Effects and Safety of 5% Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution in Patients With Dry Eye Disease Associated With Ocular Graft-Versus-Host Disease.

Introduction Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a common sequela of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). While HSCT is often curative for certain hematologic malignancies, acute and chronic GVHD remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in post-transplant patients. Ocular involvement is one manifestation of chronic GVHD that can present similarly to chronic dry eye with tear film abnormalities, aqueous deficiency, and corneal epithelial defects through melting and perforation. Current management includes frequent use of artificial tears and oral or topical glucocorticoids as tolerated. There is a need for long-term, steroid-sparing therapeutics in the management of ocular GVHD (oGVHD). Lifitegrast is approved for the treatment of chronic dry eye and may have therapeutic potential in the treatment of oGVHD. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of topical lifitegrast in the management of oGVHD. Methodology A prospective randomized clinical trial (NCT04792580) was performed on 32 enrolled patients with diagnosed oGVHD. Subjects underwent a two-week washout period consisting of preservative-free artificial tears dosed twice a day, after which they were randomized to the treatment arm (5% lifitegrast ophthalmic solution) or placebo arm (vehicle solution) for four weeks. Endpoints included Symptom Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE) score, unanesthetized Schirmer score, Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire score, fluorescein staining, tear film breakup time, meibum quantity, and turbidity. Safety endpoints included intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and rate of treatment-related adverse effects. Statistical analysis was done with a t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were met, with statistically significant reductions in mean SANDE and unanesthetized Schirmer score observed at four weeks post-randomization. No serious adverse events related to the use of either lifitegrast or vehicle were observed, and no worsening of visual acuity or intraocular pressure occurred in the intention-to-treat analysis. However, further inference was limited due to insufficient statistical power owing to significant washout and a 50% dropout rate from the all-enrolled analysis set. The most common causes of study dropout were worsening of unrelated medical conditions (not GVHD) and improvement of SANDE score or Schirmer score outside of the inclusion criteria range during the washout period. Conclusions Lifitegrast may be a useful steroid-sparing agent in the long-term management of oGVHD. This study provides further support for the clinical evidence of lifitegrast in the management of dry eye signs and symptoms, although further sufficiently powered clinical trials are warranted to better understand its efficacy in the oGVHD population. Personalized treatment options targeting distinct manifestations of oGVHD in the cornea, tear film, lid margin, and conjunctiva are needed in the effective management of this multifaceted and complex disease.