Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% versus prednisolone acetate 1.0% for the treatment of inflammation after cataract surgery.

To evaluate the efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% versus prednisolone acetate 1.0% for the control of postoperative inflammation in patients having routine cataract surgery. Private practice, Stillwater, Minnesota, and Cincinnati Eye Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Comparative case series. Patients were at least 18 years of age and scheduled for routine cataract surgery. Patients were excluded from the study if they had preexisting medical conditions (ie, elevated intraocular pressure [IOP], retinopathy, maculopathy, uveitis) or required medications the investigator believed would put the patient at risk or confound the study. Patients were randomized to receive loteprednol etabonate or prednisolone acetate 4 times daily in addition to bromfenac 0.09% and besifloxacin 0.6% after surgery. Visual acuity, IOP, and anterior chamber cell and flare intensity were assessed over 3 weeks after cataract surgery. The primary endpoint was the level of anterior chamber cell and flare intensity in patients treated with loteprednol etabonate or prednisolone acetate. The study enrolled 88 patients (46 loteprednol etabonate, 42 prednisolone acetate). Equivalency was achieved between the 2 treatment groups with no significant differences throughout the 3-week follow-up. There was less fluctuation in IOP assessments in patients treated with loteprednol etabonate than in patients treated with prednisolone acetate, in particular 1 day and 3 days postoperatively. The results indicate that equivalent control of inflammation can be obtained through treatment with loteprednol etabonate or prednisolone acetate after cataract surgery. In addition, treatment with loteprednol etabonate may result in less IOP fluctuation. Dr. Lane is a consultant to Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, and ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Irvine, California, USA. Dr. Holland is a consultant to Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA. Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.