Pediatric Drugs

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Safety and Tolerability of Loteprednol Etabonate 0.5% and Tobramycin 0.3% Ophthalmic Suspension in Pediatric Subjects

  • Timothy L. Comstock
  • Michael R. Paterno
  • Kirk M. Bateman
  • Heleen H. DeCory
  • Matthew Gearinger
Original Research Article



Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% ophthalmic suspension (LE/T) is indicated for steroid-responsive inflammatory ocular conditions where superficial bacterial ocular infection or a risk of bacterial ocular infection exists. LE/T was shown to be safe in healthy volunteers and patients aged 18 years and older with minimal effect on intraocular pressure (IOP).


The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of LE/T in pediatric subjects by examining data from two clinical studies.


Two randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group (one two-arm, the other four-arm) studies were conducted in subjects aged 0–6 years (N = 245). One study assessed LE/T compared with vehicle in the management of lid inflammation (n = 108) and the other compared LE/T with loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5% (LE), tobramycin ophthalmic solution 0.3% (tobramycin), and vehicle in the treatment of blepharoconjunctivitis (n = 137). In the first study, subjects were randomized to LE/T or vehicle administered four times daily (qid) for the first 7 days followed by twice daily (bid) for 7 days along with warm compresses bid for the entire 2 weeks. In the second study, subjects were randomized to LE/T, LE, tobramycin, or vehicle administered qid for 14 days. Treatment-emergent ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AEs) and bilateral vision were assessed at all study visits in both studies. In addition, in the lid inflammation study, IOP was assessed at all visits. The primary safety endpoint in both studies was the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs.


The incidence of LE/T treatment-emergent AEs was low. A total of four ocular AEs were reported for three LE/T-treated subjects in the first study (conjunctivitis [two events], meibomian gland dysfunction, and corneal staining), and one ocular AE was reported for an LE/T-treated subject in the second study (eye pain). A total of 13 non-ocular AEs were reported for eight LE/T-treated subjects in the two trials. The most prevalent non-ocular AEs were pyrexia (three events) and rash (two events). There were no differences in the incidence of specific ocular and non-ocular AEs between the LE/T group and the comparator treatment group. In both studies, there were no clinically meaningful reductions in vision at follow-up visits. Mean IOP and IOP changes from baseline, assessed in the lid inflammation study, were not different between LE/T and vehicle treatment groups at any study visits.


The results of these two clinical trials demonstrate the short-term safety of treatment with topical LE/T in pediatric subjects (0–6 years of age) with lid inflammation or blepharoconjunctivitis.


  1. 1.
    Sendrowski DP, Jaanus SD, Semes LP, et al. Anti-inflammatory drugs. In: Bartlett JD, Jaanus SD, editors. Clinical ocular pharmacology. 5th ed. Boston (MA): Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008: 221–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duggan RK. Certain steroid preparations for ophthalmic and/or otic use. Drugs for human use: drug efficacy study implementation. Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administration Fed Regist, 1971; 36: 20151–3Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armaly MF. Effects of corticosteroids on intraocular pressure and fluid dynamics: I. The effect of dexamethasone in the normal eye. Arch Ophthalmol 1963; 70: 482–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker B, Mills DW. Corticosteroids and intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 1963; 70: 500–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker B. Intraocular pressure response to topical corticosteroids. Invest Ophthalmol 1965; 4: 198–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartlett JD, Horwitz B, Laibovitz R, et al. Intraocular pressure response to loteprednol etabonate in known steroid responders. J Ocul Pharmacol 1993; 9: 157–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones III R, Rhee DJ. Corticosteroid-induced ocular hypertension and glaucoma: a brief review and update of the literature. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17: 163–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urban Jr RC, Cotlier E. Corticosteroid-induced cataracts. Surv Ophthalmol 1986; 31: 102–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carnahan MC, Goldstein DA. Ocular complications of topical, peri-ocular, and systemic corticosteroids. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2000; 11: 478–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGhee CN, Dean S, Danesh-Meyer H. Locally administered ocular corticosteroids: benefits and risks. Drug Saf 2002; 25: 33–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bodor N, Loftsson T, Wu WM. Metabolism, distribution, and transdermal permeation of a soft corticosteroid, loteprednol etabonate. Pharm Res 1992; 9: 1275–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Druzgala P, Wu WM, Bodor N. Ocular absorption and distribution of loteprednol etabonate, a soft steroid, in rabbit eyes. Curr Eye Res 1991; 10: 933–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedlaender MH, Howes J. A double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of giant papillary conjunctivitis. The Loteprednol Etabonate Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis Study Group I. Am J Ophthalmol 1997; 123: 455–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart R, Horwitz B, Howes J, et al. Double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for postoperative inflammation. Loteprednol Etabonate Post-Operative Inflammation Study Group 1. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 1480–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loteprednol Etabonate Postoperative Inflammation Study Group 2. A double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of 0.5% loteprednol etabonate for postoperative inflammation. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1780–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holland EJ, Djalilian AR, Sanderson JP. Attenuation of ocular hypertension with the use of topical loteprednol etabonate 0.5% in steroid responders after corneal transplantation. Cornea 2009; 28: 1139–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Novack GD, Howes J, Crockett RS, et al. Change in intraocular pressure during long-term use of loteprednol etabonate. Glaucoma 1998; 7: 266–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loteprednol Etabonate US Uveitis Study Group. Controlled evaluation of loteprednol etabonate and prednisolone acetate in the treatment of acute anterior uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 127: 537–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manabe S, Bucala R, Cerami A. Nonenzymatic addition of glucocorticoids to lens proteins in steroid-induced cataracts. J Clin Invest 1984; 74: 1803–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zylet® (loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin) eye drops: package insert. Tampa (FL): Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, 2010 MayGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holland EJ, Bartlett JD, Paterno MR, et al. Effects of loteprednol/tobramycin versus dexamethasone/tobramycin on intraocular pressure in healthy volunteers. Cornea 2008; 27: 50–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartlett JD, Holland EJ, Usner DW, et al. Tolerability of loteprednol/tobramycin versus dexamethasone/tobramycin in healthy volunteers: results of a 4-week, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 2219–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    White EM, Macy JI, Bateman KM, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of loteprednol 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% in the treatment of blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 287–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Pediatric Zylet safety and efficacy study [ identifier NCT00420628]. US National Institutes of Health, [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Dec 29]
  25. 25.
    Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Safety and efficacy of Zylet vs lotemax, tobramycin and vehicle in pediatric blepharoconjunctivitis [ identifier NCT00705159]. US National Institutes of Health, [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Dec 29]
  26. 26.
    Asbell P, Howes J. A double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of giant papillary conjunctivitis. CLAO J 1997; 23: 31–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bartlett JD, Howes JF, Ghormley NR, et al. Safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate for treatment of papillae in contact lens-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis. Curr Eye Res 1993; 12: 313–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dell SJ, Shulman DG, Lowry GM, et al. A controlled evaluation of the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate in the prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Loteprednol Allergic Conjunctivitis Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1997; 123: 791–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dell SJ, Lowry GM, Northcutt JA, et al. A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of 0.2% loteprednol etabonate in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998; 102: 251–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ilyas H, Slonim CB, Braswell GR, et al. Long-term safety of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Eye Contact Lens 2004; 30: 10–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shulman DG, Lothringer LL, Rubin JM, et al. A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 362–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pflugfelder SC, Maskin SL, Anderson B, et al. A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparison of loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension, 0.5%, and placebo for treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in patients with delayed tear clearance. Am J Ophthlamol 2004; 138: 444–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Comstock TL, Holland EJ. Loteprednol and tobramycin in combination: a review of their impact on current treatment regimens. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2010; 11: 843–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fan DS, Ng JS, Lam DS. A prospective study on ocular hypertensive and anti-inflammatory response to different dosages of fluorometholone in children. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1973–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ng JS, Fan DS, Young AL, et al. Ocular hypertensive response to topical dexamethasone in children: a dose-dependent phenomenon. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 2097–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee YJ, Park CY, Woo KI. Ocular hypertensive response to topical dexamethasone ointment in children. Korean J Ophthalmol 2006; 20: 166–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ohji M, Kinoshita S, Ohmi E, et al. Marked intraocular pressure response to instillation of corticosteroids in children. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 112: 450–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kwok AK, Lam DS, Ng JS, et al. Ocular hypertensive response to topical steroids in children. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 2112–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fan DS, Yu CB, Chiu TY, et al. Ocular-hypertensive and anti-inflammatory response to rimexolone therapy in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121: 1716–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jones SM, Weinstein JM, Cumberland P, et al. Visual outcome and corneal changes in children with chronic blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 2271–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy L. Comstock
    • 1
  • Michael R. Paterno
    • 1
  • Kirk M. Bateman
    • 1
  • Heleen H. DeCory
    • 1
  • Matthew Gearinger
    • 2
  1. 1.Bausch & Lomb, Inc.RochesterUSA
  2. 2.University of Rochester Eye Institute and Golisano Children’s Hospital at Strong Memorial HospitalRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations