CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03857542GEMINI 2Updated Dec 29, 2021Results posted

A Phase 3 Efficacy Study of Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution (AGN-190584) in Participants With Presbyopia

A Phase 3 interventional study of Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution and Vehicle in Presbyopia, sponsored by Allergan. Completed at 35 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 40 Years to 55 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-12-29.

Sponsored by Allergan · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
427
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
40 Years to 55 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This clinical study will evaluate pilocarpine hydrogen chloride (HCl) ophthalmic solution (AGN-190584) in an expanded participant population to establish efficacy, safety, and tolerability versus the vehicle-control when administered, over a 30-day study intervention period, once daily bilaterally in participants with presbyopia.

02

Conditions studied

  • Presbyopia

Browse trials for

03

In context

Presbyopia

324 studies on the registry are indexed under Presbyopia; 33 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 427 is above the median of 61 across 265 interventional studies indexed under Presbyopia.

Browse Presbyopia studies →

Lead sponsor

Allergan is the lead sponsor of 499 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Of its 91 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 89 (98%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
40 Years to 55 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Subjective complaints of poor near vision that impact activities of daily living

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Uncontrolled systemic disease

Any clinical condition or previous surgery that might affect the absorption, distribution, biotransformation, or excretion of AGN-190584. History of cataract surgery, phakic intraocular lens surgery, corneal inlay surgery, radial keratotomy, or any intraocular surgery. However, participants with history of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) meeting inclusion criteria will be allowed to enroll.

Known allergy or sensitivity to the study intervention or its components or other cholinergic agonist medications

Concurrent use of any topical ophthalmic medications, including artificial tears, other than the study intervention during the course of the study

Concurrent use of temporary or permanent punctal plugs or history of punctal cautery in one or both eyes

Current enrollment in an investigational drug or device study or participation in such a study within 30 days of entry into this study

Participation in a blood or plasma donation program within 30 days prior to study intervention administration

Severe dry eye disease (defined as total corneal staining ≥ grade 3 on the 5-point Oxford scale and an ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score of > 33) at the screening visit

Corneal abnormalities (including keratoconus, corneal scar, Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy, guttata, or edema) in either eye that are likely to interfere with visual acuity

Narrow iridocorneal angles (Shaffer grade ≤ 2 or lower on gonioscopy examination), history of angle-closure glaucoma, or previous iridotomy

History of iris trauma, Adie's tonic pupil, abnormal pupil shape in either eye, or anisocoria > 1 mm between pupils under mesopic conditions at the screening visit

Lens opacity in either eye that is determined to cause significant disturbance of the central visual axis on screening biomicroscopy

Diagnosis of any type of glaucoma or ocular hypertension

Bifocal or multifocal spectacles or contact lenses for habitual correction. Participants willing to wear study-provided monofocal correction (either spectacles or contact lenses) during the study can be enrolled

Abnormal and clinically significant results according to the investigator or designee, on physical/ophthalmic examination or medical history

Females who are pregnant, nursing, or planning a pregnancy during the study

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
427 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Placebo comparator
    Vehicle

    Participants received one drop of vehicle in each eye, once daily, for up to 30 days.

    Other: Vehicle

  • Experimental
    Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution

    Participants received one drop of pilocarpine HCl ophthalmic solution 1.25% in each eye, once daily, for up to 30 days.

    Drug: Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution

Interventions

  • DrugPilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution

    Pilocarpine HCl ophthalmic solution 1.25%, one drop in each eye, once daily, for up to 30 days.

    Also known as: AGN-190584, VUITY

  • OtherVehicle

    Vehicle, one drop in each eye, once daily, for up to 30 days.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA, Without Losing More Than 5 Letters of Mesopic, High-Contrast, Binocular CDVA With the Same Refractive Correction at Day 30, Hour 3

    Visual acuity for near (40 centimeter (cm)) and distance (4 meter (m)) targets were measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. High contrast corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was assessed binocularly (in each eye) using the provided visual acuity charts for distance vision in a room with mesopic lighting conditions measured at the target. Forced choice letter by-letter scoring was used for each test and the total number of correct letters or the highest value (number) of the grid identified (as applicable) were recorded. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 candelas per square meter (cd/m\^2) measured at the target. DCNVA= distance-corrected near visual acuity.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 6

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 6)

  2. Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 8

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Baseline for efficacy was defined as the last non-missing efficacy assessment before the first dose of study intervention. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 8)

  3. Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.5

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 0.5)

  4. Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 1

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target.

    Time frame: Day 30 (Hour 1)

  5. Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire (NVPTQ) Performance Score at Day 30, Hour 3

    NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from a newspaper article, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, rated as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close,1=poor,2=fair,3=good,4=very good,5=excellent; impact of squinting as 0=No,I did not squint, 1=Yes, squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes,but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied to 4=very satisfied. The score based on vision-related ability and impact of squinting=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses), total possible score of 0-5. Higher scores=better outcomes;positive change from Baseline=improved performance (reading ability).

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

  6. Change From Baseline in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular Distance-corrected Intermediate Visual Acuity (DCIVA) Letters at Day 30, Hour 3

    Visual acuity for intermediate (66 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. MMRM was used for the analysis.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

  7. Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 10

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular DCNVA are reported.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 10)

  8. Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.25

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. MMRM was used for the analysis.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 0.25)

  9. Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 3

    Visual acuity for near (40 cm) targets was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target.

    Time frame: Day 30 (Hour 3)

  10. Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic NVPTQ Satisfaction Score at Day 30, Hour 3

    NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from a newspaper article, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, related as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close,1=poor,2=fair,3=good,4=very good,5=excellent; impact of squinting as 0=No, I did not squint, 1=Yes, squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes, but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied to 4=very satisfied. NVPTQ Satisfaction Score=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses)based on satisfaction items for a total possible score of 0 to 4. Higher scores=better outcomes; a positive change from Baseline indicates higher satisfaction.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

  11. Mean Change From Baseline in Presbyopia Coping Questionnaire (PICQ) Coping Score at Day 30, Hour 3

    PICQ=20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems over past 7 days.PICQ Coping domain had 8 items: 1:Normal-sized text,2:Small-sized text,3:Information on a computer,4:Information on a cell phone,5:Increase font size,6:Use glasses to read close,12:Hold reading materials farther out/closer,13:Squint to read. Each item had response categories:0=never to 4=all the time. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 had additional response categories with values of 9/10 to indicate the question is not applicable to participant and were assigned missing values.PICQ Coping Score:(Item 1,2 Testlet+Item 3,4 Testlet+Item 5+Item 6+Item 12+Item 13)/non-missing responses to the 6 components of coping score where Items 1,2 Testlet=(Item1+Item2)/non-missing responses to Items 1,2;Items 3,4 Testlet=(Item3+Item4)/non-missing responses to Items 3, 4. Score ranges:0=to least amount of coping to 4=greatest amount of coping. Higher scores=poorer outcome; a negative change from Baseline=improvement.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

  12. Mean Change From Baseline in PICQ Impact Score at Day 30, Hour 3

    PICQ had 20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems seeing up over past 7 days. Impact domain of PICQ has 6 items:Item9:Rely on others,Item15:rest eyes,Item16:Feel older,Item17:Feel self-conscious,Item19:Take longer to complete task,Item20:Inconvenient.First 5 impacts items include response ranges from 0=never to 4=all of time. Item20 ranged from 0=Not at all,to 4=Extremely. Item9 included an additional response category, labeled with value of 9 to indicate question is not applicable because participant did not have opportunity to experience impact responses are assigned missing values. PICQ Impacts Score=\[(Items 9+15+16\&17 Testlet+Item19+Item20)/(nonmissing responses to 5 components of impacts score)\] where Items 16\&17 Testlet=(Items16+17)/non-missing responses to Items16 and 17. PICQ Impact score ranged 0-4, 0=least amount of impacts,4=greatest amount of impacts. Higher scores correspond to poorer outcomes; negative change from Baseline=improvement.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)

07

Results

Posted Dec 29, 2021
Limitations and caveats
DCNVA measurements at 1 site were not conducted correctly at the screening and baseline visits; all participants from this site were excluded from efficacy analyses.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Started215212
Completed209207
Not completed65
Withdrew: Adverse event13
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject21
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up21
Withdrew: Reason not specified10

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA, Without Losing More Than 5 Letters of Mesopic, High-Contrast, Binocular CDVA With the Same Refractive Correction at Day 30, Hour 3

Visual acuity for near (40 centimeter (cm)) and distance (4 meter (m)) targets were measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. High contrast corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was assessed binocularly (in each eye) using the provided visual acuity charts for distance vision in a room with mesopic lighting conditions measured at the target. Forced choice letter by-letter scoring was used for each test and the total number of correct letters or the highest value (number) of the grid identified (as applicable) were recorded. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 candelas per square meter (cd/m\^2) measured at the target. DCNVA= distance-corrected near visual acuity.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA, Without Losing More Than 5 Letters of Mesopic, High-Contrast, Binocular CDVA With the Same Refractive Correction at Day 30, Hour 3
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA, Without Losing More Than 5 Letters of Mesopic, High-Contrast, Binocular CDVA With the Same Refractive Correction at Day 30, Hour 310.826.0
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = <.0001 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 15.2 · 95% CI 7.7 to 22.7Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 6

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 6)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 6
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 69.916.3
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = 0.0548 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 6.5 · 95% CI -0.1 to 13.1Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 8

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Baseline for efficacy was defined as the last non-missing efficacy assessment before the first dose of study intervention. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 8)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 8
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 88.614.5
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = 0.0693 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 5.9 · 95% CI -0.5 to 12.2Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.5

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 0.5)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · letters read correctly
Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.5
letters read correctlyVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.54.7 ± 0.448.8 ± 0.44
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · MMRM · p = <.0001 (MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value; Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.) · Least squares (ls) mean difference: 4.1 · 95% CI 2.9 to 5.2P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 1

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target.

Time frame:
Day 30 (Hour 1)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 1
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 182.892.7
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = 0.0141 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 9.9 · 95% CI 3.5 to 16.3Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Mesopic Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire (NVPTQ) Performance Score at Day 30, Hour 3

NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from a newspaper article, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, rated as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close,1=poor,2=fair,3=good,4=very good,5=excellent; impact of squinting as 0=No,I did not squint, 1=Yes, squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes,but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied to 4=very satisfied. The score based on vision-related ability and impact of squinting=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses), total possible score of 0-5. Higher scores=better outcomes;positive change from Baseline=improved performance (reading ability).

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire (NVPTQ) Performance Score at Day 30, Hour 3
score on a scaleVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire (NVPTQ) Performance Score at Day 30, Hour 30.5 ± 0.091.3 ± 0.09
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · ANCOVA · p = <.0001 (Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: 0.8 · 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular Distance-corrected Intermediate Visual Acuity (DCIVA) Letters at Day 30, Hour 3

Visual acuity for intermediate (66 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · number of letters read correctly
Change From Baseline in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular Distance-corrected Intermediate Visual Acuity (DCIVA) Letters at Day 30, Hour 3
number of letters read correctlyVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Change From Baseline in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular Distance-corrected Intermediate Visual Acuity (DCIVA) Letters at Day 30, Hour 32.9 ± 0.386.4 ± 0.39
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · MMRM · p = <.0001 (MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: 3.4 · 95% CI 2.4 to 4.4P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 10

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular DCNVA are reported.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 10)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 10
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Gaining 3 Lines or More in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 108.712.6
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = 0.2200 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 3.8 · 95% CI -2.3 to 10.0Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.25

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m\^2 measured at the target. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 0.25)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · letters read correctly
Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.25
letters read correctlyVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution 1.25%
Change From Baseline in Mesopic, High-contrast, Binocular DCNVA Letters at Day 30, Hour 0.253.9 ± 0.416.5 ± 0.41
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution 1.25% · MMRM · p = <.0001 (MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: 2.6 · 95% CI 1.5 to 3.7P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 3

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) targets was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m\^2 measured at the target.

Time frame:
Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 3
percentage of participantsVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Percentage of Participants Achieving 20/40 or Better in Photopic, High-contrast, Binocular, DCNVA at Day 30, Hour 377.890.2
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · Chi-squared · p = 0.0141 (P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.) · Percentage difference: 12.4 · 95% CI 5.2 to 19.5Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Mesopic NVPTQ Satisfaction Score at Day 30, Hour 3

NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from a newspaper article, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, related as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close,1=poor,2=fair,3=good,4=very good,5=excellent; impact of squinting as 0=No, I did not squint, 1=Yes, squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes, but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied to 4=very satisfied. NVPTQ Satisfaction Score=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses)based on satisfaction items for a total possible score of 0 to 4. Higher scores=better outcomes; a positive change from Baseline indicates higher satisfaction.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic NVPTQ Satisfaction Score at Day 30, Hour 3
score on a scaleVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Mean Change From Baseline in Mesopic NVPTQ Satisfaction Score at Day 30, Hour 30.5 ± 0.081.2 ± 0.08
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · ANCOVA · p = <.0001 (ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: 0.7 · 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Presbyopia Coping Questionnaire (PICQ) Coping Score at Day 30, Hour 3

PICQ=20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems over past 7 days.PICQ Coping domain had 8 items: 1:Normal-sized text,2:Small-sized text,3:Information on a computer,4:Information on a cell phone,5:Increase font size,6:Use glasses to read close,12:Hold reading materials farther out/closer,13:Squint to read. Each item had response categories:0=never to 4=all the time. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 had additional response categories with values of 9/10 to indicate the question is not applicable to participant and were assigned missing values.PICQ Coping Score:(Item 1,2 Testlet+Item 3,4 Testlet+Item 5+Item 6+Item 12+Item 13)/non-missing responses to the 6 components of coping score where Items 1,2 Testlet=(Item1+Item2)/non-missing responses to Items 1,2;Items 3,4 Testlet=(Item3+Item4)/non-missing responses to Items 3, 4. Score ranges:0=to least amount of coping to 4=greatest amount of coping. Higher scores=poorer outcome; a negative change from Baseline=improvement.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Presbyopia Coping Questionnaire (PICQ) Coping Score at Day 30, Hour 3
score on a scaleVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Mean Change From Baseline in Presbyopia Coping Questionnaire (PICQ) Coping Score at Day 30, Hour 3-0.5 ± 0.06-0.9 ± 0.06
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · ANCOVA · p = 0.0002 (ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: -0.4 · 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in PICQ Impact Score at Day 30, Hour 3

PICQ had 20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems seeing up over past 7 days. Impact domain of PICQ has 6 items:Item9:Rely on others,Item15:rest eyes,Item16:Feel older,Item17:Feel self-conscious,Item19:Take longer to complete task,Item20:Inconvenient.First 5 impacts items include response ranges from 0=never to 4=all of time. Item20 ranged from 0=Not at all,to 4=Extremely. Item9 included an additional response category, labeled with value of 9 to indicate question is not applicable because participant did not have opportunity to experience impact responses are assigned missing values. PICQ Impacts Score=\[(Items 9+15+16\&17 Testlet+Item19+Item20)/(nonmissing responses to 5 components of impacts score)\] where Items 16\&17 Testlet=(Items16+17)/non-missing responses to Items16 and 17. PICQ Impact score ranged 0-4, 0=least amount of impacts,4=greatest amount of impacts. Higher scores correspond to poorer outcomes; negative change from Baseline=improvement.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1) to Day 30 (Hour 3)
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in PICQ Impact Score at Day 30, Hour 3
score on a scaleVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
Mean Change From Baseline in PICQ Impact Score at Day 30, Hour 3-0.4 ± 0.06-0.7 ± 0.06
Statistical analysis
  • Vehicle vs Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution · ANCOVA · p = 0.0002 (ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.) · Ls mean difference: -0.3 · 95% CI -0.4 to -0.2P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.

Adverse events

Collected over First dose of study drug intervention to within 30 days after last dose (Up to 60 days). Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Vehicle0/215 (0%)2/215 (0.9%)25/215 (11.6%)
Pilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution0/212 (0%)0/212 (0%)58/212 (27.4%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
DysphagiaGastrointestinal disorders1/2150/212
Guillain-Barre syndromeNervous system disorders1/2150/212
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventVehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic Solution
HeadacheNervous system disorders11/21533/212
Conjunctival hyperaemiaEye disorders11/21515/212
Vision blurredEye disorders1/21513/212
Eye painEye disorders3/21512/212

Baseline characteristics

Intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all randomized participants.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)VehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic SolutionTotal
Mean49.9 ± 3.4849.6 ± 3.7149.8 ± 3.60
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)VehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic SolutionTotal
Female162138300
Male5374127
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)VehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic SolutionTotal
Hispanic or Latino413778
Not Hispanic or Latino174175349
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)VehiclePilocarpine HCl Ophthalmic SolutionTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native213
Asian8513
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American293564
White176171347
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
08

Study locations

35 sites
  • Eye Center South
    Dothan, Alabama 36301, United States
  • M&M Eye Institute
    Prescott, Arizona 86301, United States
  • Walman Eye Center
    Sun City, Arizona 85351, United States
  • Milton M. Hom, OD, FAAO
    Azusa, California 91702, United States
  • Global Research Management
    Glendale, California 91204, United States
  • Advanced Vision Care
    Los Angeles, California 90067, United States
  • North Valley Eye Medical Group, Inc.
    Mission Hills, California 91345, United States
  • Eye Research Foundation
    Newport Beach, California 92663, United States
  • Corneal Consultants of Colorado
    Littleton, Colorado 80120, United States
  • Benjamin Knox Lambright, MD
    Crystal River, Florida 34429, United States
  • South Florida Vision Center
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309, United States
  • Bowden Eye Associates
    Jacksonville, Florida 32256, United States
  • Mid Florida Eye Center
    Mount Dora, Florida 32757, United States
  • Newsom Eye & Laser Center
    Sebring, Florida 33870, United States
  • Clayton Eye Center
    Morrow, Georgia 30260, United States
  • The Midwest Center for Sight
    Des Plaines, Illinois 60016, United States
  • Jacksoneye
    Lake Villa, Illinois 60046, United States
  • Kannarr Eye Care
    Pittsburg, Kansas 66762, United States
  • Heart of America Eyecare
    Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66204, United States
  • Cincinnati Eye Institute
    Edgewood, Kentucky 41017, United States
  • Chu Laser Eye Institute
    Bloomington, Minnesota 55420, United States
  • Silverstein Eye Centers
    Kansas City, Missouri 64133, United States
  • Moyes Eye Center
    Kansas City, Missouri 64154, United States
  • Tekwani Vision Center
    Saint Louis, Missouri 63128, United States
  • Amel Youssef, OD
    Las Vegas, Nevada 89117, United States
  • Debry Medical Services PC
    Las Vegas, Nevada 89128, United States
  • Bucci Laser Vision
    Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702, United States
  • Waring Vision Institute
    Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464, United States
  • University Eye Surgeons
    Maryville, Tennessee 37803, United States
  • Total Eye Care, PA
    Memphis, Tennessee 38119, United States
  • Keystone Research ltd. at Texan Eye
    Austin, Texas 78731, United States
  • The Cataract and Glaucoma Center
    El Paso, Texas 79902, United States
  • Texas Eye & Laser Ctr
    Hurst, Texas 76054, United States
  • Benjamin Travis Dastrup, MD
    Ogden, Utah 84403, United States
  • Vision Consultants and Surgeons
    Falls Church, Virginia 22046, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Mar 6, 2020
  • Statistical analysis plan · Aug 20, 2020

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Allergan will share de-identified patient-level data and study-level data including protocols and clinical study reports for phase 2 - 4 trials completed after 2008 that are registered to ClinicalTrials.gov or EudraCT, have received regulatory approval in the United States and/or the European Union in a given indication and the primary manuscript from the trial has been published. To request access to the data, the researcher must sign a data use agreement and any shared data is to be used for non-commercial purposes. More information can be found on http://www.allerganclinicaltrials.com/.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Csr

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 29, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03857542
Lead sponsor
Allergan
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 28, 2019
Start date
Mar 1, 2019
Primary completion
Sep 10, 2020
Completion
Sep 10, 2020
Results posted
Dec 29, 2021
Last update
Dec 29, 2021

Study contacts

Eleonora Safyan
study director · Allergan

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion