)
`cantly greater improvement in the CsA 0.1 % group than the
`ve11icle group at month 6 (Fig I).
`Conjunctival staining. At baseline, the mean values for tem(cid:173)
`po. a) interpa lpebral conjunctival staining ranged between 2.22 and
`2.26 (using the Oxford scale from 0 to 5), with no stati stically
`significant differences among the groups . Similarly, the mean
`ba~eline values for nasal interpalpebral conjunctival staining
`ranged betwee n 2.42 and 2.45, with no statistically signi ficant
`diffe rences among the gro ups. Statistically significant improve(cid:173)
`ments from baseline were seen in both temporal and nasal con(cid:173)
`jur ctival staining within all study g roups at all follow- up visits
`(P < 0.00 I), but there were no statistically significant among(cid:173)
`grc. up differences.
`
`Change From Baseline in Corneal Staining
`
`Month 1
`
`Month 3
`
`Month 4
`
`Month 6
`
`.0.1 -
`
`.().2
`
`.0.3 -t
`
`Change .0.4
`.n
`Staining .0.5 -
`Sl""ore
`.0.6
`
`1
`
`·0.7
`
`·0.8
`
`.0.9
`· I J
`
`• P s. .05 compared to vehicle
`1 P = .62 compared to vehicle
`
`l• c sA 0.05% r.;iCsA 0.1% OVehlcle :
`
`Figure 1. Change from baseline in corneal staining. Mean value ±
`stat.dard error. Graded on a scale from 0 to 5.
`
`the mean categorized
`Schirmer Tear Test. At baseline,
`Schirmer values (obtained with anesthesia) in the different treat(cid:173)
`ment groups ranged between 1.94 and 2.1 1 (on a scale from 0 to
`5 with I < 3 mm/5 min, 2 = 3- 6 mm/5 min, 3 = 7-10 mm/ 5 min,
`4 = 11-14 mm/5 min, and 5 > 14mm/5 min), with no statistically
`significant differences among the gro ups. At month 3, there was a
`significant worsening with the vehicle group (P = 0.01 4) and a
`significant difference among the treatment g roups, with the CsA
`0.05% group significantly greater than the vehicle group (P =
`0.009). At mo nth 6, there was a statistically significant improve(cid:173)
`ment fro m baseline within both CsA groups. Moreover, the
`changes in Schirmer values in each of the CsA groups was signif(cid:173)
`icantly better than in the vehicle gro up (P < -0.007; Fig 2).
`Schirmer tear tests were also conducted without anesthesia. At
`baseline, the mean categorized Schirmer values (obtai ned without
`anesthesia) in the different treatment groups ranged between 1.47
`and 1.50 (on the same scale as was used for the Schirmer test with
`anesthesia), wi th no statistically significant differences among the
`
`Change From Baseline in Categorized Schirmer Values
`Measured With Anesthesia
`!ICsA 0.05% 1!:1 CsA 0.1 % 0 Vehicle
`
`0.6 j riCsA
`
`0.5
`
`0.4
`
`0.3 1
`
`Change 0.2 ~
`
`Sch~~mer 0
`
`Score
`
`1
`
`'
`
`.().1
`
`.0.2
`
`·0.3
`
`·0.4
`
`• P s .05 compared to vehicle
`
`Month 3
`
`Month 6
`
`Figure 2. C hange from baseline in categorized Schirmer values (measured
`with anesthesia). Mean value ± standard error. Categorized Schirmer
`values were graded on a 5-point scale as follows: 1 ( < 3 mm/5 min), 2 (3-6
`mm/5 min ), 3 (7-10 mm/5 min), 4 ( 11-14 mm/5 min), and 5 (> 14 mm/5
`min) using the worse eye.
`
`635
`
`APOTEX 1004, pg. 5
`
`

`

`Ophthalmology Volume 107, Number 4 , April 2000
`
`Change From Baseline in Blurred Vision
`
`Month 1
`
`Month 3
`
`Month4
`
`Month 6
`
`Change From Baseline In Average Dally Use of Aruficial
`Tears
`
`Month!
`
`Month 3
`
`Month 4
`
`Montr, 6
`
`Change
`In
`Units per
`Day
`
`·0.2
`
`·0.3
`
`·0.4 -
`
`·0.6 ~
`
`• p.::, .05 compared to vehicle
`
`' • csAO.OS% f'J CsA0.1% DV~
`
`·0.7
`
`·0.5 -
`
`·0.6
`
`• P ~ .05 compared to vehicle
`J l• csA o.OS% f'J CsA 0.1% DVehic~
`
`Figure 3. Change from baseline in blurred vision. Mean value ::t standard
`error. Graded on a scale from 0 to 4.
`
`Figure 4. Change from baseline in assigned lubricating eyedrop u~· Mean
`value ::t standard error.
`
`groups. Statistically significant improvements from baseline were
`seen in these Schi rmer val ues within all treatment groups at all
`follow-up visits, but there were no significant among-group dif(cid:173)
`ferences.
`Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease. Of the subjective ocular
`symptoms monitored, the most notable changes were seen in
`blurred vision. At baseline, the mean score for blurred vision in the
`different treatment groups ranged between 1.83 and 2.04 (on a
`scale from 0 to 4 ), with no statistically significant differences
`among the groups. The decrease from baseline in blurred visio n
`was stati sticall y significa nt w ithin both CsA groups at all fol(cid:173)
`low-up visits (P s 0.0 12) but only at month 6 within the vehicle
`group (P = 0.039). Moreover, the improvement in blurred vision
`was signi fica ntly greater in the CsA 0.05% group than the vehicle
`group at all follow-up v isits (P s 0.0 14; Fig 3_).
`Statistically significant changes from baselme we re observed
`withjn all treatment groups at all time points in dryness (P <
`0.001 ), sandy/gri tty feeling (P < 0.001 ), and itching ( P s 0.038).
`Statistically significant improvements from baseline were seen in
`photophobia within both CsA groups at all follow-up visits (P s
`0.028) and within the vehicle group at months 3, 4, and 6 (P s
`0.023). Statistically significant improvements from baseline were
`also seen in burning and stinging within both CsA groups at
`months 4 and 6 (P s 0.024) and within the vehicle group at
`months 3, 4, and 6 (P s 0.0 19). There was also a statistically
`significant improvement from baseline in pain within the CsA
`0.1 % group at all follow-up visi ts (P s 0.0 12) and the C sA 0.05%
`group and vehicle group at mont

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket