Search

Carl D Regillo,1 Lisa M Nijm,2 Diana L Shechtman,3 Peter K Kaiser,4 Paul M Karpecki,5 Edwin H Ryan,6 Michael S Ip,7 Elizabeth Yeu,8 Terry Kim,9 Mohammad R Rafieetary,10 Eric D Donnenfeld11 1Mid Atlantic Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Warrenville Eye Care and LASIK Center, Warrenville, IL, USA; 3Eye Centers of South Florida, North Miami Beach, FL, USA; 4Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; 5Kentucky College of Optometry, University of Pikeville, Pikeville, KY, USA; 6Retina Consultants of Minnesota, Edina, MN, USA; 7Doheny Eye Center UCLA, Pasadena, CA, USA; 8Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, VA, USA; 9Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 10Charles Retina Institute, Germantown, TN, USA; 11Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Garden City, NY, USACorrespondence: Carl D Regillo, Mid Atlantic Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, 840 Walnut St # 1020, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA, Tel +1 (215) 928-3300, Email cregillo@midatlanticretina.comAbstract: Newly approved treatments for patients with geographic atrophy are changing the treatment paradigm, highlighting the need for eye care providers (ECPs) to have a set of recommendations on how to best manage GA patients. Here, we outline how to identify various stages of age-related macular degeneration including geographic atrophy (GA) by examining optimal management scenarios implicating various ECPs and reviewing treatment considerations for patients with GA. Early identification of GA will lead to optimal patient outcomes, while a standardized management scenario will reduce clinical burden among ECPs treating patients with GA.Keywords: age-related macular degeneration, patient care, retina, treatment

Marjan Farid,1 Brandon D Ayres,2 Eric Donnenfeld,3 Ian Benjamin Gaddie,4 Preeya K Gupta,5 Edward Holland,6 Richard Lindstrom,7 Stephen C Pflugfelder,8 Paul M Karpecki,9 Kelly K Nichols,10 Christopher E Starr,11 Elizabeth Yeu12 1Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, UC-Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA; 2Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Long Island, NY, USA; 4Gaddie Eye Centers, Louisville, KY, USA; 5Triangle Eye Consultants, Raleigh, NC and Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA; 6University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 7University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 8Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 9Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA; 10University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Optometry, Birmingham, AL, USA; 11Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 12Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, VA, USACorrespondence: Marjan Farid, University of California, 850 Health Sciences Road, Mail Code: 4375, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA, Tel +1 949 824-0327, Email mfarid@uci.eduPurpose: To obtain consensus on Demodex blepharitis (DB) treatment using a modified Delphi panel process.Methods: Literature search identified gaps in knowledge surrounding treatment of DB. Twelve ocular surface disease experts comprised the Demodex Expert Panel on Treatment and Eyelid Health (DEPTH). They completed a live roundtable discussion in addition to 3 surveys consisting of scaled, open-ended, true/false, and multiple-choice questions pertaining to the treatment of DB. Consensus for scaled questions using a 1 to 9 Likert scale was predefined as median scores of 7– 9 and 1– 3. For other question types, consensus was achieved when 8 of 12 panelists agreed.Results: The experts agreed that an effective therapeutic agent for treatment of DB would likely decrease the necessity of mechanical intervention, such as lid scrubs or blepharoexfoliation (Median = 8.5; Range 2– 9). When treating DB, panelists believed that collarettes serve as a surrogate for mites, and that eliminating or reducing collarettes should be the main clinical goal of treatment (Median = 8; Range 7– 9). The panelists would treat patients with at least 10 collarettes, regardless of other signs or symptoms and agreed that DB can be cured, but there is always the possibility for a reinfestation (n = 12). There was also consensus that collarettes, and therefore mites, are the primary treatment target and the way by which clinicians can monitor patient response to therapy (Median = 8; Range 7– 9).Conclusion: Expert panelists achieved consensus on key facets of DB treatment. Specifically, there was consensus that collarettes are pathognomonic for DB, that DB patients with > 10 collarettes should be treated even in the absence of symptoms, and that treatment efficacy can be tracked by collarette resolution. By increasing awareness about DB, understanding the goals of and monitoring treatment efficacy, patients will receive better care and, ultimately, better clinical outcomes.Keywords: collarettes, cylindrical dandruff, ocular surface disease, eyelid disease

James A Katz,1 Paul M Karpecki,2 Alexandra Dorca,3 Sima Chiva-Razavi,4 Heather Floyd,4 Elizabeth Barnes,4 Mark Wuttke,4 Eric Donnenfeld5 1The Midwest Center for Sight, Des Plaines, IL, USA; 2Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA; 3Favoris AG, Basel, Switzerland; 4Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Garden City, NY, USACorrespondence: Eric DonnenfeldOphthalmic Consultants of Long Island, 711 Stewart Avenue, Suite 160, Garden City, NY, 11530, USAEmail ericdonnenfeld@gmail.comAbstract: Presbyopia is a common age-related vision disorder characterized by a progressive inability to focus on near objects. If uncorrected or under-corrected, presbyopia can significantly impact patients’ quality of life. Presbyopia represents an area of considerable unmet need due to its rising prevalence worldwide as the population ages, the high proportion of under-treated individuals in some parts of the world, and the limitations of currently available corrective methods. Progressive or bifocal spectacles are associated with peripheral blur, a restricted visual field and impaired depth perception, which have been linked to an increased risk of falls in the elderly. Contact lens options can be difficult to maintain due to the development of age-related dry eye symptoms and reduced manual dexterity. Other corrective methods involve surgical interventions that modify the optics of the cornea, replace the crystalline lens, or attempt to restore active accommodation. While patients undergoing surgery report satisfactory outcomes post-operatively, many of them eventually require reading glasses. Non-invasive therapies with novel mechanisms of action are currently being investigated; these include miotic agents and UNR844, a lipoic acid choline ester. In this narrative review, available evidence on presbyopia prevalence, quality of life impact and risk factors are described, with a focus on observational studies in non-clinical settings. The diagnosis pathway and patient journey in presbyopia are outlined, and various treatment options are analyzed. The data reviewed herein reveals significant gaps in the provision of vision correction for this common condition, with a paucity of effective, non-invasive treatment options broadly accessible to presbyopic individuals.Keywords: presbyopia, epidemiology, patient characterization, vision correction, pharmacological therapies

Jay S Pepose,1,2 Paul J Hartman,3 Harvey B DuBiner,4 Marc A Abrams,5 Robert J Smyth-Medina,6 Sayoko E Moroi,7 Alan R Meyer,8 Mina P Sooch,8 Reda M Jaber,8 Konstantinos Charizanis,8 Seth A Klapman,8 Arin T Amin,8 Jonah E Yousif,8 Eliot S Lazar,9 Paul M Karpecki,10 Charles B Slonim,11 Marguerite B McDonald12 1Pepose Vision Institute, St. Louis, MO, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; 4Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, GA, USA; 5Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; 6North Valley Eye Medical Group, Mission Hills, CA, USA; 7The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 8Ocuphire Pharma Inc, Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 9elCON Medical, Buffalo, NY, USA; 10Kentucky College of Optometry, University of Pikeville, Pikeville, KY, USA; 11Oculos Development Services, LLC, Tampa, FL, USA; 12Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Konstantinos CharizanisOcuphire Pharma, Inc., 37000 Grand River Ave, Farmington, MI 48335, USATel +1 (352) 328 9117Email kcharizanis@ocuphire.comPurpose: Phentolamine mesylate ophthalmic solution (PMOS), applied to the eye topically, was shown previously to have beneficial effects in patients with dim light vision disturbances (DLD), including decreased pupil diameter (PD), improved best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), as well as lower intraocular pressure (IOP). The ORION-1 trial evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of PMOS in a glaucomatous, presbyopic population.Patients and Methods: In this randomized, double-masked, multi-center, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose Phase 2b trial, 39 patients with elevated IOP were randomized to receive one evening dose of study medication or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome measure was mean change in diurnal IOP, and the key secondary outcome measures included changes in PD, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and conjunctival hyperemia.Results: Use of 1% PMOS did not lead to a statistically significant decrease in diurnal IOP compared to placebo (P = 0.89) but trended toward a greater decrease in patients with lower IOP baselines. PMOS produced a statistically significant mean 20% PD reduction under both photopic and mesopic conditions that was sustained for 36 hours post-dosing. A statistically significant number of patients with PMOS compared to placebo demonstrated ≥ 1 line of improvement in photopic DCNVA at day 8 (P = 0.0018), day 15 (P = 0.0072), and day 16 (P = 0.0163), with a trend for 2- and 3-line improvements at all time points. There was no statistical difference in conjunctival hyperemia compared to placebo.Conclusion: Although mean IOP was not lowered significantly, daily evening dosing of 1% PMOS was found to be well tolerated with no daytime conjunctival redness and demonstrated improvement in DCNVA with sustained PD reduction in a glaucomatous and presbyopic population. Smaller pupil size can have beneficial effects in improving symptoms of presbyopia and DLD, which will be the focus of further studies.Keywords: IOP, presbyopia, night vision disturbances, dim light vision disturbances, pupil diameter, ORION-1

Laura M Periman,1 Francis S Mah,2 Paul M Karpecki3 1Periman Eye Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; 2Scripps Health, La Jolla, CA, USA; 3Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USACorrespondence: Laura M PerimanPeriman Eye Institute, Seattle, WA, USAEmail dryeyemaster@gmail.comAbstract: Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the ocular surface and tear film that has gained awareness as a public health problem. Characteristics of DED include tear film instability, hyperosmolarity, and ocular surface inflammation, which can occur independently or may be a sequela of numerous ocular diseases, ocular surgery or contact lens wear. Much has been learned about the impact of the disease to help affected individuals who report symptoms of poor vision, pain, and tearing. Recently, new research highlights the importance of the role of ocular surface inflammation and damage in DED—leading to a vicious cycle of inflammation as well as loss of tear film homeostasis. DED immunopathophysiology is characterized by four stages: initiation, amplification, recruitment, and re-initiation. Cyclosporine is proven to be a valuable ophthalmic therapeutic for DED through its immunomodulatory actions and regulation of the adaptive immune response. Cyclosporine mechanism of action is well described in the published literature and the myriad of benefits in all four stages lend a broad-based immunomodulatory function particularly suitable for addressing DED. Furthermore, cyclosporine has unique goblet cell density improvement capabilities as well as anti-apoptotic properties. Topical formulations of cyclosporine are centered around addressing the highly lipophilic nature of the molecule. The poor aqueous solubility of cyclosporine traditionally presented technical challenges in drug delivery to the ocular surface. Newer formulations such as cationic emulsions and nanomicellar aqueous solutions address formulation, tissue concentration, and drug delivery challenges.Keywords: dry eye disease, cyclosporine A, emulsion, OTX-101, keratoconjunctivitis sicca

Darrell E White,1 Yang Zhao,2 Abayomi Ogundele,2 Nicole Fulcher,3 Annabel Acs,3 Laura Moore-Schiltz,3 Paul M Karpecki4 1Department of Ophthalmology, SkyVision Centers, Westlake, OH 44145, USA; 2Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA; 3Outcomes Research, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; 4Corneal Services and Advanced OSD Clinic, University of Pikeville Kentucky College of Optometry, Pikeville, KY 41501, USACorrespondence: Yang ZhaoHealth Economics and Outcomes Research, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., 2 Independence Way, Princeton, NJ 08540, USATel +1 609 720 8132Email yang.zhao@sunpharma.comPurpose: To assess adherence, non-persistence, discontinuation, and switching of topical cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (CYC) and lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% (LIF) use in the real world among patients with dry eye disease (DED).Design: Retrospective insurance claims study.Methods: Adult patients with DED and ≥1 prescription claim for CYC or LIF (first claim = index date) in the IBM® MarketScan® databases from July 2016 to February 2018 were identified. Eligible patients had continuous medical and pharmacy benefits in the 12 months pre- and post-index periods, and no prior use of the index medication. The proportion of days covered (PDC), adherence, non-persistence, discontinuation, and switching were examined over the 12-month post-index period.Results: This study included 6537 CYC and 3235 LIF patients. The adherence rate was 5.9% for CYC and 9.7% for LIF; the median PDC was 0.3 for both cohorts. Overall, 70.8% of CYC and 64.4% of LIF patients discontinued treatment with median days to discontinuation of 89 and 29, respectively. Non-persistence was 7.1% for CYC and 6.8% for LIF (median days to discontinuation: 89 and 105). In addition, 5.0% switched from CYC to LIF, and 9.6% switched from LIF to CYC over the post-index period.Conclusion: Over 60% of DED patients discontinued treatment within 12 months of initiation; the median time to discontinuation was 3 months for CYC and 1 month for LIF. Although this analysis did not capture the reasons why patients discontinued treatment, the results demonstrate there likely exists a significant unmet need amongst DED patients.Keywords: dry eye disease, adherence, persistence, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, lifitegrast ophthalmic solution

Paul M Karpecki,1,2 Sidney L Weiss,3 William G Kramer,4 Patrick O’Connor,5 David Evans,6 Josh Johnston,7 April L Jasper,8 Angela Justice,9 Abayomi B Ogundele,9 Doug Devries10 1Kentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA; 2Gaddie Eye Centers, Louisville, KY, USA; 3i-novion, Inc., Randolph, NJ, USA; 4Kramer Consulting, LLC, North Potomac, MD, USA; 5Auven Therapeutics, Delray Beach, FL, USA; 6Total Eye Care, Memphis, TN, USA; 7Georgia Eye Partners, Atlanta, GA, USA; 8Advanced Eyecare Specialists, West Palm Beach, FL, USA; 9Sun Ophthalmics, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Princeton, NJ, USA; 10Eye Care Associates of Nevada, Sparks, NV, USA Purpose: To evaluate the ocular safety of OTX-101 0.09% – a novel, nanomicellar, clear, aqueous solution of cyclosporine (CsA) – and to determine the systemic exposure to CsA following ophthalmic administration. Patients and methods: Healthy volunteers ≥18 years of age were recruited for participation in this phase 1, open-label, single-center, single-arm, study. Subjects received one drop of OTX-101 0.09% in each eye every 12 hours for 7 days, and once on day 8. Blood samples were collected predose, and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours post-first dose on day 1 and day 8. CsA levels in whole blood samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters (maximal whole blood concentration [Cmax, ng/mL], time to Cmax [Tmax, hours]), and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the last measurement [AUC(0–t), h·ng/mL]) were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Safety assessments included subject-reported adverse events (AEs), vital signs, visual acuity, intraocular pressure measurement, biomicroscopy, and direct ophthalmoscopy. Results: A total of 16 subjects were enrolled; 15 subjects completed the study. Blood sample analysis indicated limited systemic exposure to CsA; three subjects had a CsA concentration greater than or equal to the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) on day 1; only four subjects had three consecutive CsA concentration measurements ≥LLOQ on day 8; the mean±SD for Cmax was 0.17±0.02 ng/mL, Tmax was 1.5±0.58 hours, and AUC(0–t) was 0.53±0.06 h·ng/mL. Three subjects reported three AEs (eye pain, eye pruritis, and eye irritation) during the study. No clinically significant changes in the safety assessments were noted. Conclusion: The OTX-101 formulation was well tolerated. Systemic exposure to CsA was negligible in healthy volunteers after twice-daily ocular administration. No evidence for systemic accumulation of CsA was observed. Keywords: dry eye disease, cyclosporine, pharmacokinetic, systemic exposure

George Ousler III,1 Douglas K Devries,2 Paul M Karpecki,3 Joseph B Ciolino41Ora, Inc, Andover, MA, USA; 2Eye Care Associates of Nevada, Sparks, NV, USA; 3Koffler Vision Group, Lexington, KY, USA; 4Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USAAbstract: A single-center, open-label study consisting of two visits over the course of approximately 2 weeks was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Retaine™ ophthalmic emulsion in improving the signs and symptoms of dry eye. Forty-two subjects were enrolled and received 1–2 drops twice daily of Retaine™ beginning at the first visit (day 1) and ending at the second visit. Subjects were instructed to complete a symptomatology diary twice daily prior to drop instillation through the morning of the second visit. Ocular sign and symptom assessments, visual acuity procedures, and comfort assessments were conducted during both visits. A statistically significant reduction was observed in mean breakup area on the second visit between the predose time and the postdose time (P=0.026). On the second visit, subjects had significantly less corneal fluorescein staining in the superior (P=0.002), central (P=0.017), corneal sum (P=0.011), and all ocular regions combined (P=0.038) than on the first visit. On the second visit, statistically significant reductions in dryness (P

Purpose: In this study the safety and efficacy of silk-derived protein 4 (SDP-4), also known as amlisimod, eye drops against a vehicle control formulation in patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED) was assessed. SDP-4 is a novel, naturally derived, anti-inflammatory wetting agent that enhances coating on the ocular surface., Design: Exploratory Phase 2, 12- and 8-week, serial cohort, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled study., Methods: In the first cohort (N = 305), patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to SDP-4 (0.1%, 1%, 3% wt./wt.) or vehicle control and dosed 2 times per day (BID), while in the second cohort patients were randomized 1:1 with 1% wt./wt. SDP-4, the best performing formulation from the first cohort, or vehicle control BID (N = 151). Diagnosed DED patients were treated in the United States between April 2019 and May 2021. The first cohort of subjects had moderate to severe baseline symptoms, while the second cohort had moderate baseline symptoms to study the impact of baseline symptoms on SDP-4 performance. Key sign and symptom end points were mean change from baseline in TBUT and total SANDE score (0-100 visual analog scale) throughout the study., Results: SDP-4 (1%) significantly increased TBUT vs the vehicle control (P < .05) at days 28 and 56 in the first cohort, and patient symptomatology from baseline was reduced by 46% based on subject reported SANDE VAS scores at day 84. Patients with more severe baseline DED symptoms experienced a significantly greater amount of relief than when compared to patients with moderate DED (P < .05). All treatment groups were well tolerated with a 2.6% total discontinuation rate., Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this was the first-in-human use of SDP-4 in a clinical trial. SDP-4 is a first-in-class protein ingredient that offers a safe and multi-modal treatment approach for alleviating severe DED symptoms within a novel formulation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chronic ocular surface pain (COSP) is described as a persistent, moderate-to-severe pain at the ocular surface lasting more than 3 months. Symptoms of COSP have a significant impact on patients' vision-dependent activities of daily living (ADL) and distal health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To adequately capture patient perspectives in clinical trials, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures must demonstrate sufficient evidence of content validity in the target population. This study aimed to explore the patient experience of living with COSP and evaluate content validity of the newly developed Chronic Ocular Pain Questionnaire (COP-Q) for use in COSP clinical trials., Methods: Qualitative, combined concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews were conducted with 24 patients experiencing COSP symptoms in the USA. Interviews were supplemented with real-time data collection via a daily diary app task in a subset of patients (n = 15) to explore the day-to-day patient experience. Three healthcare professionals (HCPs) from the USA, Canada, and France were also interviewed to provide a clinical perspective. CE results were used to further inform development of a conceptual model and to refine PRO items/response options. CD interviews assessed relevance and understanding of the COP-Q. Interviews were conducted across multiple rounds to allow item modifications and subsequent testing., Results: Eye pain, eye itch, burning sensation, eye dryness, eye irritation, foreign body sensation, eye fatigue, and eye grittiness were the most frequently reported symptoms impacting vision-dependent ADL (e.g., reading, using digital devices, driving) and wider HRQoL (e.g., emotional wellbeing, social functioning, work). COP-Q instructions, items, and response scales were understood, and concepts were considered relevant. Feedback supported modifications to instruction/item wording and confirmed the most appropriate recall periods., Conclusions: Findings support content validity of the COP-Q for use in COSP populations. Ongoing research to evaluate psychometric validity of the COP-Q will support future use of the instrument in clinical trial efficacy endpoints., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common condition in which tear film abnormalities result in a damaging cycle of tear hyperosmolarity, desiccating stress, inflammation, and ocular surface injury. In a healthy tear film, meibum produced by the meibomian glands forms a lipid layer that stabilizes the tear film and protects against aqueous tear evaporation. Excessive tear evaporation due to a deficient lipid layer is believed to be the most common cause of DED, and most evaporative DED is associated with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD); this highlights the pathophysiologic importance of the dysfunctional tear lipid layer. Current treatments for DED may be used to supplement hyperosmolar aqueous tears, lubricate the ocular surface, increase meibum flow, decrease inflammation, promote tear production, or otherwise decrease clinical signs of ocular surface damage and/or improve symptoms. Until now, no prescription eye drop has directly addressed the excessive evaporation that occurs in most patients with DED. Perfluorohexyloctane (PFHO) ophthalmic solution (MIEBO™; Bausch + Lomb) is a preservative-free eye drop that has demonstrated the ability to form a long-lasting barrier that inhibits evaporation in preclinical studies. FDA approval of PFHO was based on results from 2 pivotal clinical trials (GOBI [NCT04139798] and MOJAVE [NCT04567329]) in patients with DED and clinical signs of MGD which demonstrated consistent improvements in both signs and symptoms of disease, with a safety profile similar to that of saline eye drops. PFHO is the first and only FDA-approved eye drop that directly targets tear evaporation in patients with DED, thereby promoting ocular surface healing and providing symptomatic relief.

Background/aims: With a paradigm shift in geographic atrophy (GA) treatments now available, establishing consensus on the identification and diagnosis of the disease along with considerations for management of patients with GA will assist eye care professionals (ECP) in their day-to-day practices, leading to improved patient outcomes., Methods: A modified Delphi panel process (Geographic Atrophy Management Consensus) consisting of three total surveys and one virtual live meeting held between survey 2 and survey 3. Data were collected from July to October 2022. Participants included expert members of the eye care community that have demonstrated outstanding leadership among peers: a steering committee with three ECPs and a 15-member panel divided between five optometrists, five comprehensive ophthalmologists and five retina specialists. Consensus on statements related to the management of patients with GA was calculated using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method., Results: At the conclusion of the third survey, consensus was reached on 91% of the 77 statements. Critical consensus topics include: (1) optical coherence tomography as the favoured method to diagnose and monitor GA, (2) preferred practice patterns regarding referral of patients to retina specialists and (3) treatment criteria given the advent of emerging therapeutics for GA., Conclusions: Generating awareness of early signs of disease development, progression and identifying the best tools to evaluate GA establishes ideal management and referral strategies. Given the paradigm shift in GA management driven by approved therapies, coupled with the fact that the disease is progressive resulting in devastating vision loss, these strategies are critical to ensure best overall outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PKK, CDR, YM, EY, TK, NK and MTD have served as consultants for IVERIC bio. CDR and MSI have received research support from IVERIC bio. JS and MRR have served on advisory boards for IVERIC bio., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Twelve ocular surface disease experts convened to achieve consensus about Demodex blepharitis (DB) using a modified Delphi panel process., Methods: Online surveys were administered using scaled, open-ended, true/false, and multiple-choice questions. Consensus for questions using a 1 to 9 Likert scale was predefined as median scores of 7-9 and 1-3. For other question types, consensus was achieved when 8 of 12 panellists agreed. Questions were randomized, and results of each survey informed the following survey., Results: Twelve practitioners comprised the Demodex Expert Panel on Treatment and Eyelid Health (DEPTH). Following 3 surveys, experts agreed that DB is chronic (n = 11) and recurrent (n = 12) and is often misdiagnosed. Consensus was achieved regarding inflammation driving symptoms (median = 7; range 7-9), collarettes as the most common sign (n = 10) and pathognomonic for DB (median = 9; range 8-9), and itching as the most common symptom (n = 12). Panellists agreed that DB may be diagnosed based on collarettes, mites, and/or patient symptoms (n = 10) and felt that patients unresponsive to typical therapies should be evaluated for DB (n = 12). Consensus about the most effective currently available OTC treatment was not reached., Conclusions: The Delphi methodology proved effective in establishing consensus about DB, including signs, symptoms, and diagnosis. Consensus was not reached about the best treatment or how to grade severity. With increased awareness, eyecare practitioners can offer DB patients better clinical outcomes. A follow-up Delphi panel is planned to obtain further consensus surrounding DB treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Significance: There is a clinical necessity for dry eye disease treatments that perform across a broad range of presenting patient severities. Varenicline solution nasal spray (VNS), a unique cholinergic agonist ocular surface-sparing nasal spray therapy, demonstrated significant improvement in both signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe symptoms as the clinical studies enrolled a more real-world patient population., Purpose: This study evaluated efficacy outcomes for VNS in patients with mild-moderate and severe dry eye disease., Methods: An analysis of integrated data from two randomized clinical trials, ONSET-1 (NCT03636061) and ONSET-2 (NCT04036292) (vehicle control [VC], n = 294; VNS 0.03 mg, n = 308), was performed. Adults 22 years or older with dry eye disease, Ocular Surface Disease Index score of ≥23, corneal fluorescein staining score of ≥2 in ≥1 regions/≥4 all regions, and Schirmer Test Score (STS) of ≤10 mm (no restrictions on Eye Dryness Score [EDS]) were included in this study. Efficacy was evaluated using analysis of covariance among pre-specified subgroups of mild-moderate and severe baseline disease severity defined by STS (≤5 vs. >5) and EDS (<60 vs. ≥60). Consistency of effect was evaluated by interaction tests., Results: No treatment-subgroup interactions were observed for all end points ( P > .05). The odds of achieving a ≥10-mm improvement in STS for VNS versus VC for patients with baseline STS ≤5 and >5 were 3.4(95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 5.6) and 2.3(1.3 to 4.0) and for EDS of <60 and ≥60 were 3.4(1.9 to 6.1) and 2.5(1.5 to 4.0). Least-squares mean treatment/VC differences in change from baseline in EDS for patients with baseline STS ≤5 or >5 were -7.4(95% confidence interval, -12.5 to -2.4) and -2.8(-8.7 to 3.1); EDS of <60 and ≥60 were -2.9(-8.3 to 2.5) and -8.1(-13.6 to -2.6)., Conclusions: Compared with VC, VNS improved tear production and patient-reported symptoms in patients with dry eye disease, demonstrating consistency of effect regardless of initial presenting severity., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: AG, corresponding author, is an employee of and shareholder in Oyster Point Pharma, Inc., the sponsor of this study. The authors report the following conflicts of interest: JDS has consulted for the following companies: AbbVie, Alcon, Aldeyra, Allergan, Alphaeon, ArcScan, Avedro, Bausch & Lomb, BioLayer, Bio-Tissue, Bruder Healthcare, Clearside, Clearview, Clementia Pharma, Dompe, Eleven, Eyedetec, EyeGate Research, EyeRx Research, Eyevance, Glaukos, Hovione, Imprimis Pharma, InSite Vision Inc., Inspire/Merck Pharmaceuticals, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson/TearScience/Vistakon, Kala Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, LacriSciences, LayerBio, Lenstatin, Lumenis, Lux Biosciences, Mallinckrodt, Mati Therapeutics, MioTech, Neomedix, NicOx, NovaBay, Novaliq, Novartis, Noveome Biotherapeutics, OcuCure, Ocular Therapeutix, Oculis, Okogen, Omeros, Oyster Point, Parion, Pfizer, Portage, Quidel, Rapid Pathogen Screening, Rutech, Santen, Science Based Health, Senju, Shire, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Surrozen, Synedgen, Takeda, Talia Technology, Tear Solutions, TearLab, Topcon, TopiVert, and Xoma/Servier. LEO, PMK, and WOW are speakers and consultants for Oyster Point Pharma, Inc. GB, MH, LHH, AG, and MM are employees of and shareholders in Oyster Point Pharma, Inc., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a single TearCare procedure compared with a single LipiFlow procedure in treatment of the dry eye disease associated with meibomian gland dysfunction., Methods: In a multicenter, masked, randomized controlled trial, 135 subjects received a single TearCare (TC) treatment (n = 67) or a single LipiFlow (LF) treatment (n = 68) at baseline and were followed up for 1 month posttreatment. Tear film breakup time, meibomian gland function, and corneal and conjunctival staining scores were assessed as dry eye signs at baseline, 2 weeks, and 1 month; dry eye symptoms were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index, Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye, and eye dryness questionnaires at baseline and 1 month., Results: At 1 month posttreatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvements (P < 0.0001) in mean tear film breakup time and meibomian gland secretion score to 3.0 ± 4.4 and 11.2 ± 11.1 in the TC group and 2.6 ± 3.3 and 11.0 ± 10.4 in the LF group, respectively. The mean eye dryness, Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye, and Ocular Surface Disease Index scores were significantly reduced (P < 0.0001) by 35.4 ± 34.1, 38.2 ± 31.0, and 27.9 ± 20.5 in the TC group and 34.9 ± 26.9, 38.0 ± 25.9, and 23.4 ± 17.7 in the LF group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences for any result between the groups. However, the TC group demonstrated numerically greater improvements consistently in all signs and symptoms. Device-related ocular adverse events were reported in 3 patients in the TC group (superficial punctate keratitis, chalazion, and blepharitis) and 4 patients in the LF group (blepharitis, 2 cases of foreign body sensation, and severe eye dryness)., Conclusions: A single TearCare treatment significantly alleviates the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction and is equivalent in its safety and effectiveness profile to LipiFlow treatment as shown in this 1-month follow-up study., Competing Interests: K. Dhamdhere is an employee at Sight Sciences, Inc. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Significance: Acquired ptosis is a condition of the upper eyelid that has negative cosmetic and functional effects but is likely underdiagnosed and undertreated. Given the evolving understanding of the condition and expanding therapeutic options, this review reappraised published evidence and clinical experience regarding diagnosis and treatment of acquired ptosis.The authors met over two structured virtual working sessions to review current evidence and develop timely recommendations for acquired ptosis identification, differential diagnosis, characterization, and treatment selection. Diagnostic algorithms, plus management and referral guidelines, are presented. Eyelid evaluation and, when needed, ptosis diagnostic workup are essential in the comprehensive eye examination. Acquired ptosis can be efficiently identified via patient questionnaire, history, and photograph review combined with assessment of eyelid position and symmetry using established methods. When ptosis is present, it is essential to evaluate onset, symptoms, pupil diameter, and extraocular muscle function to identify or rule out serious underlying conditions. If signs of serious underlying etiology are present, immediate referral/follow-up testing is required. After ruling out serious underlying causes, masquerade conditions, and pseudoptosis, pharmacologic or surgical treatment should be selected based on the clinical evidence. Effectively managing acquired ptosis requires practice-wide commitment to thorough eyelid evaluation, accurate diagnosis, and adoption of new treatment modalities. Aided by evolving pharmacologic therapeutic options, shifting from a "detect and refer" to a "diagnose and manage" approach can support identification and treatment of more patients with acquired ptosis, particularly mild-to-moderate cases., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: KKN reports consulting fees/honoraria from Axim, Bruder, Dompe, HanAll Bio, Kala, Novartis/Shire/Takeda (Medical Exchange International), RVL Pharmaceuticals (an affiliate of Osmotica Pharmaceuticals), Oyster Point, Sight Sciences, Tear Film Innovations/Alcon/Acquiom, Thea, Tarsus, and Visionology and research funding from Allergan, Kala, and Tear Science. Also, Dr. Jason Nichols is the spouse of KKN, extending his declarations (consultant to Alcon; research funding from NIH/NEI) to her. KAM reports consulting and speaker fees from Osmotica Pharmaceuticals and RVL Pharmaceuticals. PMK serves as an advisor to and reports consulting fees from Akorn, Alcon Labs, Aldeyra, Allergan/Abbvie, Azura Pharmaceuticals, Bausch & Lomb, BioTissue, BlephEx, Bruder Healthcare, Bruno Pharmaceuticals, Cambium Pharma, Dompe, Eyedetec, Eyegate, Eyevance, Healthe, iCare USA, Imprimis, Ivantis, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Kala pharmaceuticals, Keplr Vision, Konan Medical, LenTechs, Maculogix, Neurolens, Novartis, Oasis Medical, Ocuphire, Ocular Sciences, Oculus, Orasis, Oyster Point, RegenerEyes, Reichert, Rendia, RVL Pharmaceuticals (an affiliate of Osmotica Pharmaceuticals), RxSight, ScienceBased Health, Sentiss Pharmaceuticals, Sight Sciences, Silk Technologies, Surface Pharmaceuticals, Tarsus Medical, TearClear, and Vital Tears; speakers bureau fees from Mallinckrodt, Dompe, Sun pharmaceuticals, Bausch & Lomb, and Neurolens; and research grants from Ocuphire, TearSciences, Kala pharmaceuticals, Bruno Vision Care, and Dompe. JB reports consultant fees from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Eyepoint, Humphrey-Zeiss, New World Medical, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Topcon, Injectsense, RVL Pharmaceuticals (an affiliate of Osmotica Pharmaceuticals), and Santen; speaker fees from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Glaukos, New World Medical, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and RVL Pharmaceuticals (an affiliate of Osmotica Pharmaceuticals); and research support from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Glaukos, Topcon, Novartis, Santen, and Ocular Therapeutix. RSD is an employee of RVL Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (an affiliate of Osmotica Pharmaceuticals), and reports consulting fees from Horizon Therapeutics. SF receives consulting fees from Osmotica Pharmaceuticals, RVL Pharmaceuticals, and Essilor of America. SJG serves as an advisor to and reports consulting fees from Alcon, Bausch & Lomb, Gas Permeable Lens Institute, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Lentechs, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals, and RVL Pharmaceuticals and speakers bureau fees from Alcon, Bausch & Lomb SVP, Glaukos, and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care. WOW serves as an advisor to and reports consulting fees from Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Azura Pharmaceuticals, Bausch & Lomb, BioTissue, BlephEx, Bruder Healthcare, Dompe, Eyevance, Glaukos, Corporation, Horizon Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Kala Pharmaceuticals, Notal Vision, Novartis, Ocular Therapeutix, Oyster Point, Quidel Corporation, RegenerEyes, RVL Pharmaceuticals, ScienceBased Health, Sight Sciences, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, TearLab, and Thea Pharmaceuticals and speakers bureau fees from Aerie, Alcon, Bausch & Lomb, Eyevance, Kala Pharmaceuticals, ScienceBased Health, and Sun Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry.)

Use of a combination corticosteroid and antibiotic in a single formulation is common in the treatment of ocular inflammatory conditions for which corticosteroid therapy is indicated and there exists a risk of superficial bacterial infection. Loteprednol etabonate (LE) is a corticosteroid engineered to maintain potent anti-inflammatory activity while minimizing the risk of undesirable class effects of corticosteroids, such as elevated intraocular pressure and cataract. Tobramycin is a broad-spectrum aminoglycoside antibiotic that is considered generally safe and well tolerated. An ophthalmic suspension combining LE 0.5% and tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T) is approved in the US and several other countries. Use of a combination therapy increases convenience, which may promote patient adherence. A systematic literature review was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of LE/T for ocular inflammatory conditions within the scope of its labeled indications. Results of published studies indicate that LE/T is effective in the treatment of blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in adults, with similar efficacy as dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3%, but is associated with a lower risk of clinically significant increases in intraocular pressure as demonstrated in both efficacy and safety studies and studies with healthy volunteers. Furthermore, studies in children with blepharitis or blepharoconjunctivitis indicate LE/T was well tolerated in this population, although efficacy vs vehicle was not demonstrated, potentially due to improvements in all groups overall and/or limited sample size. Separately, tobramycin demonstrated potent in vitro activity against most bacterial species associated with blepharitis. In conclusion, published data demonstrate the utility of LE/T for the treatment of the various clinical manifestations of blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in adults., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the ocular surface characterized by loss of homeostasis of the tear film and accompanied by symptoms such as ocular discomfort and visual disturbance. DED is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care in the United States and across the world. Despite this, there are a limited number of pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of DED in the United States and Europe. This review examines the different pivotal trials for DED medications and the impact the vehicle in each trial.In recent clinical trials, the vehicle of the active formulation of the medication is often used as the active comparator. A literature review of published dry eye clinical trials was performed to identify the pivotal clinical trials of DED medications and to compare treatment effect and further understand the impact of the vehicle on clinical trial outcomes.The pivotal clinical trials for the currently approved treatments for dry eye have widely varying study designs. The variations include differences in inclusion criteria, outcome measures and efficacy endpoints, and whether or not the use of concomitant artificial tears is allowed. These differences make it difficult for accurate comparisons to be made between DED medications. Each trial demonstrated that the vehicle alone has some beneficial effect on signs and symptoms of dry eye disease.This review discusses the varying trial designs and vehicles used in the pivotal studies for the four approved dry eye medications in the United States and Europe, as well as novel vehicles under development and clinical trial recommendations.

Significance: After a dilated eye examination, many patients experience symptoms of prolonged light sensitivity, blurred vision, and cycloplegia associated with pharmacological mydriasis. Phentolamine mesylate ophthalmic solution (PMOS) may expedite the reversal of mydriasis in patients, potentially facilitating return to functional vision and reducing barriers to obtaining dilated eye examinations., Purpose: The protracted reversal time after pharmacologically induced pupil dilation impairs vision. We tested the hypothesis that PMOS rapidly reduces pupil diameter in this acute indication., Methods: In this double-masked placebo-controlled, randomized, two-arm crossover phase 2b trial, we evaluated the effects of one drop of 1% PMOS applied bilaterally in subjects who had their pupils dilated by one of two common mydriatic agents: 2.5% phenylephrine or 1% tropicamide. End points included change in pupil diameter, percent of subjects returning to baseline pupil diameter, and accommodative function at multiple time points., Results: Thirty-one subjects completed the study (15 dilated with phenylephrine and 16 with tropicamide). Change in pupil diameter from baseline at 2 hours after maximal dilation with 1% PMOS was -1.69 mm and was significantly greater in magnitude compared with placebo for every time point beyond 30 minutes (P < .05). At 2 hours, a greater percentage of study eyes given 1% PMOS returned to baseline pupil diameter compared with placebo (29 vs. 13%, P = .03), which was this also seen at 4 hours (P < .001). More subjects treated with PMOS in the tropicamide subgroup had at least one eye returning to baseline accommodative amplitude at 2 hours (63 vs. 38%, P = .01). There were no severe adverse events, with only mild to moderate conjunctival hyperemia that resolved in most patients by 6 hours., Conclusions: Phentolamine mesylate ophthalmic solution at 1% reversed medically induced pupil dilation more rapidly than placebo treatment regardless of which mydriatic was used (adrenergic agonists and cholinergic blockers) with a tolerable safety profile., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The publication of this article was sponsored by Ocuphire Pharma, Inc. ARM, MPS, RMJ, KC, JEY, SAK, and ATA are or were employees, directors/officers, or paid consultants for Ocuphire Pharma. PMK, MBM, ESL, JSP, and GDH are on the medical advisory board for Ocuphire Pharma. PMK, SAF, SMM, and SRK were principal investigators for this clinical trial funded by Ocuphire Pharma. CBS serves as Chief Medical Officer of Oculos Development Services, LLC, which was the contract research organization for this clinical trial. The authors indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest with regard to the content of this article. The authors listed report a financial conflict of interest (PMK, SAF, SMM, SRK, CBS, ARM, MPS, RMJ, KC, JEY, SAK, ATA, MBM, GDH, ESL, and JSP). The sponsor (Ocuphire) provided financial and material support and participated in study design, analysis, and interpretation. The authors were responsible for the preparation of this article and the decision to submit this article for publication. Each of the authors had (full/limited) access to the study data and takes full responsibility for their presentation in this article., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Optometry.)

Dry eye disease is a common but underdiagnosed disorder in the United States, and its prevalence is likely to increase as the nation's population ages. Although still regarded as little more than a nuisance by many clinicians and payers alike, dry eye disease is known to have both clinical consequences for ocular health and effects on vision-related quality of life in many people, impairing their ability to function well in vocational and social settings. Pharmaceutical treatments consist mainly of over-the-counter ocular lubricants ("artificial tears") and a few prescription drugs that address the inflammatory component of dry eye disease through immunomodulation and/or inhibition of T-cell activity. In September 2020, Oyster Point Pharma, Inc (Oyster Point Pharma), convened a panel-consisting of 7 managed care executives with experience in management of dry eye disease treatments and 2 eye care practitioners with expertise in dry eye disease-to discuss how the growth of knowledge about dry eye disease in the past 2 decades has altered their thinking about and approach to dry eye disease, as well as how they would like to see the field advance. They pointed to an existing unmet need in knowledge and therapeutics that can address the underlying causes of dry eye disease. Oyster Point Pharma supported the authorship of this article; the authors were members of the panel, and all panelists were compensated by Oyster Point Pharma. This article provides an overview of dry eye disease and summarizes the panel discussion.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the Bruder Moist Heat Compress on contact lens (CL) discomfort in subjects with contact lens-related dry eye (CLDE). This was a 4-week, single-center, three-arm, randomized, open-label clinical trial in subjects diagnosed with CLDE using the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire. Fifty-one CL wearers were randomized to one of three treatment groups: application of the Bruder Compress twice a day, Bruder Compress once a day, or warm washcloth used for ten minutes twice a day without reheating. Subject diaries were monitored for compliance and collected data on daily CL comfort upon awakening and throughout the afternoon. Clinical assessments included tear film break-up time (TBUT), lipid layer thickness (LLT), and meibomian gland evaluation. Statistical tests included a generalized linear model and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate treatment effect on comfortable wear time. Fifty-one subjects (98% female) completed the study. After treatment, subjects using a washcloth reported more uncomfortable contact lens wear time on average (mean = 5.1 ± 2.8 h) when compared with subjects who had used the Bruder Compress in Group 1 (mean = 2.8 ± 1.6 h) (p = 0.02). In the Bruder Compress groups, there was a significant reduction in the blockage of meibomian glands (p < 0.01). No significant difference in uncomfortable wear time was found between subjects using the Bruder Compress twice daily versus once daily (p = 0.48). Subjects using the Bruder Compress once daily had the highest rate of compliance at 90.2% (p < 0.01). No significant improvements were observed in TBUT (p = 0.76) or LLT (p = 0.78). The Bruder Moist Heat Compress resulted in a significant improvement in comfortable CL wear time in subjects with CLDE., (Copyright © 2019 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Characterize the safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for the treatment of dry eye disease., Methods: Pooled 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., Results: Overall, 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)., Conclusion: Lifitegrast 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.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial and complex disease of the ocular surface, with a high prevalence in adults. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety data from published articles reporting results from prospective, controlled trials of topical ophthalmic drugs for DED. PubMed was searched for articles from January 1997 to October 2017. Twenty-six unique trials investigating 13 ophthalmic drugs were identified, including trials of the approved drugs cyclosporine A, cyclosporine A cationic emulsion, diquafosol, rebamipide and lifitegrast. All identified studies provided level 1 evidence. None of the large (N > 100) studies demonstrated statistical significance of primary endpoints for both a sign and a symptom endpoint versus a control treatment in the same published trial. Publications on lifitegrast reported statistical superiority in a symptom or sign endpoint versus the control group in a large (N > 200), multicenter trial, with results repeated in trials of similar design. The most common adverse events associated with the approved drugs related to ocular discomfort upon instillation, especially burning/stinging and ocular irritation. The trial design and endpoints used across the studies varied considerably, highlighting the importance of standardization in clinical trials for DED. Recent advances in drug delivery and improved understanding of DED should contribute to new ophthalmic drug approvals., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year safety of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in patients with dry eye disease compared with placebo., Methods: SONATA (Safety Of a 5.0% coNcentrATion of lifitegrAst ophthalmic solution) was a multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT01636206). Adults (≥18 years) with dry eye disease (Schirmer test score ≥1 and ≤10 mm; corneal staining score ≥2.0) were randomized 2:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 360 days. The primary objective was percentage and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary objectives were ocular safety measures: corneal fluorescein staining, drop comfort, best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and intraocular pressure over 7 visits. Exploratory objectives included concentration of lifitegrast in plasma., Results: The safety population comprised 331 participants (220 lifitegrast; 111 placebo). There were no serious ocular TEAEs. Overall, 53.6% of participants receiving lifitegrast experienced ≥1 ocular TEAE versus 34.2% in the placebo group; most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. Rates of discontinuation because of TEAEs were 12.3% (lifitegrast) versus 9.0% (placebo). The most common (>5%) TEAEs occurring in either treatment group were instillation site irritation (burning), instillation site reaction, visual acuity reduced, dry eye, and dysgeusia (change in taste). Ocular safety parameters for lifitegrast were similar to placebo. The mean plasma lifitegrast concentration at 360 days (n = 43) was below the limit of detection. There was no indication of systemic toxicity or localized infectious complications secondary to chronic immunosuppression., Conclusions: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% seemed safe and well tolerated in this study, with no unexpected adverse events.

Blepharitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the eyelids that is frequently encountered in clinical practice. The etiology of the disorder is complex and not fully understood, but the general consensus is that bacteria and inflammation contribute to the pathology. Blepharitis can be classified into anterior blepharitis, involving the anterior lid margin and eyelashes, and posterior blepharitis, characterized by dysfunction of the meibomian glands. Long-term management of symptoms may include daily eyelid cleansing routines and the use of therapeutic agents that reduce infection and inflammation. A cure is not possible in most cases, and subjective symptoms may persist even when a clinical assessment of signs indicates that the condition has improved. There are no established guidelines regarding therapeutic regimens, but recent clinical trials have shown that antibiotics and topical corticosteroids can produce significant improvement in signs and symptoms of blepharitis. Fixed combinations of a topical antibiotic and a corticosteroid offer an effective and convenient treatment modality that addresses both infectious and inflammatory components of the disease. Further clinical trials are needed to determine optimal therapies for managing blepharitis., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bacterial conjunctivitis, commonly known as pink eye, is demographically unbiased in its prevalence and can be caused by a variety of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Timely empiric treatment with a broad-spectrum anti-infective, such as a topical fluoroquinolone, is critical in preventing potentially irreversible ocular damage. However, the rise in ocular methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates and the patterns of fluoroquinolone resistance for patients with other ocular bacterial infections mandate the need for new agents targeted for ocular use. Besifloxacin, a novel broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone, is approved for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. It has a uniquely balanced dual-targeting activity that inhibits both DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV and is associated with a lower incidence of resistance development. Besifloxacin is not marketed in other formulations, ensuring that its exposure is limited to bacterial populations in and around the eye. This specifically precludes any bacterial exposure to besifloxacin resulting from systemic use, which further reduces the likelihood of emergence of bacterial resistance. In vitro, besifloxacin has demonstrated equivalent or superior activity compared with other commonly used topical antibiotics. In clinical trials, besifloxacin has consistently demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with bacterial conjunctivitis. Besifloxacin is considered safe and is well tolerated with no observed contraindications.

Background: Limitations of the surgical correction for myopia include inaccuracy, instability, treatment of the central optical zone, and lack of reversibility. KeraVision Intacs offer an alternative that addresses these shortcomings., Methods: We present 1 year of follow-up information on 95 subjects enrolled in the United States Food and Drug Administration Phase III clinical trials., Results: At 1 year, 99% of patients (89 of 90) had 20/40 uncorrected vision or better. Ninety-two percent of eyes (83 of 90) were within 1.00 D of intended correction and 76% of eyes (68 of 90) were within 0.50 D of intended correction. Stability was achieved at 3 months, with 96% of subjects (86 of 90) having less than 1.00 D of change from their previous examination. In a substudy, 89% eyes (58 of 65) varied within +/- 0.50 D over the course of a day. Corneal curvature changed as predicted, resulting in a prolate aspheric shape within the central optical zone. Most complications or adverse events experienced were managed with additional medication or surgical intervention, resulting in a favorable outcome for subjects., Conclusions: KeraVision Intacs are effective, predictable, stable, and safe. This additive technique may also offer reversibility.