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.     

Attachment to Caregivers and Type 1 Diabetes in Children

Attachment is a behavioral and physiological system, which enables individual’s dynamic adaptation to its environment. Attachment develops in close interaction between an infant and his/her mother, plays an important role in the development of the infant’s brain, and influences the quality of interpersonal relationships throughout life.Security of attachment is believed to influence individual response to stress, exposing insecurely organized individuals to deregulated autonomic nervous system and exaggerated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity, which, in turn, produces increased and prolonged exposure to stress-hormones. Such stress responses may have considerable implications for the development of diverse health-risk conditions, such as insulin resistance and hyperlipidemia, shown by numerous studies.Although the mechanisms are not yet fully understood, there is compelling evidence highlighting the role of psychological stress in the development of type 1 diabetes (T1D). One of the possible contributing factors for the development of T1D may be the influence of attachment security on individual stress reactivity. Thus, the suggestion is that insecurely attached individuals are more prone to experience increased and prolonged influence of stress hormones and other mechanisms causing pancreatic beta-cell destruction.The present paper opens with a short overview of the field of attachment in children, the principal attachment classifications and their historic development, describes the influence of attachment security on individual stress-reactivity and the role of the latter in the development of T1D. Following is a review of recent literature on the attachment in patients with T1D with a conclusion of a proposed role of attachment organization in the etiology of T1D.