Abstract :
PURPOE: To compare the afety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% ophthalmic upenion with predniolone acetate 1.0% ophthalmic upenion in reducing the ocular ign and ymptom aociated with acute anterior uveiti.
METHOD: Two propective tudie were conducted in equence. Both were parallel, randomized, double-maked, active-controlled comparion conducted at academic or private practice clinic in the United tate. Efficacy wa evaluated by the proportion of patient with a core of 0 for key ign and ymptom of uveiti. Intraocular preure wa increaed regularly. The firt tudy involved up to 42 day of treatment, tarting with a doe of eight time per day. The econd tudy involved up to 28 day of treatment, tarting with a doe of 16 time per day.
REULT: In the firt tudy (N = 70), the proportion of patient achieving reolution by the final viit wa anterior chamber cell (74% loteprednol etabonate, 88% predniolone acetate, P = .194) and flare (71% loteprednol etabonate, 81% predniolone acetate, P = .330). In the econd tudy (N = 175), the proportion of patient achieving reolution by the final viit wa anterior chamber cell (72% loteprednol etabonate, 87% predniolone acetate, P = .015) and flare (66% loteprednol etabonate, 82% predniolone acetate, P = .017). In both tudie, intraocular preure increae of more than 10 mm Hg wa oberved more frequently in patient receiving predniolone acetate (even patient) than thoe receiving loteprednol etabonate (one patient).
CONCLUION: Although a clinically meaningful reduction of ign and ymptom wa noted in both treatment group, loteprednol etabonate wa le effective than predniolone acetate in both of thee controlled tudie. However, the more favorable profile of loteprednol etabonate with repect to intraocular preure increae may make it ueful in many patient.
