A Post-Acute Ocular Tolerability Comparison of Topical Reproxalap 0.25% and Lifitegrast 5% in Patients with Dry Eye Disease

• Published in: Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Vol. 15; pp. 3889 - 3900
• Main Authors: McMullin, David, Clark, David, Cavanagh, Bill, Karpecki, Paul, Brady, Todd C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Zealand Dove Medical Press Limited 01.01.2021; Taylor & Francis Ltd; Dove; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: Anti-inflammatory agents; Antibiotics; Care and treatment; Chronic illnesses; Clinical trials; Comparative analysis; Demographics; Drug dosages; dry eye disease; Eye diseases; eye drop comfort; FDA approval; Immunosuppressive agents; Inflammation; lifitegrast; Ophthalmic drugs; Original Research; Patient compliance; Patients; Quality of life; rasp inhibitor; reproxalap; Taste disorders; United States > US; reproxalap; lifitegrast; RASP inhibitor; dry eye disease; eye drop comfort; inflammation
• ISSN: 1177-5467; 1177-5483; 1177-5483
• DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S327691

To assess the subjective eye drop experience of patients with dry eye disease (DED) over approximately 1 hour after a single dose of two formulations of reproxalap versus lifitegrast. Two formulations of topical ocular reproxalap 0.25% were evaluated versus lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% in patients with DED in a single-center, double-masked, active-comparator, single-dose crossover clinical trial. Nineteen patients had test article topically administered to both eyes. Treatments were administered 2 to 4 days apart. Comfort assessments, including ocular discomfort, blurry vision, and dysgeusia assessments; ocular descriptive assessments; quality of life assessments; and overall experience questions were completed after each treatment over one hour, beginning at 90 seconds. Both reproxalap formulations scored better in ocular discomfort score (ODS), blurry vision, and dysgeusia assessments than lifitegrast at each timepoint and cumulatively over all time points after instillation. There were lower rates of negative responses for both reproxalap formulations compared to lifitegrast across ocular discomfort, blurry vision, and dysgeusia assessments, and the durations of negative responses were shorter with reproxalap than with lifitegrast. The reproxalap groups experienced fewer quality of life impacts. No significant safety findings were observed following reproxalap or lifitegrast administration. The reproxalap eye drop experience over 1 hour after instillation was superior to that of lifitegrast. There were no statistically significant differences between reproxalap groups for ODS, blurry vision, or dysgeusia. The improved performance of reproxalap with regard to the most commonly reported side effects of lifitegrast (ie, ocular discomfort, blurry vision, and dysgeusia) may result in greater patient adherence and lower discontinuation rates.