Pharmacotherapeutic group: Ophthalmologicals, other ophthalmologicals, ATC code: S01XA18.
Mechanism of action and pharmacodynamic effects
Following ocular administration, ciclosporin is passively absorbed by T-lymphocytes where its binding to cyclophilin A inactivates calcineurin, and prevents NF-AT translocation into the nucleus, thus blocking the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-2 and hence T-lymphocyte activation. Blocking NF-AT also interferes in the allergy process. Ciclosporin inhibits histamine release from mast cells and basophils through a reduction in IL-5 production, and may reduce eosinophil recruitment and effects on the conjunctiva and cornea. Ciclosporin is also known to up-regulate the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines. All available evidence suggests that ciclosporin acts specifically and reversibly on lymphocytes and does not depress haematopoiesis or have any effect on the function of phagocytic cells.
Clinical efficacy
In a 12 month double-masked, vehicle controlled, pivotal clinical trial (VEKTIS study), 169 patients with severe VKC and severe keratitis (grade 4 or 5 on the modified Oxford scale) were randomised to 4 drops of Verkazia (high dose) or 2 drops of Verkazia (low dose) and 2 drops of vehicle or 4 drops of vehicle for the first 4 months (Period 1). Patients randomised to the vehicle group were switched to Verkazia (four times or twice daily) from Month 4 to Month 12 (Period 2).
168 patients [127 children (75.6%) and 41 adolescents (24.4%)] were included in the efficacy analyses. Mean age was 9.2 years (SD: 3.3, age range: 4-17 years). There were more male [n=132 (78.6%)] than female patients [n=36 (21.4%)].
The primary efficacy endpoint which was the average penalties adjusted change of the Corneal Fluorescein Staining (CFS) score from baseline and over Period 1, considered all patients (n=168). Efficacy was assessed every month during the 4 month treatment period and compared with baseline using a composite criterion based on keratitis assessed by the modified Oxford scale, the need for rescue medicinal product (use of topical steroids) and the occurrence of corneal ulceration.
The difference in the Least Square (LS) mean vs. vehicle was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.27) for the high dose group and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.16, 1.18) for the low dose group. Both differences were statistically significant with p=0.007 for the high dose and p=0.010 for the low dose group.
Clinical relevance of the primary efficacy endpoint was however difficult to address. In that context, responder rate's results were considered as more reliable endpoint. A responder was defined as a patient 1) with a mean CFS score over the 4 months of treatment ≤ 50% of baseline, 2) who did not withdraw from the study for a reason possibly due to treatment, 3) with no experience of corneal ulceration and 4) no use of rescue medicinal product in the last 4 months of treatment. There was a significantly higher number of CFS responders in both active groups as compared to vehicle (p=0.005 for the high dose group, and p=0.010 for the low dose group) with 55.4%, 50.0% and 27.6% of responders in the high dose, low dose and vehicle groups respectively. The excess rate with respect to vehicle was 27.8% for the high dose regimen and 22.4% for the low dose one.
Rescue medicinal product (topical steroids) was used more often in the vehicle than in the high dose regimen: 32.1% in the high dose group and 31.5% in the low dose group received at least one course of rescue medicinal product while they were 53.4% in the vehicle group.
All four symptoms (photophobia, tearing, itching and mucous discharge) improved over time and the difference from baseline at Month 4 for each symptom largely exceeded 10 mm.
For the average of VKC symptoms, the difference in the LS mean vs. vehicle in the high dose group was statistically significant at all time points compared to vehicle: -19.4 mm (p<0.05).
Patient quality of life (Quick questionnaire) improved significantly better in the high dose group compared to vehicle. The improvement was clinically relevant as illustrated by the effect size over 4 months (symptoms domain: 0.67 and daily activities domain: 0.44).
In Period 2, analyses demonstrated stability of improvements achieved during Period 1 for both doses regimen.