Edward J Holland1, Jodi Luchs2, Paul M Karpecki3, Kelly K Nichols4, Mitchell A Jackson5, Kenneth Sall6, Joseph Tauber7, Monica Roy8, Aparna Raychaudhuri8, Amir Shojaei9. 1. Cincinnati Eye Institute, Edgewood, Kentucky. 2. South Shore Eye Care, Wantagh, New York. 3. Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, Kentucky. 4. University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Optometry, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Jacksoneye, Lake Villa, Illinois. 6. Sall Research Medical Center, Inc, Artesia, California. 7. Tauber Eye Center, Kansas City, Missouri. 8. Shire, Lexington, Massachusetts. 9. Shire, Lexington, Massachusetts. Electronic address: ashojaei@shire.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lifitegrast is a lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 antagonist developed to reduce inflammation in dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-3 (NCT02284516), a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast versus placebo in participants with DED. DESIGN: Twelve-week, phase III, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, corneal fluorescein staining score ≥2.0 (0-4 scale), eye dryness score (EDS) ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]), and history of artificial tear use within 30 days of study entry. METHODS: After a 14-day placebo run-in, participants were randomized 1:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 84 in EDS. Key secondary efficacy end points were change from baseline to days 42 and 14 in EDS. Other secondary efficacy end points included additional VAS items (burning/stinging, itching, foreign body sensation, eye discomfort, photophobia, pain), ocular discomfort score (ODS), and safety/tolerability of lifitegrast versus placebo. RESULTS: In the study, 711 participants were randomized: placebo, 356; lifitegrast, 355 (intention-to-treat [ITT] population). At day 84, lifitegrast-treated participants experienced significantly greater improvement from baseline in EDS versus those receiving placebo (treatment effect [TE], 7.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.04-11.28; P = 0.0007). Mean changes from baseline in EDS also significantly favored lifitegrast on days 42 (TE, 9.32; 95% CI, 5.44-13.20; P < 0.0001) and 14 (TE, 7.85; 95% CI, 4.33-11.37; P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed in ODS between treatment groups at days 84, 42, or 14. A greater improvement was observed in lifitegrast-treated participants at day 42 in itching (nominal P = 0.0318), foreign body sensation (nominal P = 0.0418), and eye discomfort (P = 0.0048) versus participants receiving placebo. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; no serious ocular adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast significantly improved symptoms of eye dryness, as measured by EDS, versus placebo in participants with DED. Improvement in EDS was observed as early as day 14. Lifitegrast appeared well tolerated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Lifitegrast is a lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 antagonist developed to reduce inflammation in dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-3 (NCT02284516), a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast versus placebo in participants with DED. DESIGN: Twelve-week, phase III, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, corneal fluorescein staining score ≥2.0 (0-4 scale), eye dryness score (EDS) ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]), and history of artificial tear use within 30 days of study entry. METHODS: After a 14-day placebo run-in, participants were randomized 1:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 84 in EDS. Key secondary efficacy end points were change from baseline to days 42 and 14 in EDS. Other secondary efficacy end points included additional VAS items (burning/stinging, itching, foreign body sensation, eye discomfort, photophobia, pain), ocular discomfort score (ODS), and safety/tolerability of lifitegrast versus placebo. RESULTS: In the study, 711 participants were randomized: placebo, 356; lifitegrast, 355 (intention-to-treat [ITT] population). At day 84, lifitegrast-treated participants experienced significantly greater improvement from baseline in EDS versus those receiving placebo (treatment effect [TE], 7.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.04-11.28; P = 0.0007). Mean changes from baseline in EDS also significantly favored lifitegrast on days 42 (TE, 9.32; 95% CI, 5.44-13.20; P < 0.0001) and 14 (TE, 7.85; 95% CI, 4.33-11.37; P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed in ODS between treatment groups at days 84, 42, or 14. A greater improvement was observed in lifitegrast-treated participants at day 42 in itching (nominal P = 0.0318), foreign body sensation (nominal P = 0.0418), and eye discomfort (P = 0.0048) versus participants receiving placebo. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; no serious ocular adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:Lifitegrast significantly improved symptoms of eye dryness, as measured by EDS, versus placebo in participants with DED. Improvement in EDS was observed as early as day 14. Lifitegrast appeared well tolerated.
Authors: Brian C Leonard; Kathleen A Stewart; Gillian C Shaw; Alyssa L Hoehn; Amelia A Stanley; Christopher J Murphy; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Cornea Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Penny A Asbell; Maureen G Maguire; Maxwell Pistilli; Gui-shuang Ying; Loretta B Szczotka-Flynn; David R Hardten; Meng C Lin; Roni M Shtein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Harrison Dermer; Daniella Lent-Schochet; Despoina Theotoka; Christian Paba; Abdullah A Cheema; Ryan S Kim; Anat Galor Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Yoshihiro Inamoto; Nuria Valdés-Sanz; Yoko Ogawa; Monica Alves; Luigi Berchicci; John Galvin; Hildegard Greinix; Gregory A Hale; Biljana Horn; Debra Kelly; Hien Liu; Scott Rowley; Helene Schoemans; Ami Shah; Maria Teresa Lupo Stanghellini; Vaibhav Agrawal; Ibrahim Ahmed; Asim Ali; Neel Bhatt; Michael Byrne; Saurabh Chhabra; Zachariah DeFilipp; Kristina Fahnehjelm; Nosha Farhadfar; Erich Horn; Catherine Lee; Sunita Nathan; Olaf Penack; Pinki Prasad; Seth Rotz; Alicia Rovó; Jean Yared; Steven Pavletic; Grzegorz W Basak; Minoo Battiwalla; Rafael Duarte; Bipin N Savani; Mary E D Flowers; Bronwen E Shaw; Igor Petriček Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stephen Giacomazzi; Ivan Urits; Briggs Hoyt; Ashley Hubble; Elyse M Cornett; Kyle Gress; Karina Charipova; Amnon A Berger; Hisham Kassem; Alan D Kaye; Omar Viswanath Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2021-07-19