[This corrects the article on p. 1921 in vol. 12, PMID: 30323548.].
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.
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. (C) 2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the AdenoPlus test with those of both viral cell culture (CC) with confirmatory immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at detecting the presence of adenovirus in tear fluid. METHODS A prospective, sequential, masked, multicenter clinical trial enrolled 128 patients presenting with a clinical diagnosis of acute viral conjunctivitis from a combination of 8 private ophthalmology practices and academic centers. Patients were tested with AdenoPlus, CC-IFA, and PCR to detect the presence of adenovirus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The sensitivity and specificity of AdenoPlus were assessed for identifying cases of adenoviral conjunctivitis. RESULTS Of the 128 patients enrolled, 36 patients' results were found to be positive by either CC-IFA or PCR and 29 patients' results were found to be positive by both CC-IFA and PCR. When compared only with CC-IFA, AdenoPlus showed a sensitivity of 90% (28/31) and specificity of 96% (93/97). When compared only with PCR, AdenoPlus showed a sensitivity of 85% (29/34) and specificity of 98% (89/91). When compared with both CC-IFA and PCR, AdenoPlus showed a sensitivity of 93% (27/29) and specificity of 98% (88/90). When compared with PCR, CC-IFA showed a sensitivity of 85% (29/34) and specificity of 99% (90/91). CONCLUSION AdenoPlus is sensitive and specific at detecting adenoviral conjunctivitis. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE An accurate and rapid in-office test can prevent the misdiagnosis of adenoviral conjunctivitis that leads to the spread of disease, unnecessary antibiotic use, and increased health care costs. Additionally, AdenoPlus may help a clinician make a more informed treatment decision regarding the use of novel therapeutics. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00921895.
