These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of 0.5% loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of postoperative inflammation. The Loteprednol Etabonate Postoperative Inflammation Study Group 2.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 1998 Sep; 105(9):1780-6. PubMed ID: 9754192.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.5% to placebo (vehicle) in controlling the anterior chamber cell and flare reaction in patients undergoing cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 203 patients undergoing elective cataract removal and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation who, on the day after surgery, exhibited a minimum anterior chamber inflammation score (ACI, sum of cell and flare reaction) rating of 3 (0-9 scale). INTERVENTION: All patients received either LE 0.5% or placebo (vehicle) four times daily in the eye that was operated on for up to 14 days after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of ACI by final, on-treatment visit was measured. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with ACI resolved by the final visit was 56 (55%) of 102 in the LE group and 28 (28%) of 100 in the placebo group (P < 0.001). For all the individual components of ACI (cell and flare), as well as other signs and symptoms, the resolution rate and mean change from baseline favored LE. Expanding the efficacy criterion to include patients with mild inflammation at final visit, the efficacy of LE was 95 (93%) of 102 in contrast to 65 (65%) of 100 for placebo. Among the 39 patients who did not complete the study, the majority were discontinued for inadequate anti-inflammatory effect: 25 (25%) of 101 placebo patients and 5 (5%) of 102 of LE patients. The difference in the treatment failure rates, as well the difference in the time course of failures, was both clinically meaningful and statistically significant in favor of LE (P < 0.001). Both treatments were well-tolerated. No clinically significant elevations in intraocular pressure (> or = 10 mmHg) were seen in the LE treatment group. One patient in the placebo treatment group met this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol etabonate showed a clinically meaningful reduction in the signs and symptoms of postoperative anterior chamber inflammation when compared with that of placebo and had an acceptable safety profile compared with placebo.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]