Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2021 | Glaucoma | Original Research Article

Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2)

Authors: Jason Bacharach, Andrew Tatham, Gloria Ferguson, Sandra Belalcázar, Hagen Thieme, Margot L. Goodkin, Michelle Y. Chen, Qiang Guo, Jeen Liu, Michael R. Robinson, Marina Bejanian, David L. Wirta, the ARTEMIS 2 Study Group

Published in: Drugs | Issue 17/2021

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).

Methods

This randomized, 20-month, multicenter, masked, parallel-group, phase 3 trial enrolled 528 patients with OAG or OHT and an open iridocorneal angle inferiorly in the study eye. Study eyes were administered 10 or 15 µg bimatoprost implant on day 1, week 16, and week 32, or twice-daily topical timolol maleate 0.5%. Primary endpoints were IOP and IOP change from baseline through week 12. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and corneal endothelial cell density (CECD).

Results

Both 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint of noninferiority to timolol in IOP lowering through 12 weeks. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 6.2–7.4, 6.5–7.8, and 6.1–6.7 mmHg through week 12 in the 10 µg implant, 15 µg implant, and timolol groups, respectively. IOP lowering was similar after the second and third implant administrations. Probabilities of requiring no IOP-lowering treatment for 1 year after the third administration were 77.5% (10 µg implant) and 79.0% (15 µg implant). The most common TEAE was conjunctival hyperemia, typically temporally associated with the administration procedure. Corneal TEAEs of interest (primarily corneal endothelial cell loss, corneal edema, and corneal touch) were more frequent with the 15 than the 10 µg implant and generally were reported after repeated administrations. Loss in mean CECD from baseline to month 20 was ~ 5% in 10 µg implant-treated eyes and ~ 1% in topical timolol-treated eyes. Visual field progression (change in the mean deviation from baseline) was reduced in the 10 µg implant group compared with the timolol group.

Conclusions

The results corroborated the previous phase 3 study of the bimatoprost implant. The bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint and effectively lowered IOP. The majority of patients required no additional treatment for 12 months after the third administration. The benefit-risk assessment favored the 10 over the 15 µg implant. Studies evaluating other administration regimens with reduced risk of corneal events are ongoing. The bimatoprost implant has the potential to improve adherence and reduce treatment burden in glaucoma.

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

NCT02250651.

Available only for authorised users

Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.CrossRef

Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, Ackland P, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e1221–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30393-5.CrossRefPubMed

Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.081224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, Bron AM, Ritch R, Panda-Jonas S. Glaucoma. Lancet. 2017;390:2183–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31469-1.CrossRefPubMed

The AGIS Investigators. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00538-9.CrossRef

Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE, Janz NK, Wren PA, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1943–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00873-9.CrossRefPubMed

Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.6.701 (Discussion 829-30).CrossRefPubMed

Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–79. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268.CrossRefPubMed

De Moraes CG, Demirel S, Gardiner SK, Liebmann JM, Cioffi GA, Ritch R, et al. Effect of treatment on the rate of visual field change in the ocular hypertension treatment study observation group. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:1704–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8186.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Li T, Lindsley K, Rouse B, Hong H, Shi Q, Friedman DS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of first-line medications for primary open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:129–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Alm A, Grierson I, Shields MB. Side effects associated with prostaglandin analog therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(Suppl 1):S93-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sleath B, Blalock S, Covert D, Stone JL, Skinner AC, Muir K, et al. The relationship between glaucoma medication adherence, eye drop technique, and visual field defect severity. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2398–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.013.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Newman-Casey PA, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Janz NK, Lichter PR, Musch DC. The association between medication adherence and visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:477–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.022.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, Webers CA. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:953–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.035.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Newman-Casey PA, Robin AL, Blachley T, Farris K, Heisler M, Resnicow K, et al. The most common barriers to glaucoma medication adherence: a cross-sectional survey. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1308–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.026.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Yeaw J, Benner JS, Walt JG, Sian S, Smith DB. Comparing adherence and persistence across 6 chronic medication classes. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:728–40. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.9.728.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dreer LE, Girkin CA, Campbell L, Wood A, Gao L, Owsley C. Glaucoma medication adherence among African Americans: program development. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:883–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000000009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Mansouri K, Iliev ME, Rohrer K, Shaarawy T. Compliance and knowledge about glaucoma in patients at tertiary glaucoma units. Int Ophthalmol. 2011;31:369–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-011-9468-2.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Newman-Casey PA, Blachley T, Lee PP, Heisler M, Farris KB, Stein JD. Patterns of glaucoma medication adherence over four years of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2010–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.039.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Schwartz GF, Hollander DA, Williams JM. Evaluation of eye drop administration technique in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:1515–22. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2013.833898.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Zimmerman TJ, Hahn SR, Gelb L, Tan H, Kim EE. The impact of ocular adverse effects in patients treated with topical prostaglandin analogs: changes in prescription patterns and patient persistence. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009;25:145–52. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2008.0072.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lewis RA, Christie WC, Day DG, Craven ER, Walters T, Bejanian M, et al. Bimatoprost sustained-release implants for glaucoma therapy: 6-month results from a phase I/II clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;175:137–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.11.020.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Medeiros FA, Walters TR, Kolko M, Coote M, Bejanian M, Goodkin ML, et al. Phase 3, randomized, 20-month study of bimatoprost implant in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (ARTEMIS 1). Ophthalmology. 2020;127:1627–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.018.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lee SS, Hughes P, Ross AD, Robinson MR. Biodegradable implants for sustained drug release in the eye. Pharm Res. 2010;27:2043–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-010-0159-x.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Seal JR, Robinson MR, Burke J, Bejanian M, Coote M, Attar M. Intracameral sustained-release bimatoprost implant delivers bimatoprost to target tissues with reduced drug exposure to off-target tissues. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2019;35:50–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2018.0067.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Craven ER, Walters T, Christie WC, Day DG, Lewis RA, Goodkin ML, et al. 24-Month phase I/II clinical trial of bimatoprost sustained-release implant (Bimatoprost SR) in glaucoma patients. Drugs. 2020;80:167–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-019-01248-0.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lee SS, Dibas M, Almazan A, Robinson MR. Dose-response of intracameral bimatoprost sustained-release implant and topical bimatoprost in lowering intraocular pressure. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2019;35:138–44. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2018.0095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Weinreb RN, Robinson MR, Dibas M, Stamer WD. Matrix metalloproteinases and glaucoma treatment. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2020;36:208–28. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2019.0146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Lütjen-Drecoll E, Tamm E. Morphological study of the anterior segment of cynomolgus monkey eyes following treatment with prostaglandin F2 alpha. Exp Eye Res. 1988;47:761–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4835(88)90043-7.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kim JW, Lindsey JD, Wang N, Weinreb RN. Increased human scleral permeability with prostaglandin exposure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1514–21.PubMed

31.

Weinreb RN, Lindsey JD. Metalloproteinase gene transcription in human ciliary muscle cells with latanoprost. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:716–22.PubMed

32.

Richter M, Krauss AH, Woodward DF, Lutjen-Drecoll E. Morphological changes in the anterior eye segment after long-term treatment with different receptor selective prostaglandin agonists and a prostamide. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4419–26. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-1281.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Oh DJ, Martin JL, Williams AJ, Russell P, Birk DE, Rhee DJ. Effect of latanoprost on the expression of matrix metalloproteinases and their tissue inhibitors in human trabecular meshwork cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3887–95. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0036.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wan Z, Woodward DF, Cornell CL, Fliri HG, Martos JL, Pettit SN, et al. Bimatoprost, prostamide activity, and conventional drainage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:4107–15. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0080.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ooi YH, Oh DJ, Rhee DJ. Effect of bimatoprost, latanoprost, and unoprostone on matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in human ciliary body smooth muscle cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:5259–65. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.08-3356.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Yamada H, Yoneda M, Gosho M, Kato T, Zako M. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and tafluprost induce differential expression of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0202-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Aptel F, Aryal-Charles N, Giraud JM, El Chehab H, Delbarre M, Chiquet C, et al. Progression of visual field in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma—ProgF study 1. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:e615–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12788.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Heijl A, Buchholz P, Norrgren G, Bengtsson B. Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91:406–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02492.x.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Peters D, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Lifetime risk of blindness in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:724–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.027.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Susanna R Jr, De Moraes CG, Cioffi GA, Ritch R. Why do people (still) go blind from glaucoma? Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.4.2.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Yokoyama Y, Kawasaki R, Takahashi H, Maekawa S, Tsuda S, Omodaka K, et al. Effects of brimonidine and timolol on the progression of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma: a single-center randomized trial. J Glaucoma. 2019;28:575–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/ijg.0000000000001285.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Mansouri K, Weinreb RN. The structure and function relationship in glaucoma: implications for detection of progression and measurement of rates of change. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6939–46. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2)
Authors: Jason Bacharach
Andrew Tatham
Gloria Ferguson
Sandra Belalcázar
Hagen Thieme
Margot L. Goodkin
Michelle Y. Chen
Qiang Guo
Jeen Liu
Michael R. Robinson
Marina Bejanian
David L. Wirta
the ARTEMIS 2 Study Group
Publication date: 01-11-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Glaucoma
Timolol
Bimatoprost
Hypertension
Hypertension
Published in: Drugs / Issue 17/2021
Print ISSN: 0012-6667
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1950
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-021-01624-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 17/2021

Clinical Value of Emerging Bioanalytical Methods for Drug Measurements: A Scoping Review of Their Applicability for Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Vosoritide: First Approval

Correction to: Belumosudil: First Approval

Zimberelimab: First Approval

Casirivimab/Imdevimab: First Approval

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Combined with Antiplatelet Therapy in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease: An Updated Meta-analysis