Joseph Tauber1, Paul Karpecki2, Robert Latkany3, Jodi Luchs4, Joseph Martel5, Kenneth Sall6, Aparna Raychaudhuri7, Valerie Smith7, Charles P Semba7. 1. Tauber Eye Center, Kansas City, Missouri. Electronic address: jt@taubereye.com. 2. Koffler Vision Group, Lexington, Kentucky. 3. Physician Eye Care of New York, New York, New York. 4. South Shore Eye Care, Wantagh, New York. 5. Martel Eye Medical Group, Rancho Cordova, California. 6. Sall Research Medical Center, Inc., Artesia, California. 7. Shire, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lifitegrast is an integrin antagonist that decreases T-cell-mediated inflammation associated with dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-2, a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast compared with placebo for the treatment of DED. DESIGN: A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with use of artificial tears within 30 days, inferior corneal staining score ≥0.5 (0-4 scale), Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, and eye dryness score ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]). METHODS: Subjects were randomized 1:1 after 14-day placebo run-in to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary efficacy end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in eye dryness score (VAS, both eyes) and inferior corneal fluorescein staining score in the designated study eye. Secondary end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in ocular discomfort score (0-4 scale) in study eye, eye discomfort score (VAS), total corneal staining score in the study eye, and nasal conjunctival lissamine green staining score (0-4 scale) in the study eye. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 718 subjects were randomized: placebo, n = 360; lifitegrast, n = 358 (intent-to-treat population). Lifitegrast-treated subjects experienced greater improvement in eye dryness than placebo-treated subjects (treatment effect, 12.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.51-16.70; P < 0.0001). There was no between-group difference in inferior corneal staining (treatment effect, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.17; P = 0.6186). There was nominally significant improvement of secondary symptom end points among lifitegrast-treated subjects: ocular discomfort (nominal P = 0.0005) and eye discomfort (nominal, P < 0.0001). There were no between-group differences on secondary signs: total corneal staining and nasal lissamine staining. More lifitegrast-treated subjects (33.7%) than placebo-treated subjects (16.4%) experienced ocular TEAEs; no ocular TEAEs were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast met the co-primary symptom end point (eye dryness) but not the co-primary sign end point (inferior corneal staining). Secondary end point findings were consistent with this pattern. Most ocular TEAEs were mild to moderate; there were no unexpected TEAEs. Lifitegrast warrants further consideration as a treatment for DED.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Lifitegrast is an integrin antagonist that decreases T-cell-mediated inflammation associated with dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-2, a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast compared with placebo for the treatment of DED. DESIGN: A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with use of artificial tears within 30 days, inferior corneal staining score ≥0.5 (0-4 scale), Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, and eye dryness score ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]). METHODS: Subjects were randomized 1:1 after 14-day placebo run-in to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary efficacy end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in eye dryness score (VAS, both eyes) and inferior corneal fluorescein staining score in the designated study eye. Secondary end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in ocular discomfort score (0-4 scale) in study eye, eye discomfort score (VAS), total corneal staining score in the study eye, and nasal conjunctival lissamine green staining score (0-4 scale) in the study eye. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 718 subjects were randomized: placebo, n = 360; lifitegrast, n = 358 (intent-to-treat population). Lifitegrast-treated subjects experienced greater improvement in eye dryness than placebo-treated subjects (treatment effect, 12.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.51-16.70; P < 0.0001). There was no between-group difference in inferior corneal staining (treatment effect, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.17; P = 0.6186). There was nominally significant improvement of secondary symptom end points among lifitegrast-treated subjects: ocular discomfort (nominal P = 0.0005) and eye discomfort (nominal, P < 0.0001). There were no between-group differences on secondary signs: total corneal staining and nasal lissamine staining. More lifitegrast-treated subjects (33.7%) than placebo-treated subjects (16.4%) experienced ocular TEAEs; no ocular TEAEs were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast met the co-primary symptom end point (eye dryness) but not the co-primary sign end point (inferior corneal staining). Secondary end point findings were consistent with this pattern. Most ocular TEAEs were mild to moderate; there were no unexpected TEAEs. Lifitegrast warrants further consideration as a treatment for DED.
Authors: Rodrigo Guimaraes de Souza; Zhiyuan Yu; Michael E Stern; Stephen C Pflugfelder; Cintia S de Paiva Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Mark S Milner; Kenneth A Beckman; Jodi I Luchs; Quentin B Allen; Richard M Awdeh; John Berdahl; Thomas S Boland; Carlos Buznego; Joseph P Gira; Damien F Goldberg; David Goldman; Raj K Goyal; Mitchell A Jackson; James Katz; Terry Kim; Parag A Majmudar; Ranjan P Malhotra; Marguerite B McDonald; Rajesh K Rajpal; Tal Raviv; Sheri Rowen; Neda Shamie; Jonathan D Solomon; Karl Stonecipher; Shachar Tauber; William Trattler; Keith A Walter; George O Waring; Robert J Weinstock; William F Wiley; Elizabeth Yeu Journal: Curr Opin Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Andrea L Kossler; Mark Brinton; Zara M Patel; Roopa Dalal; Christopher N Ta; Daniel Palanker Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Meredith M Whiteside; Ellen S Shorter; Mathew S Margolis; Fatima Alvi; Julia B Huecker; Tammy P Than; Mary K Migneco; Jennifer S Harthan; Christina E Morettin; Andrew T E Hartwick; Spencer D Johnson; Chamila D Perera; Mae O Gordon Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Yaping Ju; Maria C Edman; Hao Guo; Srikanth Reddy Janga; Santosh Peddi; Stan G Louie; Jason A Junge; J Andrew MacKay; Sarah F Hamm-Alvarez Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2020-12-27 Impact factor: 6.988