Efficacy and safety of a 3-month loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel taper for routine prophylaxis after photorefractive keratectomy compared to a 3-month prednisolone acetate 1% and fluorometholone 0.1% taper
Received 29 March 2017
Accepted for publication 1 May 2017
Published 12 June 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 1113—1118
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Mark D Mifflin,1 Brent S Betts,1 P Adam Frederick,2 Jason M Feuerman,3 Carlton R Fenzl,4 Majid Moshirfar,1,5 Brian Zaugg1
1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2The Eye Center, Huntsville, AL, 3Eye Institute of Austin, Austin, TX, 4Eye Surgeons Associates, Bettendorf, IA, 5Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA
Purpose: To compare the outcome of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and complications in patients treated with either loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel or prednisolone acetate 1% suspension and fluorometholone (fml) 0.1% suspension.
Setting: John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Design: Prospective, randomized, partially masked trial.
Methods: PRK was performed on 261 eyes of 132 participants. Patients were randomized to a postoperative corticosteroid regimen of either loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel (loteprednol) or prednisolone 1% acetate suspension followed by fluorometholone 0.1% suspension (prednisolone/fml). Primary outcome measures included incidence and grade of postoperative corneal haze and incidence of increased intraocular pressure of 10 mmHg above baseline, or any intraocular pressure over 21 mmHg. Secondary outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, best corrected distance visual acuity, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent.
Results: The incidence of haze in the first 3 months was 2.6% (3/114 eyes) in the loteprednol group and 4.8% (7/147 eyes) in the prednisolone/fml group and was not statistically significant between groups (P=0.37). The incidence of elevated intraocular pressure was 1.8% (2/114 eyes) in the loteprednol group and 4.1% (6/147 eyes) in the prednisolone/fml group, and was not statistically significant between the groups (P=0.12). The mean 3-month postoperative logMAR uncorrected visual acuity was −0.078±0.10 and −0.075±0.09 in the loteprednol and prednisolone/fml groups, respectively (P=0.83).
Conclusion: Postoperative corneal haze and elevated intraocular pressure were uncommon in both treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference between each postoperative regimen. Refractive results were similar and excellent in both treatment arms. A tapered prophylactic regimen of loteprednol 0.5% gel is equally effective to prednisolone 1%/fml 0.1% after PRK.
Keywords: PRK, corticosteroid, fluorometholone, loteprednol, lotemax, wavefront optimized
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]