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.     

Animal Models of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma–Past,Present, and Future

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is the fastest rising cancer in the United States. It develops from long‐standing gastroesophageal reflux disease which affects >20% of the general population. It carries a very poor prognosis with 5‐year survival <20%. The disease is known to sequentially progress from reflux esophagitis to a metaplastic precursor, Barrett''s esophagus and then onto dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only few patients with reflux develop Barrett''s esophagus and only a minority of these turn malignant. The reason for this heterogeneity in clinical progression is unknown. To improve patient management, molecular changes which facilitate disease progression must be identified. Animal models can provide a comprehensive functional and anatomic platform for such a study. Rats and mice have been the most widely studied but disease homology with humans has been questioned. No animal model naturally simulates the inflammation to adenocarcinoma progression as in humans, with all models requiring surgical bypass or destruction of existing antireflux mechanisms. Valuable properties of individual models could be utilized to holistically evaluate disease progression. In this review paper, we critically examined the current animal models of Barrett''s esophagus, their differences and homologies with human disease and how they have shaped our current understanding of Barrett''s carcinogenesis.     

Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.