• About Us
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us

Contact Lens Update

Clinical Insights Based in Current Research

Search Our Site

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Conference Highlights

Comparison of Subjective Responses to Cyclosporine 0.05% versus Lifitegrast 5.0% in Individuals with Dry Eye Disease

August 15th, 2023
Elyana LocatelliElyana Locatelli, BS, is a pre-medical student and research fellow at University of Miami’s Bascom Palmer Eye Institute under the guidance of Dr. Anat Galor.

This abstract was presented as a poster at the 2023 ARVO annual meeting, held in New Orleans, USA, April 23-27, 2023. (Download poster .pdf)

Abstract Number: 3952 – B0269

Authors: Elyana V. Locatelli1,2, Kelly Acuna1,2, Arianna Tovar2, Jason Betz2, Anat Galor1,2 

1Ophthalmology, VA Miami Healthcare System, Miami, FL, United States,2Ophthalmology, University of Miami Health System Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL, United States.

Commercial Relationship Disclosure: Elyana Locatelli: None,  Kelly Acuna: None, Arianna Tovar: None, Jason Betz: None, Anat Galor: None.

Purpose

To examine subjective response to cyclosporine A (CsA) 0.05% versus lifitegrast 5% in individuals with dry eye disease (DED).

Methods

Retrospective review of individuals with clinically diagnosed DED treated with both CsA 0.05% and lifitegrast 5% over the course of their disease. Information collected included demographics, co-morbidities, and DED signs. Treatment preferences were noted as mild or strong for a particular medication, no preference, or unable to tolerate either medication. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported medication preference. The secondary outcome measure was an examination of individual and eye factors that related to medication preference.

Results

64 individuals (mean age 66.73±13.17 years; 82.8% male, 71.9% White, 29.7% Hispanic) used both CsA and lifitegrast over the course of their disease. Of those, 33 preferred CsA (12.5% mildly, 39.1% strongly); 14 preferred lifitegrast (3.1% mildly, 18.8% strongly); 12 had no preference (18.8%); and 5 could not tolerate either medication (7.8%) due to side effects. No demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, or ocular surface findings correlated with medication preference.

Conclusions

In individuals who used both CsA 0.05% and lifitegrast 5% over the course of their disease, a higher frequency of individuals preferred CsA. No clinical factors correlated with medication preference.

Related Articles

  • August 15, 2023

    A Review of Ocular Surface Immunology: Unveiling the Secrets of Eye Health

  • August 15, 2023

    Article Review: The Immunological Basis of Dry Eye Disease and Current Topical Treatment Options

  • August 15, 2023

    Comparison of Subjective Responses to Cyclosporine 0.05% versus Lifitegrast 5.0% in Individuals with Dry Eye Disease

  • August 15, 2023

    Case Report: Managing Dry Eye with Topical Immunomodulators

Issues

  • A Review of Ocular Surface Immunology
  • Corneal Ectatic Disorders
  • The role of biometry in myopia management
  • In-Office Procedures for Dry Eye
  • Multifocal Contact Lenses
  • Artificial Tears: An Update
  • Myopia: New Evidence and Best Practices
  • Neuropathic Pain
  • Specialty Rigid Lenses
  • Contact lens compliance
  • Pandemic update
  • Digital Devices and Dry Eye: A Growing Issue
  • The long and short of axial length
  • Using BCLA CLEAR with your patients
  • Helping your patients through allergy season
  • Getting the measure of meibomian glands
  • 2020: An extraordinary year
  • Scleral lens update
  • A dose of myopia
  • New news since TFOS DEWS II
  • COVID-19 Special Edition
  • Material considerations
  • Putting dry eye theory into practice
  • Getting started with Ortho-K
  • Infiltrates – an update
  • Staining
  • Myopia matters: Summarising the IMI reports
  • Lids and contact lenses
  • Myths
  • Revisiting patient compliance
  • Contact Lenses & Kids
  • Interprofessional Collaboration
  • Digital eye strain
  • New Dry Eye Technology
  • Update on Presbyopia
  • Taking stock of dry eye disease: DEWS II
  • Scleral Lenses
  • Pain and Sensation
  • Lab measurements in clinical practice
  • Control of pediatric myopia
  • Nutrition
  • Rethinking contact lens deposits
  • Extended wear
  • Daily Disposables
  • Eyelash Mites (Demodex)
  • Outsmarting bacteria with new technology
  • Youth and contact lenses
  • Sports Vision
  • Ocular effects of UV radiation from the sun
  • Eyelid Conditions
  • Makeup: Impact on ocular health
  • Myopia Control – Update 2014
  • The Growing Prevalence of Myopia
  • Cosmetic contact lenses
  • Contact lens discomfort – The essentials
  • Technology and contact lens research
  • It's A Question of Comfort
  • Contact lens materials
  • Let's talk about SICS
  • Conjunctival Controversies
  • Kids & Contact Lenses
  • One-day silicone hydrogel lenses
  • Solutions
  • Spotlight on Scleral lenses
  • Drug delivery via contact lenses
  • Ocular allergies
  • Reducing lens case contamination
  • Dry eye and meibomium gland dysfunction
  • Myopia Control
  • Presbyopia
  • Compliance and non-compliance
  • Lens care
  • Celebrating 50 years of contact lenses

Looking for another article?

Alcon coopervision Johnson&Johnson Vision Care

Newsletter Sign-Up

Sign-up for and start receiving our newsletter.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
    • Editorial
    • Feature Article
    • Clinical Insight
    • Conference Highlights
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
© 2023 Contact Lens Update