Physician Satisfaction with Anti-Inflammatory Topical Medications for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease

Figures & data

Table 1 Survey Design

Domain	Items	5-Point Scale	Modified 3-Point Scale
Part 1: Physician Responses on the Patient Experience
I. Satisfaction	1. Onset of action 2. Effectiveness of the drug after onset 3. Ease of use	1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied	1. Somewhat or very dissatisfied 2. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3. Somewhat or very satisfied
II. Side effects^a	1. Burning sensation 2. Itching 3. Altered sensation of taste 4. Blurred vision 5. Discharge	1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Rarely 5. Never	1. Always or usually 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely or never
III. Limited activities^b	1. Reading 2. Driving 3. Working on computer 4. Watching TV 5. Work productivity 6. Social activities	1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Rarely 5. Never	1. Always or usually 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely or never
IV. Switch reasons	1. Inability to relieve dry eye symptoms 2. Onset of action 3. Effectiveness of the drug after onset 4. Ease of use 5. Side effect profile 6. Limited visual tasking activities while on medication	1. Insignificant 2. Somewhat significant 3. Significant 4. Highly significant 5. Very highly significant	1. Insignificant or somewhat insignificant 2. Significant 3. Highly or very highly significant
Part 2: Physicians’ Overall Perspectives on CYC and LIF
I. Satisfaction	1. Stimulating tear production 2. Lubricating and hydrating ocular surface 3. Onset of action 4. Effectiveness of the drug after onset	1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Very satisfied	1. Somewhat or very dissatisfied 2. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3. Somewhat or very satisfied
II. Treatment success^c	1. Increase in tear film break up time 2. Reduction in corneal/conjunctival staining 3. Increase of Schirmer test score 4. Increase in tear meniscus height	1. None of the patients 2. 25% of the patients 3. 50% of the patients 4. 75% of the patients 5. All of the patients	1. None or 25% of the patients 2. 50% of the patients 3. 75% or all of the patients
III. Effectiveness	1. Managing the symptoms of dry eye 2. Improving ocular surface integrity 3. Improvement of dry eye patient’s QoL 4. Helping patients tolerate contact lens	1. Not at all effective 2. Not so effective 3. Somewhat effective 4. Very effective 5. Extremely effective	1. Not at all or not so effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Very or extremely effective
IV. Side effects	1. Burning sensation 2. Itching 3. Altered sensation of taste 4. Blurred vision 5. Discharge	1. All of the patients 2. 75% of the patients 3. 50% of the patients 4. 25% of the patients 5. None of the patients	1. None or 25% of the patients 2. 50% of the patients 3. 75% or all of the patients

Notes: ^aPhysicians were also able to specify other side effects not listed. ^bIf the physician believed an activity was not applicable to the patient a rating of zero (“Not applicable”) was entered. ^cIf the physician did not perform an assessment, a rating of zero (“Not performed”) was entered.

Abbreviations: CYC, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%; LIF, lifitegrast 5% ophthalmic solution; QoL, quality of life.

Table 2 Demographics of Patients Included in Physician Responses

Patient Characteristics	Current CYC User (N=75)	Current LIF User (N=75)	Switched from CYC (N=30)	Switched from LIF (N=30)
Age group, n (%)
Mean ± SD	58.2 ± 15.76	55.54 ± 15.22	57.03 ± 12.85	55.77 ± 13.38
≥18 and <40	10 (13)	14 (19)	4 (13)	5 (17)
≥40 and <60	28 (37)	31 (41)	15 (50)	12 (40)
≥60	37 (49)	30 (40)	11 (37)	13 (43)
Gender, n (%)
Female	64 (85)	61 (81)	23 (77)	19 (63)
Male	11 (15)	14 (19)	7 (23)	11 (37)
Duration on Current Treatment, n (%)
<1 month	7 (9)	3 (4)	7 (23)	8 (27)
1–3 months	6 (8)	10 (13)	11 (37)	11 (37)
4–6 months	14 (19)	21 (28)	12 (40)	11 (37)
7–12 months	16 (21)	20 (27)	–	–
>12 months	32 (43)	21 (28)	–	–

Abbreviations: CYC, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%; LIF, lifitegrast 5% ophthalmic solution; SD, standard deviation.

Figure 1 Physician responses on the patient experience with current users of CYC and LIF. (A) Percentage of patients for whom physicians reported being “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the treatment; (B) Percentage of patients for whom physicians reported that the patient “always” or “usually” experience side effects on current treatment. *No response was provided by physicians for 2 patients in the current CYC user group and 2 patients in the current LIF user group.

Abbreviations: CYC, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%; LIF, lifitegrast 5% ophthalmic solution.

Figure 2 Percentage of physicians who rated reasons for switching patients from CYC or LIF as “very important” or “extremely important”. *No response was provided in this category for one patient in the switched from CYC group.

Abbreviations: CYC, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%; LIF, lifitegrast 5% ophthalmic solution.

Figure 3 Physicians’ overall perspective on CYC and LIF. (A) Percentage of physicians who reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the treatment overall; (B) Percentage of physicians who considered the treatment to be successful in 75% or all of their patients; (C) Percentage of physicians who considered the treatment to be “very effective” or “extremely effective” overall. *This test was not performed by 12 out of 21 physicians; **This test was not performed by 2 out of 21 physicians.

Abbreviations: CYC, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05%; LIF, lifitegrast 5% ophthalmic solution.