Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30112930›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of ophthalmology2019

Safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0%: Pooled analysis of five randomized controlled trials in dry eye disease.

Kelly K Nichols, Eric D Donnenfeld, Paul M Karpecki, John A Hovanesian, Aparna Raychaudhuri, Amir Shojaei, Steven Zhang

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Sjögren syndrome: looking forward to the future.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. The Immunological Basis of Dry Eye Disease and Current Topical Treatment Options.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly K Nichols1 School of Optometry, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Eric D Donnenfeld2 Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Garden City, NY, USA.
Paul M Karpecki3 Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA.
John A Hovanesian4 Harvard Eye Associates, Laguna Hills, CA, USA.
Aparna Raychaudhuri5 Shire, Lexington, MA, USA.
Amir Shojaei5 Shire, Lexington, MA, USA.
Steven Zhang5 Shire, Lexington, MA, USA.
Takeda (United States) · USHarvard Eye Associates · USOphthalmic Consultants of Long Island · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCharacterize the safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for the treatment of dry eye disease.

methodsPooled data from five randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria were adults with dry eye disease (Schirmer tear test score ⩾1 and ⩽10 mm, eye dryness score ⩾40 (visual analog scale 0-100), corneal staining score ⩾2.0 (0-4 scale)). Participants were randomized to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 or 360 days. Treatment-emergent adverse events and drop comfort scores were assessed.

resultsOverall, 2464 participants (lifitegrast, n = 1287; placebo, n = 1177) were included. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in >5% in either group were instillation site irritation (lifitegrast, 15.2%; placebo, 2.8%), instillation site reaction (lifitegrast, 12.3%; placebo, 2.3%), and instillation site pain (lifitegrast, 9.8%; placebo, 2.1%); the most common (> 5%) nonocular treatment-emergent adverse event was dysgeusia (lifitegrast, 14.5%; placebo, 0.3%). The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. Discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 7.0% (lifitegrast) versus 2.6% (placebo) of participants (ocular: 5.5% vs 1.5%; nonocular: 1.9% vs 1.1%). Drop comfort scores with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation and the score at 3 min improved across visits (12-week trials (both eyes, day 84 vs 0): 2.0 vs 3.3; SONATA (day 360 vs 0): right eye, 1.2 vs 1.7; left eye, 1.2 vs 1.8).

conclusionLifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% appeared to be safe and well tolerated for the treatment of dry eye disease. Drop comfort with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDouble-Blind MethodDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDry Eye SyndromesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmic SolutionsPhenylalanineProspective StudiesSulfonesTreatment OutcomeVisual Analog ScalelifitegrastOphthalmic SolutionsPhenylalanineSulfonesAdverse drug reactionsdry eye diseaselymphocyte function–associated antigen-1 antagonistrandomized controlled trialsafety

Identifiers

PMID30112930
PMCPMC6625033
OpenAlexW2885761574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.