The impact of Demodex blepharitis on patient symptoms and daily life.

SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with Demodex blepharitis have a considerable symptomatic burden that negatively impacts their daily activities and well-being. Despite chronic manifestations of and problems associated with blepharitis that resulted in multiple visits to eye care providers, Demodex blepharitis remained underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Demodex blepharitis on patients' daily activities and well-being. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study recruited 524 patients with Demodex blepharitis from 20 U.S. ophthalmology and optometry practices. Demodex blepharitis was diagnosed based on the presence of the following clinical manifestations in at least one eye: >10 collarettes on the upper lashes, at least mild lid margin erythema of the upper eyelid, and mite density of ≥1.0 mite/lash (upper and lower combined). Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire related to their symptoms, daily activities, and management approaches. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who experienced blepharitis symptoms for ≥2 years was 67.8%, and for ≥4 years, it was 46.5%. The three most bothersome symptoms ranked were "itchy eyes," "dry eyes," and "foreign body sensation." Overall, 77.4% of patients reported that Demodex blepharitis negatively affected their daily life. One-third (32.3%) of patients had visited a doctor for blepharitis at least two times, including 19.6% who visited at least four times. Despite having clinical manifestations of Demodex blepharitis confirmed by an eye care provider, 58.7% had never been diagnosed with blepharitis. Commonly used management approaches were artificial tears, warm compresses, and lid wipes. Among those who discontinued their regimen, 45.9% had discontinued because of either tolerability issues or lack of effectiveness. Among contact lens wearers, 64.3% of the patients either were uncomfortable wearing contact lenses or experienced vision changes "sometimes" or "frequently." CONCLUSION: Demodex blepharitis results in a significant negative impact on daily activities, creating a psychosocial and symptomatic burden on patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of 6-Week Treatment of Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25%, for Demodex Blepharitis: A Noninterventional Extension Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. METHODS: This observational, extension study included patients with Demodex blepharitis (N = 239) who completed the Saturn-1 study and presented for the day 180 visit. All participants were assessed at days 180 and 365 after the initiation of 6-week treatment with the study drug or its vehicle. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with 0 to 2 collarettes (grade 0) was significantly higher in the study group (N = 128 patients) than in the control group (N = 111 patients) (39.8% vs. 2.7% at day 180 and 23.5% vs. 2.9% at day 365; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of patients with ≤10 collarettes (collarette grade 0-1) in the study group was significantly higher than in the control group (70.3% vs. 18.0% at day 180 and 62.6% vs. 21.9% at day 365; P < 0.0001). In the study group, erythema continued to improve even after completion of the 6-week lotilaner treatment. No serious ocular adverse events were observed in the study group, and there was 1 treatment-related ocular adverse event in the study group, which was considered mild. CONCLUSIONS: After 6-week treatment with lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, for Demodex blepharitis, no long-term concerns were observed during 1 year of follow-up. A high proportion of patients with 0 to 2 collarettes (grade 0) or ≤10 collarettes (collarette grade of 0 or 1) was observed throughout 1 year of follow-up, indicating that the efficacy of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, against Demodex blepharitis may last well after completion of therapy.

Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution 0.25% for Demodex Blepharitis: Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled, Multicenter, Phase 3 Trial (Saturn-2).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25% compared with vehicle for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred twelve patients with Demodex blepharitis were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25% (study group) or vehicle without lotilaner (control group). METHODS: Patients with Demodex blepharitis treated at 21 United States clinical sites were assigned either to the study group (n = 203) to receive lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25% or to the control group (n = 209) to receive vehicle without lotilaner bilaterally twice daily for 6 weeks. Collarettes and erythema were graded for each eyelid at screening and at all visits after baseline. At screening and on days 15, 22, and 43, 4 or more eyelashes were epilated from each eye, and the number of Demodex mites present on the lashes was counted with a microscope. Mite density was calculated as the number of mites per lash. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included collarette cure (collarette grade 0), clinically meaningful collarette reduction to 10 collarettes or fewer (grade 0 or 1), mite eradication (0 mites/lash), erythema cure (grade 0), composite cure (grade 0 for collarettes as well as erythema), compliance with the drop regimen, drop comfort, and adverse events. RESULTS: At day 43, the study group achieved a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) higher proportion of patients with collarette cure (56.0% vs. 12.5%), clinically meaningful collarette reduction to 10 collarettes or fewer (89.1% vs. 33.0%), mite eradication (51.8% vs. 14.6%), erythema cure (31.1% vs. 9.0%), and composite cure (19.2% vs. 4.0%) than the control group. High compliance with the drop regimen (mean ± standard deviation, 98.7 ± 5.3%) in the study group was observed, and 90.7% of patients found the drops to be neutral to very comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily treatment with lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25% for 6 weeks generally was safe and well tolerated and met the primary end point and all secondary end points for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis compared with vehicle control. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Masked Clinical Trial Comparing Topical Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25% Eyedrops to Vehicle.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% eyedrops compared to vehicle for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial, 54 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% (study group) or the vehicle (control group) bilaterally, twice daily for 42 days. Outcome measures were collarette cure (collarette grade 0, upper eyelid), mite eradication (mite density of 0 mites/lash), and composite cure (grade 0 for collarettes and erythema). RESULTS: The proportion of participants achieving collarette cure (80.0% vs 15.8%; p < .001), mite eradication (73.3% vs 21.1%, p = .003) and composite cure (73.3% vs 10.5%, p < .001) at Day 42 was statistically significantly higher in the study group than the control group. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily 42-day treatment with novel lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% is safe and effective for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis compared to the vehicle control. (Registry number: ACTRN12620000320954, dated 09/03/2020).

Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25%, for the Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled, Double-Masked, Pivotal Trial (Saturn-1).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, compared with vehicle for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-masked, phase 2b/3 clinical trial, 421 patients with Demodex blepharitis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% (study group), or vehicle without lotilaner (control group) bilaterally, twice daily for 43 days. Patients were evaluated at days 8, 15, 22, and 43. Outcome measures were complete collarette cure (collarette grade 0), clinically meaningful collarette cure (grade 0 or 1), mite eradication (0 mites/lash), erythema cure (grade 0), composite cure (grade 0 for collarettes/erythema), and drop comfort. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: At day 43, the study group achieved a statistically significantly higher proportion of patients with clinically meaningful collarette cure (81.3% vs. 23.0%; P < 0.0001), complete collarette cure (44.0% vs. 7.4%; P < 0.0001), mite eradication (67.9% vs. 17.6%; P < 0.0001), erythema cure (19.1% vs. 6.9%; P = 0.0001), and composite cure (13.9% vs. 1.0%; P < 0.0001) than the control group. Nearly 92.0% of patients rated the study drop as neutral to very comfortable. All ocular adverse events in the study group were mild, with the most common being instillation site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily treatment with a novel lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for 43 days, is safe and effective for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis compared with the vehicle control.

Psychosocial Impact of Demodex Blepharitis.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of Demodex blepharitis on patients' daily activities and quality of life. Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, observational, prospective, IRB-approved study, 311 Demodex blepharitis patients aged ≥18 years were included. Demodex blepharitis was diagnosed based on the presence of ≥1.0 mite per lash (upper and lower eyelids combined), >10 collarettes on the upper lashes, and at least mild lid margin erythema of the upper eyelid in at least one eye. All patients were asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms, daily activities, quality of life, and management approaches, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses. Results: More than half the patients had been experiencing symptoms of blepharitis for ≥4 years. The three most frequent and bothersome symptoms experienced by patients were dry eyes, itchiness, and irritation. Nearly half the patients (47%) responded that they were conscious of their eyes all day, and 23% said that they were constantly worrying about their eyes. Other activities that were negatively affected included difficulty driving at night (47%), additional time needed for daily hygiene routine (30%), and difficulty in wearing eye make-up (in 34% of females). While all subjects had objective signs of Demodex blepharitis confirmed by an eye care provider, 58% said they had never previously been diagnosed with blepharitis. The most commonly used management approaches for Demodex blepharitis were artificial tears (47%), warm compresses (32%), and lid wipes (14%). Conclusion: Demodex blepharitis has a significant negative impact on daily activities and the mental and physical well-being of afflicted patients.

Safety and efficacy of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for the treatment of blepharitis due to demodex infestation: A randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for the treatment of blepharitis due to Demodex infestation compared to vehicle control. METHODS: In this phase II, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial, 60 eligible participants with Demodex blepharitis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either topical lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% (Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Irvine, CA) (study group) or the vehicle without lotilaner (control group) bilaterally twice a day for 28 days. Participants were followed at Days 7, 14, 28, 60 and 90. The efficacy parameters were change in collarette grade and Demodex density at Day 28. Safety parameters were adverse events, changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and slit-lamp biomicroscopy. RESULTS: The study group showed a statistically significant decrease in collarette grade compared to the control group beginning at Day 14 (p = 0.003) in the upper eyelid and at Day 28 (p = 0.003) in the lower eyelid. Decreases in both lids were maintained through Day 90 (p < 0.001). At Day 28, mite eradication was achieved in 66.7% and 25.9% of eyes in the study and control group (p = 0.005); at Day 90, these proportions were 68.2% and 18.5% (p = 0.001), respectively. No serious adverse events or clinically significant changes in CDVA and IOP were observed. CONCLUSION: For Demodex blepharitis, treatment with lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for 4 weeks is safe and effective. The improvement in collarette grade and mite density observed during the treatment period persisted for at least two months following treatment cessation.

Safety and Efficacy of Topical Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution 0.25% for the Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Evaluate safety and efficacy of topical lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. Patients and Methods. 15 patients with Demodex blepharitis, defined as >10 collarettes on the upper lid, lid margin erythema, and Demodex density of ≥1.5 mites/lash on microscopy, were treated bid for 28 days with lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%. Contact lens wear, artificial eyelashes, and lid structural abnormalities were among the exclusion criteria. No other antibacterial, antiparasitic, or anti-inflammatory treatment or lid hygiene products were permitted. Patients were assessed on Days 7, 14, 28, 60, and 90. Outcome measures were changes in collarette grade and mite density on Day 28. Adverse events and changes in intraocular pressure (IOP), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and slit-lamp biomicroscopy were assessed. RESULTS: Mean collarette grade (upper lids) improved from 3.07 ± 0.21 to 0.79 ± 0.19 on Day 28; the change was statistically significant for both upper and lower lids from Day 14 on. Mean mite density per lash decreased from 2.28 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.14 ± 0.05 at Day 28 (p < 0.0001). Mite eradication (0 mites) was documented in 57.1% of eyes. The effects were durable through Day 90. There were no adverse events and little to no change in CDVA or IOP. The drop was well tolerated, with no discontinuations due to ocular irritation. CONCLUSION: Topical lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25% for 4 weeks, showed promising efficacy for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. This novel treatment appears to be safe and well tolerated. Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the results.

Collarette Elimination and Demodex Mite Eradication with Topical Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of topical lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, in patients with Demodex blepharitis. Methods: Eighteen adults with Demodex blepharitis, defined as >10 collarettes on the upper lid and/or mite density of ≥1.5 mites per lash (upper and lower), were treated bid for 42 days with the topical lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%. Contact lens wear, artificial eyelashes, and lid structural abnormalities were among the exclusion criteria. No other antibacterial, antiparasitic, or anti-inflammatory treatment or lid hygiene products were permitted. One eye of each patient was selected for analysis and assessed on day 7, 14, 28, and 42. Collarettes were graded at each visit, and mite density was evaluated by microscopy at each visit except day 7. Outcome measures were collarette elimination (≤2 lashes with collarettes) and mite eradication (0 mites). Drop tolerability, adverse events, visual acuity, and slit-lamp biomicroscopy were assessed. Results: Collarette elimination was achieved in 13/18 participants (72.2%) by day 42. Mean collarette grade (upper lid) declined from 3.56 ± 0.17 to 0.28 ± 0.11. Mite eradication was achieved in 14/18 participants (77.8%) by day 42. Mean mite density decreased from 2.63 ± 0.39 to 0.12 ± 0.08 mites/lash. Participants reported good tolerability. Adverse events were mild and transient and did not result in treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Six weeks of at-home topical therapy with the lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, was effective in eliminating the most common objective signs of Demodex blepharitis, with a collarette elimination rate of 72% and mite eradication in 78% of eyes by day 42. ISRCTN registration #: 24398865.

Randomized, Controlled, Double-Masked, Multicenter, Pilot Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Intranasal Neurostimulation for Dry Eye Disease.

Purpose: We assess the safety and effectiveness of intranasal neurostimulation to promote tear production via the nasolacrimal pathway in subjects with dry eye disease. Methods: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-masked pilot study was conducted in adults with dry eye diagnosis and at least one eye with corneal fluorescein staining ≥2 in at least one region or a sum of all regions ≥5 (National Eye Institute grading), basal Schirmer test score ≤10 mm, a cotton-swab stimulated Schirmer score ≥7 mm higher, and an Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≥23. Subjects were randomized to receive active intranasal neurostimulation or sham control intranasal stimulation 4 to 8 times per day. Assessments were scheduled before (unstimulated) and during (stimulated) device application at days 0, 7, 14, 30, and 90. The primary effectiveness endpoint was stimulation-induced change in Schirmer test (with anesthesia) score. Primary safety measure was incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Results: Fifty-eight subjects were randomized at nine sites in Australia and New Zealand; 56 completed the 90-day study. Stimulation-induced change in Schirmer score was significantly greater with active intranasal (mean ± SEM, 9.0 ± 2.0) than sham control intranasal stimulation (0.4 ± 0.6; P < 0.001) at day 90. Similar results were observed at days 0, 7, 14, and 30 (P < 0.001). No serious device-related AEs were observed. Mild nosebleed, the most common device-related AE, was reported in five (16.7%) subjects. Conclusions: Intranasal neurostimulation was effective in inducing acute tear production after 90 days of use and generally was well tolerated in subjects with dry eye disease.

Characterization of tear production in subjects with dry eye disease during intranasal tear neurostimulation: Results from two pivotal clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The intranasal tear neurostimulator (ITN) activates the nasolacrimal pathway, which is involved with basal and bolus tear secretion. These studies characterized the acute and long-term effectiveness of the ITN in stimulating tear production in subjects with dry eye disease (DED). METHODS: Study 1: Randomized, double-masked, dual-controlled, 1-day crossover. Study 2: Single-arm, open-label, 180-day prospective cohort. Eligible subjects had basal unstimulated Schirmer test (with anesthesia) ≤10 mm and intranasal cotton swab-stimulated Schirmer test at least 7 mm greater in the same eye, and Ocular Surface Disease Index® ≥13 and ≥ 23, in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. Study 1: Subjects (n = 48) received three randomized test applications: active intranasal, extranasal (active control), and sham intranasal (inactive control) stimulation, 3 min/application with 1-hour minimum between applications. Primary outcome measure was the difference in Schirmer test scores during active intranasal and control applications. Study 2: Subjects (n = 97) performed intranasal neurostimulation for ≤3 min/application, 2-10 times/day. Primary outcome measure was the difference in Schirmer scores (stimulated minus unstimulated) at day 180. Both studies recorded device-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Study 1: Schirmer scores (mean ±â€¯SEM) were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) with active intranasal (25.3 ±â€¯1.5 mm) vs extranasal (9.5 ±â€¯1.2 mm) and sham (9.2 ±â€¯1.1 mm) applications. Study 2: Schirmer scores were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) with ITN stimulation vs unstimulated at day 180 (17.3 ±â€¯1.3 mm vs 7.9 ±â€¯0.7 mm). No serious device-related AEs were reported in either study. CONCLUSION: The ITN was well-tolerated and effective in stimulating tear production with acute and long-term use in DED. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02680158 and NCT02526290.

A nonrandomized, open-label study to evaluate the effect of nasal stimulation on tear production in subjects with dry eye disease.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED), a chronic disorder affecting the tear film and lacrimal functional unit, is a widely prevalent condition associated with significant burden and unmet treatment needs. Since specific neural circuits play an important role in maintaining ocular surface health, microelectrical stimulation of these pathways could present a promising new approach to treating DED. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nasal electrical stimulation in patients with DED. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, single-arm, nonrandomized pilot study included 40 patients with mild to severe DED. After undergoing two screening visits, enrolled subjects were provided with a nasal stimulation device and instructed to use it at home four times daily (or more often as needed). Follow-up assessments were conducted up to day 180. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between unstimulated and stimulated tear production quantified by Schirmer scores. Additional efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in corneal and conjunctival staining, symptoms evaluated on a Visual Analog Scale, and Ocular Surface Disease Index scores. Safety parameters included adverse event (AE) rates, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, and endoscopic nasal examinations. RESULTS: Mean stimulated Schirmer scores were significantly higher than the unstimulated scores at all visits, and corneal and conjunctival staining and symptom scores from baseline to day 180 were significantly reduced. No serious device-related AEs and nine nonserious AEs (three device-related) were reported. Intraocular pressure remained stable and most subjects showed little or no change in visual acuity at days 30 and 180. No significant findings from other clinical examinations were noted. CONCLUSION: Neurostimulation of the nasolacrimal pathway is a safe and effective means of increasing tear production and reducing symptoms of dry eye in patients with DED.