- Email: [email protected]
Double-masked, Randomized, Dose–Response Study of AR-13324 versus Latanoprost in Patients with Elevated Intraocular Pressure
Double-masked, Randomized, DoseeResponse Study of AR-13324 versus Latanoprost in Patients with Elevated Intraocular Pressure Jason Bacharach, MD,1 Harvey B. Dubiner, MD,2 Brian Levy, OD, MS,3 Casey C. Kopczynski, PhD,3 Gary D. Novack, PhD,4 for the AR-13324-CS202 Study Group* Objective: AR-13324 is a small-molecule inhibitor of Rho kinase and a norepinephrine transporter. The objective of this 28-day study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Design: Double-masked, randomized study in 22 private practice ophthalmology clinics. Participants: Participants were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT with unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) in the range of 22 to 36 mmHg. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (PM), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (PM), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (PM) for 28 days. Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within the treatment group at day 28. Results: Randomized and treated were 224 patients, 213 (95.1%) of whom completed the study. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7 mmHg in the AR-13324 0.01%, 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg (P<0.001). The 5.7-mmHg reduction in IOP by AR-13324 0.02% did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The most frequently reported adverse event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52%, 57%, and 16%, respectively. On day 28 at 08:00 hours, the incidence of mild to moderate hyperemia by biomicroscopy was 18%, 24%, and 11%, respectively. Conclusions: AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs of 22 to 35 mmHg. The major safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost. Ophthalmology 2015;122:302-307 ª 2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. *Supplementary material is available at www.aaojournal.org.
Large, multicenter, prospective studies have shown that elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major risk factor for glaucomatous progression and that pharmacologically lowering IOP reduces the risk of glaucomatous progression in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) and open-angle glaucoma (OAG).1e4 The most commonly prescribed topical ocular medications for lowering IOP belong to 1 of 4 drug classes: prostaglandin analogs, b-blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and a-agonists. These drugs work primarily by increasing uveoscleral outflow and/or decreasing aqueous humor production. Although these medications have been shown to effectively lower elevated IOP, many patients with elevated IOP require co-administration of 2 glaucoma medications to achieve the desired IOP-lowering effect.5e7 Although second and third medications provide
302
2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Published by Elsevier Inc.
additional ocular hypotensive efficacy, they also can induce additional adverse events and introduce complexity to the treatment regimen. Given that increased resistance to aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork is the cause of elevated IOP in glaucoma, there may be some advantages to novel agents that increase trabecular outflow.8 Rho kinase inhibitors are currently being clinically evaluated as potential ocular hypotensive agents for the treatment of patients with OAG or OHT. A number of these agents have been shown to effectively reduce IOP in these patients (Kopczynski C, Lin C-W, Delong M, et al. IOPlowering efficacy and tolerability of AR-13324, a dual mechanism kinase inhibitor for the treatment of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:ARVO E-abstract 5080).9,10 Mechanism of action studies in animal models http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.022 ISSN 0161-6420/14
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
Table 1. Biomicroscopic Hyperemia Scale Used by Investigators Scale
Definition
None (0) Minimal (þ0.5)
Normal; appears white with a small number of conjunctival blood vessels easily observed Slightly noticeable pinkish-red color predominantly confined to the bulbar conjunctiva. The response may involve the entire bulbar conjunctiva or be confined to select sector(s) Prominent pinkish-red color of both the bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva; individual vessels more numerous and more engorged than “minimal” Bright scarlet red color of the bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva “Beefy red” with petechiaeddark red bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva with evidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage
Mild (þ1) Moderate (þ2) Severe (þ3)
indicate that Rho kinase inhibitors reduce IOP by increasing aqueous humor drainage through the trabecular meshwork (Kopczynski et al, 2012).9e11 AR-13324 is the first of a new class of ocular hypotensive compounds that inhibits both Rho kinase and the norepinephrine transporter. In both rabbit and monkey studies, AR-13324 produced large reductions in IOP (20% 25%) with a longer duration of action than reported for previously characterized Rho kinase inhibitors. Consistent with its inhibition of Rho kinase, AR-13324 seems to reduce IOP in part by increasing outflow facility (Kopczynski et al, 2012). In addition, AR-13324 seems to lower IOP by decreasing the production of aqueous humor.11 This latter activity may be related to the inhibition of norepinephrine transporter, although this relationship has not been directly demonstrated. In the first study of human patients with OAG or OHT, administration of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution, 0.01% to 0.04% daily (AM) for 7 days produced large reductions in IOP that were statistically and clinically significant. The IOP decreased steadily for 8 hours after dosing and lasted 24 hours. The 0.02% concentration of AR-13324 seemed to reach the top of the doseeresponse curve. The only safety finding of note was dose-related ocular hyperemia that declined in incidence and severity with repeated dosing (NCT01528787 clinicaltrial.gov; Weiss MJ, Levy B, Kopczynski C, et al. Evaluation of AR-13324, a novel dual mechanism agent, in lowering of IOP in glaucoma and OHT. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2013; 54:ARVO E-abstract 754). The objective of this study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of 2 concentrations of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in a 28-day study.
angles; laser peripheral iridotomy; previous glaucoma intraocular surgery, glaucoma laser procedures in study eye(s), refractive surgery in study eye(s), ocular trauma within the past 6 months, or ocular surgery or laser treatment within the 3 months before screening; evidence of ocular infection, inflammation, clinically significant blepharitis, or conjunctivitis at screening; a history of herpes simplex keratitis; or central corneal thickness >600 mm (related to tonometer accuracy). Individuals were also required to demonstrate correct eyedrop instillation (i.e., instilling 1 drop only without touching the tip of the dropper to the eye).12 We measured IOP with a calibrated Goldmann tonometer. Two consecutive measurements of IOP in each eye were obtained at each time point. If the 2 measurements differed by >2 mmHg, a third measurement was obtained. We analyzed IOP as the mean of 2 measurements or as the median of 3 measurements.13 Heart rate and blood pressure were measured at screening and throughout the study. After a complete dilated eye examination (including hyperemia, scored as described in Table 1), individuals using ocular hypotensive medications underwent a washout (Table 2).14 For randomization into the study, individuals were required to have an unmedicated IOP 24 mmHg at 2 eligibility visits (08:00 hours), 2 to 7 days apart, and 22 mmHg at 10:00 and 16:00 hours at the second qualification visit, with IOP <36 mmHg at each qualification visit. Patients were dispensed masked study medication and instructed to instill it daily in both eyes between 20:00 and 22:00 hours. Patients returned to the investigator’s office on days 7, 14, and 28, with diurnal examinations (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours) carried out on days 14 and 28. No ocular medication (other than nonmedicated lubricating drops) was allowed during the study. This study was approved by governing institutional review boards (Schulman Associates, Cincinnati, OH, and Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA) and all patients provided written informed consent consistent with standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. A priori, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within treatment group at day 28 with no endpoint substitution. The planned sample size of 65 to 70 study eyes per group gave 80% power to conclude noninferiority for each concentration of AR-13324 compared with latanoprost,
Methods In this double-masked, parallel comparison study, patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (PM), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (PM), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (PM) for 28 days. To be included in the study, the subjects were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT (based on IOP, visual fields, and optic nerve cupping) with corrected visual acuity of þ1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study criteria in each eye (20/200 Snellen). Because AR-13324 seems to act on the trabecular outflow pathway, we excluded patients with pseudoexfoliation or pigment dispersion glaucoma to avoid adding potentially confounding variables to this early stage study. Also excluded were patients with a history of angle closure or narrow
Table 2. Ocular Hypotensive Medication Washout Period Medication Class Prostaglandins b-Adrenoceptor antagonists Adrenergic agonists (including a-agonists such as brimonidine and apraclonidine) Muscarinic agonists (e.g., pilocarpine), carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (topical or oral)
Minimum Washout Period 4 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 5 days
From Hughes et al.14
303
Ophthalmology Volume 122, Number 2, February 2015
Figure 1. Disposition of patients with elevated intraocular pressure in the study of Rho kinase inhibitor AR-13324.
assuming a noninferiority limit of 1.5 mmHg, a common standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg (NCT01731002 clinicaltrial.gov) and using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference in IOP (AR-13324 - latanoprost). As a noninferiority study, the null hypothesis of at least a 1.5-mmHg difference between AR-13324 and latanoprost must be rejected to conclude noninferiority of AR13324 to latanoprost. All statistical output was produced with SAS Software, version 9.2 (SAS Inc, Cary, NC). Hypothesis testing, unless otherwise indicated, was performed at a 5% significance level. Based on a phase IIa study that suggested this class of compounds may lower IOP in a consistent fashion regardless of baseline IOP (Weiss et al, 2013), a prespecified subgroup analysis that stratified patients by baseline IOP (26 or >26 mmHg at all diurnal timepoints) was conducted. In this subgroup, assuming approximately 35 subjects in each treatment arm with baseline IOP 26 at all time points and a standard deviation of 2.5 mmHg, the study had 80% power to conclude noninferiority between each AR-13324 treatment arm and latanoprost, assuming a true difference in mean diurnal IOP at day 28 of 0 and using a 1-sided a value of 0.05.
Results Disposition and Demographics Between November 2012 and March 2013, 224 patients were randomized and treated; 213 (95.1%) completed the study. Of the 11 patients who did not complete the study (4, 4, and 3 in the AR13324 0.01%, AR-13324 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively), 4 were discontinued for adverse events, 3 for uncontrolled IOP, 1 for noncompliance, 1 for loss to follow-up, and 2 for other reasons (Fig 1). The safety population included all 224 randomized patients. Three subjects were excluded from the modified intent-totreat (mITT) population (1 each in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively) because they did not have time-specific posttreatment IOP measures, leaving 221 patients. Ten subjects were excluded from the per-protocol population for major violations of entry criteria (2, 3, and 5 each, respectively). leaving 211 patients. The demographics of the study population are shown in Table 3 (available at www.aaojournal.org). The population was 59% female (n ¼ 132) and had a mean age (standard deviation) of 65.111.3
304
years (range, 19e90 years). The proportion of patients 65 years of age was 56% (n ¼ 125). The population was 75% white (n ¼ 167), 23% black (n ¼ 52), and 2% Asian (n ¼ 4). Twenty-one percent of patients (n ¼ 46) self-identified as Hispanic. The most frequent iris color was brown/black (64%; n ¼ 143), followed by blue/grey/green (26%; n ¼ 59), and hazel (9%; n ¼ 21). There were no clinically or statistically significant differences among treatment groups. The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of OAG in the study eye was 60% (n ¼ 134) and with OHT was 40% (n ¼ 90). There were no clinically or statistically significant differences among treatment groups.
Efficacy Efficacy results for the mITT population are presented in Figures 2 and 3. Similar results were obtained for the per-protocol population. Mean unmedicated baseline diurnal IOP (average of all measurements on day 0 after washout and before study medication) was 25.8, 25.6, and 25.5 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P ¼ 0.805). On day 14, mean diurnal IOP decreased to 19.8, 19.5, and 18.4 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated
Figure 2. Mean standard error of the mean (SEM) diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) in the modified intent-to-treat population.
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
Figure 3. Mean standard error of the mean (SEM) change in intraocular pressure (mmHg, modified intent-to-treat population). mITT ¼ modified intent-to-treat.
baseline of 5.9, 6.2, and 7.1 mmHg. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg. These decreases from unmedicated baseline were significant (P<0.001). The differences from latanoprost in the change from baseline mean diurnal IOP for AR-13324 0.01% and AR-13324 0.02% were 1.2 and 0.9 mmHg at day 14 and 1.3 and 1.2 mmHg at day 28, respectively. The criterion for establishing noninferiority of AR-13324 to latanoprost was an upper 95% confidence limit of <1.5 mmHg for the difference between AR-13324 and latanoprost. The upper confidence limits for AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% were 2.3 and 2.2 mmHg at day 28, respectively; thus, AR-13324 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The ocular hypotensive effect in each group on day 28 was similar to the effect measured on day 7. At the 08:00 hours visit on day 7 (the only timepoint for day 7), the mean decrease in IOP was 5.5, 6.0, and 6.8 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively. At the 08:00 hours visit on day 28, the mean decease in IOP was 5.4, 5.9, and 7.6 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). The ocular hypotensive effect in each group persisted up to 60 hours after the final evening dosing on day 27. On day 29 at 08:00 hours (36 hours after the last dose), the mean decrease in IOP was 4.7, 5.2, and 5.2 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02%
AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively. On day 30 at 08:00 hours (60 hours after the last dose), the mean decrease in IOP was 3.3, 3.7, and 4.4 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). In a prespecified subset analysis of patients stratified by unmedicated baseline IOP, the efficacy of 0.02% AR-13324 in the lower baseline subgroup was statistically noninferior to latanoprost, with an upper 95% CI for the difference in mean diurnal IOP of <1.5 mmHg on day 28. Latanoprost and 0.02% AR-13324 were similarly effective at all timepoints in the subset of patients with baseline IOPs 26 mmHg (P > 0.30, analysis of covariance; Fig 4, producing decreases in mean diurnal IOP of 6.0 and 5.7 mmHg, respectively. Latanoprost was more effective than 0.02% AR-13324 in the subset of patients with baseline IOPs of >26 mmHg (P ¼ 0.043 to <0.001, analysis of covariance), producing decreases in mean diurnal IOP of 7.7 and 5.6 mmHg, respectively.
Safety Adverse events for the study population are shown in Table 4 (available at www.aaojournal.org). The most frequently reported drug-related event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52% (39/75), 57% (41/72), and 16% (12/77) in the AR-13324 0.01%, AR-13324 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). Also reported were increased lacrimation (5% [4/75], 7% [5/72]; combined incidence in AR-13324 groups of 6% [9/147] and 0 (0/77); P ¼ 0.051), subconjunctival hemorrhage (coded as conjunctival hemorrhage; 5% [4/75], 6% [4/72]; combined incidence of AR-13324 groups of 5% [8/147] and 0; P ¼ 0.084), and foreign body sensation (0%, 7% [5/72]; combined incidence in AR13324 groups of 3% [5/147] and 4% [3/77]; P ¼ 0.051), respectively. There were 3 serious adverse events, which were judged by the investigator to be not related to treatment: 1 patient with pneumonia (latanoprost), 1 patient with the flu and syncope (latanoprost), and 1 patient who died from leukemia (AR-13324 0.01%). A fourth patient became pregnant during the study and subsequently delivered a healthy baby (latanoprost). Biomicroscopic examinations conducted during daytime office visits produced a lower incidence of conjunctival hyperemia than recorded in the adverse event reports. On day 7, 08:00 hours (the first on-treatment visit), mild (þ1) or moderate (þ2) conjunctival hyperemia (Table 1) was seen in 28% (21/74) and 35% (25/72) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, in contrast with 4% (3/76) of patients in the latanoprost group. The incidence of conjunctival hyperemia decreased throughout the study for AR-13324 and increased for latanoprost. On day 28, 08:00 hours, conjunctival hyperemia (mild and moderate) was seen in 18% (13/71) and 24% (16/68) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, and in 11% (8/74) of patients in the latanoprost group. Severe (þ3) conjunctival hyperemia was reported in 1 patient in the AR-13324 0.02% group. At 16:00 hours on day 28, conjunctival hyperemia (mild and moderate) was seen in 11% (8/71) and 18% (12/68) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, and in 9% (7/74) of patients in the latanoprost group. There were no changes in heart rate or blood pressure.
Discussion
Figure 4. Mean standard error of the mean change (SEM) in intraocular pressure (mmHg): Subgroup with unmedicated baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) of 26 mmHg.
The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and tolerability of 2 concentrations of AR-13324 compared with latanoprost. In the mITT population, AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% dosed once daily in the evening produced large, statistically
305
Ophthalmology Volume 122, Number 2, February 2015 significant reductions in IOP ranging from 5.2 to 6.6 mmHg across the 7 on-treatment time points. Although there were no statistically significant differences, the 0.02% concentration was numerically more effective than the 0.01% concentration at 6 of the 7 on-treatment time points, suggesting that AR-13324 0.02% is slightly more effective than AR-13324 0.01%. AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost in mean diurnal IOP by approximately 1 mmHg. Although AR-13324 0.02% was less effective in ocular hypotensive efficacy than latanoprost by 1 mmHg in the mITT population, it showed similar efficacy to latanoprost in a prespecified patient subgroup that excluded patients with baseline IOPs of >26 mmHg. The effect of baseline IOP on the ocular hypotensive efficacy of latanoprost in this study is consistent with a previous study by Hedman and Alm,15 which pooled data from 3 latanoprost registration trials and demonstrated that the ocular hypotensive efficacy of latanoprost and timolol are reduced by approximately 0.5 mmHg for every 1-mmHg-lower baseline IOP. The most frequent adverse event seen with AR-13324 treatment was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, consistent with the known vasodilatory activity of Rho kinase inhibitors.16 Although conjunctival hyperemia was seen in more than half of the patients treated with AR-13324, its vasodilatory activity was transient, as evidenced by the lower incidence of conjunctival hyperemia as scored by biomicroscopic examination in the morning relative to the incidence of hyperemia in the adverse event reports, which included patient-reported eye redness after dosing in the evening. The biomicroscopy examinations also revealed that the incidence of hyperemia decreased throughout the study for AR-13324. By the first morning visit on day 28, the incidences of mild to moderate conjunctival hyperemia were 18% and 24% in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, compared with 11% in the latanoprost group. Also, only 2 of 147 patients treated with AR-13324 were discontinued because of adverse events of the ocular surface. Although it did not attain statistical significance, the incidence of increased lacrimation in the AR-13324 treatment groups (5%e7%) was greater than in the latanoprost group, in which there were no reports. The incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage was also greater in the AR13324 treatment groups (5%e6%) than in the latanoprost group, in which there were no reports. For the most part, adverse events were of mild severity. There were no changes of note in visual acuity or any other ocular or systemic safety measure. The 3 serious adverse events were judged by the investigators as not related to the treatment. It is difficult to envision that these serious adverse events might be related to treatment based on the drug’s mechanism of action; however, this can only be assessed in much larger studies. In this 28-day study, none of the adverse events associated with chronic latanoprost therapy (e.g., eyelash growth, iris pigmentation changes, lid sulcus changes) were observed, presumably because of the short duration of the study. No drug-related systemic safety issues were noted. This study has limitations. The 28-day duration of the study does not provide information on the long-term efficacy of AR-13324. In addition, the study does not provide
306
information on AR-13324 efficacy in patients with a corneal thickness of >600 mm or in patients with forms of glaucomatous disease other than OAG. In conclusion, AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% dosed daily (PM) produced large clinically and statistically significant reductions in IOP, with 0.02% producing slightly larger IOP reductions. AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs in the range of 22 to 35 mmHg. The main safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost. Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Swetha Mandava (an employee of Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedminster, NJ) for clinical operations.
References 1. AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429–40. 2. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268–79. 3. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120: 701–13. 4. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al; CIGTS Study Group. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1943–53. 5. Toris CB, Gleason ML, Camras CB, Yablonski ME. Effects of brimonidine on aqueous humor dynamics in human eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1514–7. 6. Kass MA, Gordon MO, Gao F, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Delaying treatment of ocular hypertension: the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:276–87. 7. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, et al; CIGTS Study Group. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1954–65. 8. Brubaker RF. Targeting outflow facility in glaucoma management. Survey Ophthalmol 2003;48(suppl):S17–20. 9. Novack GD. Rho kinase inhibitors for the treatment of glaucoma. Drugs Future 2013;38:107–13. 10. Williams RD, Novack GD, van Haarlem T, Kopczynski C. AR-12286 Phase 2A Study Group. Ocular hypotensive effect of the Rho kinase inhibitor AR-12286 in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152: 834–41. 11. Wang RF, Williamson JE, Kopczynski C, Serle JB. Effect of 0.04% AR-13324, a ROCK and norepinephrine transporter inhibitor, on aqueous humor dynamics in normotensive monkey eyes [report online]. J Glaucoma. Available at: www.journals. lww.com/glaucomajournal/Abstract/publishahead/Effect_ of_0_04__AR_13324_a_ROCK,_and.99367.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2014.
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
12. Stone JL, Robin AL, Novack GD, et al. An objective evaluation of eye-drop instillation in glaucoma patients. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:732–6. 13. Sherwood MB, Craven ER, Chou C, et al. Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed-combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1230–8. 14. Hughes BA, Bacharach J, Craven ER, et al. A three-month, multicenter, double-masked study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution
compared to travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 2005;14:392–9. 15. Hedman K, Alm A. A pooled-data analysis of three randomized, double-masked, six-month clinical studies comparing the intraocular pressure reducing effect of latanoprost and timolol. Eur J Ophthalmol 2000;10:95–104. 16. Watabe H, Abe S, Yoshitomi T. Effects of Rho-associated protein kinase inhibitors Y-27632 and Y-39983 on isolated rabbit ciliary arteries. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2011;55:411–7.
Footnotes and Financial Disclosures Originally received: May 1, 2014. Final revision: August 8, 2014. Accepted: August 13, 2014. Available online: September 27, 2014.
H.D.: Contractor e Aerie; Consultant e Alcon; Financial support e Alcon, Allergan, B&L, Innotek, Glaukos, Foresight; Support e Alcon. Manuscript no. 2014-667.
1
North Bay Eye Associates, Sonoma County, California.
2
Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, Georgia.
3
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedminster, New Jersey, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
4
PharmaLogic Development, Inc, San Rafael, California. Presented at: The American Glaucoma Society meeting in Washington, DC, March 2014; and the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, May 2014.
*The clinical investigators are listed in Appendix 1 (available at www. aaojournal.org). Financial Disclosure(s): Sponsored by Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Bedminster, NJ, and Research Triangle Park, NC).
B.L.: Employee, Stockholder e Aerie. C.K.: Employee, Stockholder e Aerie. G.N.: Consultant e Aerie, Acucela, Altheos, Amakem, Aquesys, Glaukos, High Point Pharma, Liquidia Technologies, Mati Therapeutics, Nanyang Technical University, Ono Pharma USA, Peregrine Ophthalmics, Sylentis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Trial Registration: This study is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov as study NCT01731002. Abbreviations and Acronyms: IOP ¼ intraocular pressure; mITT ¼ modified intent to treat; OAG ¼ open-angle glaucoma; OHT ¼ ocular hypertension. Correspondence: Gary D. Novack, PhD, PharmaLogic Development, Inc, 17 Bridgegate Drive, San Rafael CA 94903. E-mail: [email protected].
The authors have made the following disclosures: J.B.: Contractor e Aerie; Consultant e Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Lumenis, Sucampo; Nonremunerative relationship e Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Altheos, Glaukos, Mati; Stockholder e Glaukos.
307
Large, multicenter, prospective studies have shown that elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major risk factor for glaucomatous progression and that pharmacologically lowering IOP reduces the risk of glaucomatous progression in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) and open-angle glaucoma (OAG).1e4 The most commonly prescribed topical ocular medications for lowering IOP belong to 1 of 4 drug classes: prostaglandin analogs, b-blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and a-agonists. These drugs work primarily by increasing uveoscleral outflow and/or decreasing aqueous humor production. Although these medications have been shown to effectively lower elevated IOP, many patients with elevated IOP require co-administration of 2 glaucoma medications to achieve the desired IOP-lowering effect.5e7 Although second and third medications provide
302
2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Published by Elsevier Inc.
additional ocular hypotensive efficacy, they also can induce additional adverse events and introduce complexity to the treatment regimen. Given that increased resistance to aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork is the cause of elevated IOP in glaucoma, there may be some advantages to novel agents that increase trabecular outflow.8 Rho kinase inhibitors are currently being clinically evaluated as potential ocular hypotensive agents for the treatment of patients with OAG or OHT. A number of these agents have been shown to effectively reduce IOP in these patients (Kopczynski C, Lin C-W, Delong M, et al. IOPlowering efficacy and tolerability of AR-13324, a dual mechanism kinase inhibitor for the treatment of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:ARVO E-abstract 5080).9,10 Mechanism of action studies in animal models http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.022 ISSN 0161-6420/14
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
Table 1. Biomicroscopic Hyperemia Scale Used by Investigators Scale
Definition
None (0) Minimal (þ0.5)
Normal; appears white with a small number of conjunctival blood vessels easily observed Slightly noticeable pinkish-red color predominantly confined to the bulbar conjunctiva. The response may involve the entire bulbar conjunctiva or be confined to select sector(s) Prominent pinkish-red color of both the bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva; individual vessels more numerous and more engorged than “minimal” Bright scarlet red color of the bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva “Beefy red” with petechiaeddark red bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva with evidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage
Mild (þ1) Moderate (þ2) Severe (þ3)
indicate that Rho kinase inhibitors reduce IOP by increasing aqueous humor drainage through the trabecular meshwork (Kopczynski et al, 2012).9e11 AR-13324 is the first of a new class of ocular hypotensive compounds that inhibits both Rho kinase and the norepinephrine transporter. In both rabbit and monkey studies, AR-13324 produced large reductions in IOP (20% 25%) with a longer duration of action than reported for previously characterized Rho kinase inhibitors. Consistent with its inhibition of Rho kinase, AR-13324 seems to reduce IOP in part by increasing outflow facility (Kopczynski et al, 2012). In addition, AR-13324 seems to lower IOP by decreasing the production of aqueous humor.11 This latter activity may be related to the inhibition of norepinephrine transporter, although this relationship has not been directly demonstrated. In the first study of human patients with OAG or OHT, administration of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution, 0.01% to 0.04% daily (AM) for 7 days produced large reductions in IOP that were statistically and clinically significant. The IOP decreased steadily for 8 hours after dosing and lasted 24 hours. The 0.02% concentration of AR-13324 seemed to reach the top of the doseeresponse curve. The only safety finding of note was dose-related ocular hyperemia that declined in incidence and severity with repeated dosing (NCT01528787 clinicaltrial.gov; Weiss MJ, Levy B, Kopczynski C, et al. Evaluation of AR-13324, a novel dual mechanism agent, in lowering of IOP in glaucoma and OHT. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2013; 54:ARVO E-abstract 754). The objective of this study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of 2 concentrations of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in a 28-day study.
angles; laser peripheral iridotomy; previous glaucoma intraocular surgery, glaucoma laser procedures in study eye(s), refractive surgery in study eye(s), ocular trauma within the past 6 months, or ocular surgery or laser treatment within the 3 months before screening; evidence of ocular infection, inflammation, clinically significant blepharitis, or conjunctivitis at screening; a history of herpes simplex keratitis; or central corneal thickness >600 mm (related to tonometer accuracy). Individuals were also required to demonstrate correct eyedrop instillation (i.e., instilling 1 drop only without touching the tip of the dropper to the eye).12 We measured IOP with a calibrated Goldmann tonometer. Two consecutive measurements of IOP in each eye were obtained at each time point. If the 2 measurements differed by >2 mmHg, a third measurement was obtained. We analyzed IOP as the mean of 2 measurements or as the median of 3 measurements.13 Heart rate and blood pressure were measured at screening and throughout the study. After a complete dilated eye examination (including hyperemia, scored as described in Table 1), individuals using ocular hypotensive medications underwent a washout (Table 2).14 For randomization into the study, individuals were required to have an unmedicated IOP 24 mmHg at 2 eligibility visits (08:00 hours), 2 to 7 days apart, and 22 mmHg at 10:00 and 16:00 hours at the second qualification visit, with IOP <36 mmHg at each qualification visit. Patients were dispensed masked study medication and instructed to instill it daily in both eyes between 20:00 and 22:00 hours. Patients returned to the investigator’s office on days 7, 14, and 28, with diurnal examinations (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours) carried out on days 14 and 28. No ocular medication (other than nonmedicated lubricating drops) was allowed during the study. This study was approved by governing institutional review boards (Schulman Associates, Cincinnati, OH, and Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA) and all patients provided written informed consent consistent with standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. A priori, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within treatment group at day 28 with no endpoint substitution. The planned sample size of 65 to 70 study eyes per group gave 80% power to conclude noninferiority for each concentration of AR-13324 compared with latanoprost,
Methods In this double-masked, parallel comparison study, patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (PM), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (PM), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (PM) for 28 days. To be included in the study, the subjects were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT (based on IOP, visual fields, and optic nerve cupping) with corrected visual acuity of þ1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study criteria in each eye (20/200 Snellen). Because AR-13324 seems to act on the trabecular outflow pathway, we excluded patients with pseudoexfoliation or pigment dispersion glaucoma to avoid adding potentially confounding variables to this early stage study. Also excluded were patients with a history of angle closure or narrow
Table 2. Ocular Hypotensive Medication Washout Period Medication Class Prostaglandins b-Adrenoceptor antagonists Adrenergic agonists (including a-agonists such as brimonidine and apraclonidine) Muscarinic agonists (e.g., pilocarpine), carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (topical or oral)
Minimum Washout Period 4 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 5 days
From Hughes et al.14
303
Ophthalmology Volume 122, Number 2, February 2015
Figure 1. Disposition of patients with elevated intraocular pressure in the study of Rho kinase inhibitor AR-13324.
assuming a noninferiority limit of 1.5 mmHg, a common standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg (NCT01731002 clinicaltrial.gov) and using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference in IOP (AR-13324 - latanoprost). As a noninferiority study, the null hypothesis of at least a 1.5-mmHg difference between AR-13324 and latanoprost must be rejected to conclude noninferiority of AR13324 to latanoprost. All statistical output was produced with SAS Software, version 9.2 (SAS Inc, Cary, NC). Hypothesis testing, unless otherwise indicated, was performed at a 5% significance level. Based on a phase IIa study that suggested this class of compounds may lower IOP in a consistent fashion regardless of baseline IOP (Weiss et al, 2013), a prespecified subgroup analysis that stratified patients by baseline IOP (26 or >26 mmHg at all diurnal timepoints) was conducted. In this subgroup, assuming approximately 35 subjects in each treatment arm with baseline IOP 26 at all time points and a standard deviation of 2.5 mmHg, the study had 80% power to conclude noninferiority between each AR-13324 treatment arm and latanoprost, assuming a true difference in mean diurnal IOP at day 28 of 0 and using a 1-sided a value of 0.05.
Results Disposition and Demographics Between November 2012 and March 2013, 224 patients were randomized and treated; 213 (95.1%) completed the study. Of the 11 patients who did not complete the study (4, 4, and 3 in the AR13324 0.01%, AR-13324 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively), 4 were discontinued for adverse events, 3 for uncontrolled IOP, 1 for noncompliance, 1 for loss to follow-up, and 2 for other reasons (Fig 1). The safety population included all 224 randomized patients. Three subjects were excluded from the modified intent-totreat (mITT) population (1 each in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively) because they did not have time-specific posttreatment IOP measures, leaving 221 patients. Ten subjects were excluded from the per-protocol population for major violations of entry criteria (2, 3, and 5 each, respectively). leaving 211 patients. The demographics of the study population are shown in Table 3 (available at www.aaojournal.org). The population was 59% female (n ¼ 132) and had a mean age (standard deviation) of 65.111.3
304
years (range, 19e90 years). The proportion of patients 65 years of age was 56% (n ¼ 125). The population was 75% white (n ¼ 167), 23% black (n ¼ 52), and 2% Asian (n ¼ 4). Twenty-one percent of patients (n ¼ 46) self-identified as Hispanic. The most frequent iris color was brown/black (64%; n ¼ 143), followed by blue/grey/green (26%; n ¼ 59), and hazel (9%; n ¼ 21). There were no clinically or statistically significant differences among treatment groups. The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of OAG in the study eye was 60% (n ¼ 134) and with OHT was 40% (n ¼ 90). There were no clinically or statistically significant differences among treatment groups.
Efficacy Efficacy results for the mITT population are presented in Figures 2 and 3. Similar results were obtained for the per-protocol population. Mean unmedicated baseline diurnal IOP (average of all measurements on day 0 after washout and before study medication) was 25.8, 25.6, and 25.5 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P ¼ 0.805). On day 14, mean diurnal IOP decreased to 19.8, 19.5, and 18.4 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated
Figure 2. Mean standard error of the mean (SEM) diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) in the modified intent-to-treat population.
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
Figure 3. Mean standard error of the mean (SEM) change in intraocular pressure (mmHg, modified intent-to-treat population). mITT ¼ modified intent-to-treat.
baseline of 5.9, 6.2, and 7.1 mmHg. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg. These decreases from unmedicated baseline were significant (P<0.001). The differences from latanoprost in the change from baseline mean diurnal IOP for AR-13324 0.01% and AR-13324 0.02% were 1.2 and 0.9 mmHg at day 14 and 1.3 and 1.2 mmHg at day 28, respectively. The criterion for establishing noninferiority of AR-13324 to latanoprost was an upper 95% confidence limit of <1.5 mmHg for the difference between AR-13324 and latanoprost. The upper confidence limits for AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% were 2.3 and 2.2 mmHg at day 28, respectively; thus, AR-13324 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The ocular hypotensive effect in each group on day 28 was similar to the effect measured on day 7. At the 08:00 hours visit on day 7 (the only timepoint for day 7), the mean decrease in IOP was 5.5, 6.0, and 6.8 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively. At the 08:00 hours visit on day 28, the mean decease in IOP was 5.4, 5.9, and 7.6 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). The ocular hypotensive effect in each group persisted up to 60 hours after the final evening dosing on day 27. On day 29 at 08:00 hours (36 hours after the last dose), the mean decrease in IOP was 4.7, 5.2, and 5.2 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02%
AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively. On day 30 at 08:00 hours (60 hours after the last dose), the mean decrease in IOP was 3.3, 3.7, and 4.4 mmHg in the 0.01% AR-13324, 0.02% AR-13324, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). In a prespecified subset analysis of patients stratified by unmedicated baseline IOP, the efficacy of 0.02% AR-13324 in the lower baseline subgroup was statistically noninferior to latanoprost, with an upper 95% CI for the difference in mean diurnal IOP of <1.5 mmHg on day 28. Latanoprost and 0.02% AR-13324 were similarly effective at all timepoints in the subset of patients with baseline IOPs 26 mmHg (P > 0.30, analysis of covariance; Fig 4, producing decreases in mean diurnal IOP of 6.0 and 5.7 mmHg, respectively. Latanoprost was more effective than 0.02% AR-13324 in the subset of patients with baseline IOPs of >26 mmHg (P ¼ 0.043 to <0.001, analysis of covariance), producing decreases in mean diurnal IOP of 7.7 and 5.6 mmHg, respectively.
Safety Adverse events for the study population are shown in Table 4 (available at www.aaojournal.org). The most frequently reported drug-related event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52% (39/75), 57% (41/72), and 16% (12/77) in the AR-13324 0.01%, AR-13324 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively (P<0.001). Also reported were increased lacrimation (5% [4/75], 7% [5/72]; combined incidence in AR-13324 groups of 6% [9/147] and 0 (0/77); P ¼ 0.051), subconjunctival hemorrhage (coded as conjunctival hemorrhage; 5% [4/75], 6% [4/72]; combined incidence of AR-13324 groups of 5% [8/147] and 0; P ¼ 0.084), and foreign body sensation (0%, 7% [5/72]; combined incidence in AR13324 groups of 3% [5/147] and 4% [3/77]; P ¼ 0.051), respectively. There were 3 serious adverse events, which were judged by the investigator to be not related to treatment: 1 patient with pneumonia (latanoprost), 1 patient with the flu and syncope (latanoprost), and 1 patient who died from leukemia (AR-13324 0.01%). A fourth patient became pregnant during the study and subsequently delivered a healthy baby (latanoprost). Biomicroscopic examinations conducted during daytime office visits produced a lower incidence of conjunctival hyperemia than recorded in the adverse event reports. On day 7, 08:00 hours (the first on-treatment visit), mild (þ1) or moderate (þ2) conjunctival hyperemia (Table 1) was seen in 28% (21/74) and 35% (25/72) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, in contrast with 4% (3/76) of patients in the latanoprost group. The incidence of conjunctival hyperemia decreased throughout the study for AR-13324 and increased for latanoprost. On day 28, 08:00 hours, conjunctival hyperemia (mild and moderate) was seen in 18% (13/71) and 24% (16/68) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, and in 11% (8/74) of patients in the latanoprost group. Severe (þ3) conjunctival hyperemia was reported in 1 patient in the AR-13324 0.02% group. At 16:00 hours on day 28, conjunctival hyperemia (mild and moderate) was seen in 11% (8/71) and 18% (12/68) of patients in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, and in 9% (7/74) of patients in the latanoprost group. There were no changes in heart rate or blood pressure.
Discussion
Figure 4. Mean standard error of the mean change (SEM) in intraocular pressure (mmHg): Subgroup with unmedicated baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) of 26 mmHg.
The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and tolerability of 2 concentrations of AR-13324 compared with latanoprost. In the mITT population, AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% dosed once daily in the evening produced large, statistically
305
Ophthalmology Volume 122, Number 2, February 2015 significant reductions in IOP ranging from 5.2 to 6.6 mmHg across the 7 on-treatment time points. Although there were no statistically significant differences, the 0.02% concentration was numerically more effective than the 0.01% concentration at 6 of the 7 on-treatment time points, suggesting that AR-13324 0.02% is slightly more effective than AR-13324 0.01%. AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost in mean diurnal IOP by approximately 1 mmHg. Although AR-13324 0.02% was less effective in ocular hypotensive efficacy than latanoprost by 1 mmHg in the mITT population, it showed similar efficacy to latanoprost in a prespecified patient subgroup that excluded patients with baseline IOPs of >26 mmHg. The effect of baseline IOP on the ocular hypotensive efficacy of latanoprost in this study is consistent with a previous study by Hedman and Alm,15 which pooled data from 3 latanoprost registration trials and demonstrated that the ocular hypotensive efficacy of latanoprost and timolol are reduced by approximately 0.5 mmHg for every 1-mmHg-lower baseline IOP. The most frequent adverse event seen with AR-13324 treatment was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, consistent with the known vasodilatory activity of Rho kinase inhibitors.16 Although conjunctival hyperemia was seen in more than half of the patients treated with AR-13324, its vasodilatory activity was transient, as evidenced by the lower incidence of conjunctival hyperemia as scored by biomicroscopic examination in the morning relative to the incidence of hyperemia in the adverse event reports, which included patient-reported eye redness after dosing in the evening. The biomicroscopy examinations also revealed that the incidence of hyperemia decreased throughout the study for AR-13324. By the first morning visit on day 28, the incidences of mild to moderate conjunctival hyperemia were 18% and 24% in the AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% treatment groups, respectively, compared with 11% in the latanoprost group. Also, only 2 of 147 patients treated with AR-13324 were discontinued because of adverse events of the ocular surface. Although it did not attain statistical significance, the incidence of increased lacrimation in the AR-13324 treatment groups (5%e7%) was greater than in the latanoprost group, in which there were no reports. The incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage was also greater in the AR13324 treatment groups (5%e6%) than in the latanoprost group, in which there were no reports. For the most part, adverse events were of mild severity. There were no changes of note in visual acuity or any other ocular or systemic safety measure. The 3 serious adverse events were judged by the investigators as not related to the treatment. It is difficult to envision that these serious adverse events might be related to treatment based on the drug’s mechanism of action; however, this can only be assessed in much larger studies. In this 28-day study, none of the adverse events associated with chronic latanoprost therapy (e.g., eyelash growth, iris pigmentation changes, lid sulcus changes) were observed, presumably because of the short duration of the study. No drug-related systemic safety issues were noted. This study has limitations. The 28-day duration of the study does not provide information on the long-term efficacy of AR-13324. In addition, the study does not provide
306
information on AR-13324 efficacy in patients with a corneal thickness of >600 mm or in patients with forms of glaucomatous disease other than OAG. In conclusion, AR-13324 0.01% and 0.02% dosed daily (PM) produced large clinically and statistically significant reductions in IOP, with 0.02% producing slightly larger IOP reductions. AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs in the range of 22 to 35 mmHg. The main safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost. Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Swetha Mandava (an employee of Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedminster, NJ) for clinical operations.
References 1. AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429–40. 2. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268–79. 3. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120: 701–13. 4. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al; CIGTS Study Group. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1943–53. 5. Toris CB, Gleason ML, Camras CB, Yablonski ME. Effects of brimonidine on aqueous humor dynamics in human eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1514–7. 6. Kass MA, Gordon MO, Gao F, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Delaying treatment of ocular hypertension: the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:276–87. 7. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, et al; CIGTS Study Group. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1954–65. 8. Brubaker RF. Targeting outflow facility in glaucoma management. Survey Ophthalmol 2003;48(suppl):S17–20. 9. Novack GD. Rho kinase inhibitors for the treatment of glaucoma. Drugs Future 2013;38:107–13. 10. Williams RD, Novack GD, van Haarlem T, Kopczynski C. AR-12286 Phase 2A Study Group. Ocular hypotensive effect of the Rho kinase inhibitor AR-12286 in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152: 834–41. 11. Wang RF, Williamson JE, Kopczynski C, Serle JB. Effect of 0.04% AR-13324, a ROCK and norepinephrine transporter inhibitor, on aqueous humor dynamics in normotensive monkey eyes [report online]. J Glaucoma. Available at: www.journals. lww.com/glaucomajournal/Abstract/publishahead/Effect_ of_0_04__AR_13324_a_ROCK,_and.99367.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2014.
Bacharach et al
AR-13324 Phase 2b Study
12. Stone JL, Robin AL, Novack GD, et al. An objective evaluation of eye-drop instillation in glaucoma patients. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:732–6. 13. Sherwood MB, Craven ER, Chou C, et al. Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed-combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1230–8. 14. Hughes BA, Bacharach J, Craven ER, et al. A three-month, multicenter, double-masked study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution
compared to travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 2005;14:392–9. 15. Hedman K, Alm A. A pooled-data analysis of three randomized, double-masked, six-month clinical studies comparing the intraocular pressure reducing effect of latanoprost and timolol. Eur J Ophthalmol 2000;10:95–104. 16. Watabe H, Abe S, Yoshitomi T. Effects of Rho-associated protein kinase inhibitors Y-27632 and Y-39983 on isolated rabbit ciliary arteries. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2011;55:411–7.
Footnotes and Financial Disclosures Originally received: May 1, 2014. Final revision: August 8, 2014. Accepted: August 13, 2014. Available online: September 27, 2014.
H.D.: Contractor e Aerie; Consultant e Alcon; Financial support e Alcon, Allergan, B&L, Innotek, Glaukos, Foresight; Support e Alcon. Manuscript no. 2014-667.
1
North Bay Eye Associates, Sonoma County, California.
2
Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, Georgia.
3
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedminster, New Jersey, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
4
PharmaLogic Development, Inc, San Rafael, California. Presented at: The American Glaucoma Society meeting in Washington, DC, March 2014; and the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, May 2014.
*The clinical investigators are listed in Appendix 1 (available at www. aaojournal.org). Financial Disclosure(s): Sponsored by Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Bedminster, NJ, and Research Triangle Park, NC).
B.L.: Employee, Stockholder e Aerie. C.K.: Employee, Stockholder e Aerie. G.N.: Consultant e Aerie, Acucela, Altheos, Amakem, Aquesys, Glaukos, High Point Pharma, Liquidia Technologies, Mati Therapeutics, Nanyang Technical University, Ono Pharma USA, Peregrine Ophthalmics, Sylentis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Trial Registration: This study is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov as study NCT01731002. Abbreviations and Acronyms: IOP ¼ intraocular pressure; mITT ¼ modified intent to treat; OAG ¼ open-angle glaucoma; OHT ¼ ocular hypertension. Correspondence: Gary D. Novack, PhD, PharmaLogic Development, Inc, 17 Bridgegate Drive, San Rafael CA 94903. E-mail: [email protected].
The authors have made the following disclosures: J.B.: Contractor e Aerie; Consultant e Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Lumenis, Sucampo; Nonremunerative relationship e Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Altheos, Glaukos, Mati; Stockholder e Glaukos.
307