Cargando…

Does Dry Eye Disease Severity Impact Efficacy of Varenicline Solution Nasal Spray on Sign and Symptom Treatment Outcomes?

There is a clinical necessity for dry eye disease treatments that perform across a broad range of presenting patient severities. Varenicline solution nasal spray (VNS), a unique cholinergic agonist ocular surface–sparing nasal spray therapy, demonstrated significant improvement in both signs and sym...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sheppard, John D., O'Dell, Leslie E., Karpecki, Paul M., Raizman, Michael B., Whitley, Walter O., Blemker, Gretchen, Hemphill, Mandy, Hendrix, Laura H., Gibson, Andrea, Macsai, Marian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9970014/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36728653
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001986
Descripción
Sumario:There is a clinical necessity for dry eye disease treatments that perform across a broad range of presenting patient severities. Varenicline solution nasal spray (VNS), a unique cholinergic agonist ocular surface–sparing nasal spray therapy, demonstrated significant improvement in both signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe symptoms as the clinical studies enrolled a more real-world patient population. PURPOSE: This study evaluated efficacy outcomes for VNS in patients with mild-moderate and severe dry eye disease. METHODS: An analysis of integrated data from two randomized clinical trials, ONSET-1 (NCT03636061) and ONSET-2 (NCT04036292) (vehicle control [VC], n = 294; VNS 0.03 mg, n = 308), was performed. Adults 22 years or older with dry eye disease, Ocular Surface Disease Index score of ≥23, corneal fluorescein staining score of ≥2 in ≥1 regions/≥4 all regions, and Schirmer Test Score (STS) of ≤10 mm (no restrictions on Eye Dryness Score [EDS]) were included in this study. Efficacy was evaluated using analysis of covariance among pre-specified subgroups of mild-moderate and severe baseline disease severity defined by STS (≤5 vs. >5) and EDS (<60 vs. ≥60). Consistency of effect was evaluated by interaction tests. RESULTS: No treatment-subgroup interactions were observed for all end points (P > .05). The odds of achieving a ≥10-mm improvement in STS for VNS versus VC for patients with baseline STS ≤5 and >5 were 3.4(95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 5.6) and 2.3(1.3 to 4.0) and for EDS of <60 and ≥60 were 3.4(1.9 to 6.1) and 2.5(1.5 to 4.0). Least-squares mean treatment/VC differences in change from baseline in EDS for patients with baseline STS ≤5 or >5 were −7.4(95% confidence interval, −12.5 to −2.4) and −2.8(−8.7 to 3.1); EDS of <60 and ≥60 were −2.9(−8.3 to 2.5) and −8.1(−13.6 to −2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with VC, VNS improved tear production and patient-reported symptoms in patients with dry eye disease, demonstrating consistency of effect regardless of initial presenting severity.