ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Real-World Experience with Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution in Patients with Dry Eye Disease: A Provider Survey in the USA and Canada.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety of Reproxalap in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Approach to the patient: therapeutic mitigation of lacrimal manifestations in thyroid eye disease.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% is indicated to treat signs and symptoms of dry eye disease (DED). This study assessed eyecare professionals' (ECPs) real-world experiences with lifitegrast in DED.
methodsA total of 12 ECPs (6 ophthalmologists and 6 optometrists) with experience prescribing lifitegrast completed a cross-sectional survey on practice characteristics, lifitegrast utilization, satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). ECPs rated satisfaction with lifitegrast overall and for specific clinical outcomes versus other prescription eye drops on a 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) Likert scale.
resultsECPs reported a mean of 1288 (range, 35-6000) patients with DED treated annually, with 20.9% receiving lifitegrast. Overall, 66.7% of ECPs reported near/complete symptom resolution in patients after 1-3 months of lifitegrast treatment. Mean (range) satisfaction ratings for onset/effectiveness were 6.8 (3-9)/6.6 (3-9). Satisfaction with reduction of DED signs was generally high: increased tear film breakup time, 5.8 (3-9); reduced conjunctival/corneal staining, 6.9 (3-9); increased Schirmer test score, 6.0 (3-9); increased tear meniscus height, 6.0 (3-9); and reduced Ocular Surface Disease Index severity, 7.0 (3-10). Symptom reduction satisfaction ratings were: itching, 5.3 (1-9); dryness, 6.9 (3-9); burning/stinging, 6.3 (1-9); redness, 6.2 (4-9); pain, 6.3 (3-9); light sensitivity, 6.5 (3-9); and blurred/poor vision, 6.8 (4-9). Overall satisfaction (ECPs/patients) was rated 7.1 (3-10)/6.8 (2-9). Predominant uses of lifitegrast included contact lens-induced DED (91.7%) and DED before/after refractive or cataract surgery (83.3% each). AEs reported were consistent with the known AE profile of lifitegrast and included burning/stinging, blurred vision, and dysgeusia.
conclusionsThis real-world survey showed that ECPs use lifitegrast to treat one fifth of their patients with DED and reported moderate-to-high personal and patient satisfaction with lifitegrast treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.