ImportanceDry eye disease (DED) is a common public health problem with significant impact on vision-related quality of life and well-being of patients. Medications with rapid onset of action and a good tolerability profile remain an unmet need.ObjectiveTo assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a water-free cyclosporine ophthalmic solution, 0.1% (CyclASol [Novaliq GmbH]), applied twice daily in DED compared with vehicle.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsCyclASol for the Treatment of Signs and Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease (ESSENCE-2) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled clinical study conducted from December 5, 2020, to October 8, 2021. Following a 14-day run-in period with an artificial tear administered 2 times per day, eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the treatment groups. Patients with moderate to severe DED were included in the study.InterventionsCyclosporine solution vs vehicle administered 2 times per day for 29 days.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end points were changes from baseline in total corneal fluorescein staining (tCFS; 0-15 National Eye Institute scale) and in dryness score (0-100 visual analog scale) at day 29. Conjunctival staining, central corneal fluorescein staining, and tCFS responders were also assessed.ResultsA total of 834 study participants were randomly assigned to cyclosporine (423 [50.7%]) or vehicle (411 [49.3%]) groups at 27 sites. Participants had a mean (SD) age of 57.1 (15.8) years, and 609 (73.0%) were female individuals. The majority of participants self-identified in the following race categories: 79 Asian (9.5 %), 108 Black (12.9%), and 635 White (76.1%). Participants treated with cyclosporine solution had greater improvement in tCFS (−4.0 grades) than the vehicle group (−3.6 grades) at day 29 (change [∆] = −0.4; 95% CI, −0.8 to 0; P = .03). The dryness score showed treatment benefits from baseline in both groups: −12.2 points for cyclosporine and −13.6 points for vehicle (∆ = 1.4; 95% CI, −1.8 to 4.6; P = .38). In the cyclosporine group, 293 participants (71.6%) achieved clinically meaningful reductions of 3 grades or higher in tCFS vs 236 (59.7%) in the vehicle group (∆ = 12.6%; 95% CI, 6.0%-19.3%; P < .001). These responders showed greater improvement in symptoms at day 29 including dryness (∆ = −4.6; 95% CI, −8.0 to −1.2; P = .007) and blurred vision (Δ = −3.5; 95% CI, −6.6 to −4.0; P = .03) compared with nonresponders.Conclusions and RelevanceThe ESSENCE-2 trial confirmed that treatment with a water-free cyclosporine solution, 0.1%, results in early therapeutic effects on the ocular surface compared with vehicle. The responder analyses suggest that the effect is clinically meaningful in 71.6% of participants in the cyclosporine group.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523129
SIGNIFICANCE: Given the significance of meibomian gland dysfunction subjects in evaporative dry eye, its chronic and progressive nature, limited promising treatment options, and novel treatment techniques are important. This randomized clinical study evaluated the noninferiority of SYSTANE iLux with LipiFlow in meibomian gland dysfunction treatment at 12 months. PURPOSE: This study aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of SYSTANE iLux compared with LipiFlow at 12 months after single treatment in meibomian gland dysfunction subjects with evaporative dry eye. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter, assessor-masked, parallel-group trial, subjects (N = 236; aged ≥18 years) with meibomian gland score (MGS) of ≤12 in lower eyelids, noninvasive tear breakup time (NITBUT; first breakup) of <10 seconds, and Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life-Symptom Bother (IDEEL-SB) module score of >16 were randomized (1:1) to receive SYSTANE iLux (n = 119) or LipiFlow (n = 117). Subjects attended a total of eight visits, including screening, treatment, and follow-up visits at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months/ exit, to evaluate change from baseline in MGS, NITBUT, IDEEL-SB module score, and safety outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 227 subjects completed the study (mean ± standard deviation age, 57.3 ± 13.8 years). At 12 months, least squares mean change from baseline in MGS was similar between iLux and LipiFlow (17.4 ± 1.97 vs. 17.8 ± 1.98). Noninferiority of SYSTANE iLux compared with LipiFlow in change from baseline in MGS (95% lower confidence limit of least squares mean difference, >−5), NITBUT (>−2.5 seconds), and IDEEL-SB score (95% upper confidence limit, <12) was achieved at all post-treatment visits. No other serious ocular or device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:The treatment outcomes with SYSTANE iLux were noninferior to LipiFlow during the 12-month follow-up in subjects with dry eye-associated meibomian gland dysfunction.
This study aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of Systane iLux, a thermal pulsation device, in patients with MGD, over 12 months post-single treatment. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of a previous prospective, assessor-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT03956225) that compared the effectiveness and safety of iLux with LipiFlow in subjects with MGD. The original study included subjects with meibomian gland score (MGS) ≤12 in lower eyelids, Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life-Symptom Bother (IDEEL-SB) module score >16, and non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT) <10 seconds. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a single bilateral treatment of iLux or LipiFlow. In this post-hoc analysis, mean changes in MGS, NITBUT (first break-up; seconds), IDEEL-SB module score, and corneal staining, from baseline to 12 months were analyzed post-single treatment with iLux. Results: Data from 119 patients (n=238 eyes) treated with iLux were analyzed. The mean±SD age of the subjects was 58.4±13.4 years, with majority being female (79.0%). MGS (mean±SD) for both eyes improved significantly from baseline to 12 months (OD [baseline:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.