1 participants were randomized: placebo, 356;
lifitegrast,
355 (intention-to-treat [ITT] population).
2 omized 1:1 to receive topically administered
lifitegrast (
5.0%) or placebo (vehicle) twice daily for
3 Lifitegrast appeared well tolerated.
4 SS end point in demonstrating superiority of
lifitegrast compared with placebo (P = 0.0007).
5 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of
lifitegrast compared with placebo for the treatment of D
6 tation, discomfort) primarily on the initial
lifitegrast dose at day 0.
7 Lifitegrast is a lymphocyte function-associated antigen-
8 Lifitegrast is an integrin antagonist that decreases T-c
9 Lifitegrast met the co-primary symptom end point (eye dr
10 subjects were randomized: placebo, n = 360;
lifitegrast,
n = 358 (intent-to-treat population).
11 m baseline in EDS also significantly favored
lifitegrast on days 42 (TE, 9.32; 95% CI, 5.44-13.20; P
12 andomized 1:1 after 14-day placebo run-in to
lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice da
13 run-in, participants were randomized 1:1 to
lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice da
14 Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% significantly reduc
15 Lifitegrast significantly improved symptoms of eye dryne
16 Lifitegrast significantly reduced corneal fluorescein st
17 Cyclosporine and
lifitegrast,
the 2 US Food and Drug Administration-appro
18 A greater improvement was observed in
lifitegrast-
treated participants at day 42 in itching (n
19 At day 84,
lifitegrast-
treated participants experienced significant
20 More
lifitegrast-
treated subjects (33.7%) than placebo-treate
21 Lifitegrast-
treated subjects experienced greater improve
22 vement of secondary symptom end points among
lifitegrast-
treated subjects: ocular discomfort (nominal
23 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of
lifitegrast versus placebo in participants with DED.
24 fort score (ODS), and safety/tolerability of
lifitegrast versus placebo.
25 Lifitegrast warrants further consideration as a treatmen