A Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Two Lipid-Based Lubricant Eye Drops for the Management of Evaporative Dry Eye Disease

Gary Jerkins; Jack V Greiner; Louis Tong; Jacqueline Tan; Joseph Tauber; Ali Mearza; Sruthi Srinivasan

doi:10.2147/OPTH.S256351

A Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Two Lipid-Based Lubricant Eye Drops for the Management of Evaporative Dry Eye Disease

Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Jun 18:14:1665-1673. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S256351. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Gary Jerkins¹, Jack V Greiner^{2

3}, Louis Tong^{4

5

6}, Jacqueline Tan⁷, Joseph Tauber⁸, Ali Mearza^{9

10}, Sruthi Srinivasan¹¹

Affiliations

¹ Advancing Vision Research, LLC, Nashville, TN, USA.
² Clinical Eye Research of Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
³ Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
⁴ Singapore National Eye Center, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
⁵ Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
⁶ Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
⁷ University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁸ Tauber Eye Center, Kansas City, MO, USA.
⁹ Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
¹⁰ Ophthalmic Consultants of London, London, UK.
¹¹ Alcon Research, LLC, Johns Creek, GA, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two lipid-based lubricant eye drops in patients with lipid-deficient dry eye.

Methods: This Phase IV, multicenter, prospective, double-masked study enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) who had a tear film breakup time (TFBUT) of ≤15 seconds(s), and unanesthetized Schirmer I test of ≥3 mm to ≤12 mm in at least one eye, at both screening and baseline visits. Eligible patients (n=231) were randomized (1:1) and received either Systane^® Balance (SYSB; n=117) or Refresh^® Optive Advanced (RFO-Ad, n=114), four-times a day, for 35 days. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority for change from baseline in TFBUT at Day 35 (non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the treatment groups was > -1.0 s); secondary endpoints (test of superiority) were change in TFBUT and global ocular discomfort visual analog scale (VAS) score at Day 35. Other endpoints included the impact of dry eye on everyday life (IDEEL) treatment satisfaction scores (inconvenience and effectiveness) and safety.

Results: At Day 35, the mean change from baseline in TFBUT was 0.998 s in the SYSB and 0.868 s in the RFO-Ad groups with a treatment difference: 0.130 s; (95% CI -0.34, 0.60; P<0.0001) demonstrating non-inferiority of SYSB to RFO-Ad. The global ocular discomfort VAS scores improved in both groups, with a mean change from baseline of -9.7 and -8.8 in SYSB and RFO-Ad groups (treatment difference -0.8; P=0.62), respectively. No meaningful difference was observed in IDEEL treatment effectiveness and treatment inconvenience scores between SYSB vs RFO-Ad (P>0.05 for treatment difference). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion: SYSB lubricant eye drops were non-inferior to RFO-Ad for improvement in TFBUT in patients with lipid-deficient dry eye. Both lubricant eye drops improved TFBUT and ocular discomfort scores in patients with lipid-deficient dry eye.

Keywords: dry eye; evaporative dry eye; lipid-deficient; lubricant eye drops; non-inferiority.

Grants and funding

The study was sponsored by the Alcon Research, LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.