Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Patient-Reported Quality of Life Before and After Chemoradiation for Intact Pancreas Cancer: A Prospective Registry Study

PurposeOur purpose was to determine the effect of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for patients with intact pancreas cancer.Methods and MaterialsWe reviewed a prospective QOL registry for patients with intact, clinically localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT between June 2015 and November 2018. QOL was assessed pre-CRT (immediately before CRT, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and at the completion of CRT with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) and its component parts: FACT-General (FACT-G) and hepatobiliary cancer subscore (HCS). A minimally important difference from pre-CRT was defined as ≥ 6, 5, and 8 points for FACT-G, HCS, and FACT-Hep, respectively.ResultsOf 157 patients who underwent CRT, 100 completed both pre- and post-CRT surveys and were included in the primary analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range, 23-90). National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability status was resectable (3%), borderline resectable (40%), or locally advanced (57%). Folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) (75%) or gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (42%) were given for a median of 6 cycles (range, 0-42) before CRT. Radiation therapy techniques included 3-dimensional conformal (22%), intensity modulated photon (55%), and intensity modulated proton (23%) radiation therapy to a median dose of 50 Gy (range, 36-62.5). Concurrent chemotherapy was most commonly capecitabine (82%). Sixty-three patients (63%) had surgery after CRT. The mean decline in FACT-G, HCS subscale, and FACT-Hep from pre- to post-CRT was 3.5 (standard deviation [SD], 13.7), 1.7 (SD 7.8), and 5.2 (SD 19.4), respectively. Each of these changes were statistically significant, but did not meet the minimally important difference threshold. Pancreatic head tumor location was associated with decline in FACT-Hep. Nausea was the toxicity with the greatest increase from pre- to post-CRT by both physician-assessment and patient-reported QOL.ConclusionsFor patients with intact pancreatic adenocarcinoma, modern CRT is well tolerated with minimal decline in QOL during treatment.     

Anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the systems outcomes database with up to 5-year follow-up

BackgroundThe growing enthusiasm for the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff is based on data derived from single-center studies with limited generalizability and follow-up. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between RSA and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of primary GHOA with up to 5-year follow-up and examined temporal trends in the treatment of GHOA between 2012 and 2021.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on patients with primary GHOA undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery from the Surgical Outcomes System global registry between 2012 and 2021. PROs including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were compared between RSA and TSA at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.ResultsA total of 4451 patients were included, with 2693 (60.5%) undergoing TSA and 1758 (39.5%) undergoing RSA. Both RSA and TSA provided clinically excellent outcomes at 1 year postoperatively (ASES: 80.8 ± 17.9 vs. 85.9 ± 15.2, respectively; SANE: 74.8 ± 24.7 vs. 79.5 ± 22.9; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.0 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7; all P < .05) that were maintained at 2 years (ASES: 81.3 ± 19.3 vs. 87.3 ± 14.9; SANE: 74.8 ± 26.2 vs. 79.7 ± 24.7; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6; all P < .05) and 5 years (ASES: 81.7 ± 16.5 vs. 86.9 ± 15.3; SANE: 71.6 ± 28.5 vs. 78.2 ± 25.9; VAS pain: 1.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.7; all P < .05), with statistical significance favoring TSA. After controlling for age and sex, there was an adjusted difference of 4.5 units in the ASES score favoring TSA (P = .005) at 5 years postoperatively but no differences in adjusted SANE (P = .745) and VAS pain (P = .332) scores. The use of RSA for GHOA grew considerably over time, from representing only 17% of all replacements performed for GHOA in 2012 to nearly half (47%) in 2021 (P < .001).ConclusionRSA as a treatment for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff seems to yield PROs that are largely clinically equivalent to TSA extending to 5 years postoperatively. The observed statistical significance favoring TSA appears to be of marginal clinical benefit based on established minimal clinically important differences and may be a result of the large sample size. Further research using more granular clinical data and examining differences in range of motion and complications is warranted as it may change the value analysis.