We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of loteprednol 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% in the treatment of blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.
Current Medical Research and Opinion 2008 January
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T; Zylet) with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T; Tobradex) in the treatment of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group study. Subjects with clinically diagnosed blepharokeratocon-junctivitis in at least one eye were randomized to LE/T (n = 138) or DM/T (n = 138) administered four times per day, for 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to Day 15 (+/- 1 day) in the signs and symptoms composite score using a non-inferiority metric to compare LE/T to DM/T. Safety endpoints included visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP) assessments, and adverse events.
RESULTS: At Day 15, the mean (SD) change from baseline in the signs and symptoms composite score was -15.2 (7.3) for LE/T-treated subjects and -15.6 (7.7) for DM/T-treated subjects. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in change from baseline was less than the non-inferiority margin not only at Day 15 but also at Day 7 and Day 3 for both the intent-to-treat and per protocol populations. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced a significant increase in IOP versus those treated with LE/T at Day 7, Day 15, and overall (mean [SD] of 0.6 [2.3] vs, -0.1 [2.2], p = 0.03, 1.0 [3.0] vs. -0.1 [2.4], p = 0.01, and 2.3 [2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.7], p = 0.02, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: LE/T satisfied the condition of non-inferiority to DM/T in decreasing the signs and symptoms of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced more of an increase in IOP.
LIMITATION: Although the single-masked design of this study could be considered a limitation, care was taken to ensure that the investigator was masked.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group study. Subjects with clinically diagnosed blepharokeratocon-junctivitis in at least one eye were randomized to LE/T (n = 138) or DM/T (n = 138) administered four times per day, for 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to Day 15 (+/- 1 day) in the signs and symptoms composite score using a non-inferiority metric to compare LE/T to DM/T. Safety endpoints included visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP) assessments, and adverse events.
RESULTS: At Day 15, the mean (SD) change from baseline in the signs and symptoms composite score was -15.2 (7.3) for LE/T-treated subjects and -15.6 (7.7) for DM/T-treated subjects. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in change from baseline was less than the non-inferiority margin not only at Day 15 but also at Day 7 and Day 3 for both the intent-to-treat and per protocol populations. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced a significant increase in IOP versus those treated with LE/T at Day 7, Day 15, and overall (mean [SD] of 0.6 [2.3] vs, -0.1 [2.2], p = 0.03, 1.0 [3.0] vs. -0.1 [2.4], p = 0.01, and 2.3 [2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.7], p = 0.02, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: LE/T satisfied the condition of non-inferiority to DM/T in decreasing the signs and symptoms of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced more of an increase in IOP.
LIMITATION: Although the single-masked design of this study could be considered a limitation, care was taken to ensure that the investigator was masked.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app