Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Dec;14(12):3109-3118.
doi: 10.1007/s40123-025-01254-4. Epub 2025 Oct 4.

Administration of the Travoprost Intracameral Implant in an Office-Based Surgery Setting

Inder Paul Singh  1 , George R Reiss  2 , Brian E Flowers  3 , L Jay Katz  4 , Dale W Usner  4 , David Applegate  4 , Angela C Kothe  4 , Tomas Navratil  5
Affiliations

Administration of the Travoprost Intracameral Implant in an Office-Based Surgery Setting

Inder Paul Singh et al. Ophthalmol Ther. 2025 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this analysis was to assess the safety outcomes of a subgroup of patients who received a travoprost intracameral implant in an office-based surgery setting from one of the phase 3 registration trials, GC-012, for the implant.

Methods: Adult patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension on 0 to 3 pre-study intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications underwent a washout period (if applicable). Patients who qualified based on having an unmedicated mean diurnal IOP of 21 mmHg or greater and an IOP of 36 mmHg or less at each of the diurnal timepoints received a travoprost intracameral implant and were followed for safety outcomes at eight visits over a 12-month period. Safety evaluations included adverse events, slit-lamp examination, gonioscopy, pachymetry, dilated fundus examination, specular microscopy, perimetry, and best-corrected visual acuity.

Results: A total of 37 patients received a travoprost intracameral implant in an office-based surgery setting. Administration of the implant was successful in 100% of patients. There were no serious ocular adverse events or ocular infections in patients administered the implant.

Conclusions: This subgroup analysis demonstrated that administration of the travoprost intracameral implant in an office-based surgery setting was safe and well tolerated.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03868124.

Keywords: Office-based surgery setting; Travoprost intracameral implant; iDose® TR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of Interest: Inder Paul Singh has received consulting fees from Allergan/AbbVie, Alcon, Bausch + Lomb, Glaukos, iStar Medical, New World Medical, Nova Eye, and Sight Sciences; and lecture fees from Allergan/AbbVie, Alcon, Bausch + Lomb, Glaukos, iStar Medical, New World Medical, Nova Eye, Sight Sciences, Thea, and Viatris. George R. Reiss has received consulting fees from Alcon, Allergan/AbbVie, Elios, Glaukos, iStar Medical, New World Medical, Sanoculis, Spyglass, Radius XR, and WL Gore & Associates. Brian E. Flowers has received consulting fees from Alcon, Glaukos, iSTAR Medical, New World Medical, Nicox, Sanoculis, and Sight Sciences. L. Jay Katz, Angela C. Kothe, and Tomas Navratil are employees of Glaukos Corporation and may hold stock and/or stock options. Dale W. Usner was an employee of Glaukos Corporation at the time this analysis was conducted and held stock and/or stock options, and continues to serve as a consultant to Glaukos Corporation. David Applegate was an employee of Glaukos Corporation at the time of this analysis and continues to serve as a consultant to Glaukos Corporation. Ethical Approval: Human subjects were included in this trial. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03868124) and was performed in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 and its later amendments, and with approval of the relevant Institutional Review Board (WCG Institutional Review Board, Puyallup, WA, USA [reference number 20181794]. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in the study.

References

    1. Wang R, McClard CK, Laswell S, et al. Quantifying burden of intravitreal injections: questionnaire assessment of life impact of treatment by intravitreal injections (QUALITII). BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2022;7:e001188. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Freeman B. Market Scope® 2024 Glaucoma Surgical Device Market Report. St. Louis, MO. 2024.
    1. Radcliff NM, Shah M, Samuelson TW. Challenging the “topical medications-first” approach to glaucoma: a treatment paradigm in evolution. Ophthal Ther. 2023;12(6):2823–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Veritti D, Sarao V, Chhablani J, et al. The ideal intravitreal injection setting: office, ambulatory surgery room or operating theatre? A narrative review and international survey. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023;261:3299–306. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li T, Sun J, Min J, et al. Safety of receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injection in office-based vs operating room settings. A meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139(10):1080–8. - PMC - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources