Real-World Experience with Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution in Patients with Dry Eye Disease: A Provider Survey in the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lifitegrast 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: ECPs 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".