Dry eye disease is characterized by tear film instability that can result in ocular surface damage. Patients with dry eye disease may experience ocular pain/discomfort and visual disturbances that may negatively impact quality of life. Increased use of digital screens for work, communication, and entertainment, especially during times of pandemic, may contribute to dry eye. Extensive cross-sectional studies have shown that digital screen use duration is associated with an increased risk of severe symptoms and clinical diagnosis of dry eye disease in adults. Smartphone use duration has also been found to be greater in school-age children with dry eye disease than in those without dry eye disease. A commonly accepted hypothesis for the relationship between digital screen use and dry eye disease is that digital screen use changes blinking dynamics, leading to ocular dryness. This review describes evidence that digital screen use is associated with dry eye disease, that digital device use alters blinking dynamics, and that dry eye affects mental health and work productivity in digital screen users. Helpful prevention and management strategies for dry eye disease exist for those who use digital screens.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the ocular surface characterized by loss of homeostasis of the tear film and accompanied by ocular signs and symptoms such as corneal and conjunctival damage, patient discomfort, and visual disturbance. The prevalence of DED ranges from 5%−33%. Patients with DED may have a reduced quality of life due to their discomfort and visual disturbances. The multifactorial nature of DED requires a multi-targeted treatment approach to address the signs and symptoms. Treatment for DED should follow a stepwise approach beginning with education, dietary modification, and lid and lash hygiene, and progressing to pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. Ocular lubricants, a mainstay of DED therapy, provide temporary symptomatic relief for the patient, but do not address the underlying pathophysiology. Some currently available pharmacologic treatments that address the underlying pathophysiology of DED may have a delay of 3−6 months in the onset of therapeutic effect; however, these treatment options may also have tolerability issues. These challenges highlight the need for newer pharmacologic treatments with an earlier onset of observable clinical effect and the potential for improved tolerability profile. Patient education is vital to DED management and should convey the complex and chronic nature of DED. It is important for the eye care practitioner to set realistic expectations with the patient when managing DED to help improve treatment success. This helps the patient understand the need for ongoing treatment and that results will likely not be seen immediately. This review covers the current management of DED, focusing on pharmacologic management, and offers recommendations for the practitioner to help facilitate realistic patient expectations for the treatment of DED.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

No abstract

Keratoconjunctivitis sicca, also known as dry eye disease (DED), is a prevalent, multifactorial disease associated with compromised ocular lubrication, ocular surface inflammation and damage, and ocular symptoms. Several anti-inflammatory, topical ophthalmic therapies are available to treat clinical signs and symptoms of DED in the USA and Europe. Cyclosporine A (CsA)-based formulations include an ophthalmic emulsion of 0.05% CsA (CsA 0.05%), a cationic emulsion (CE) of CsA 0.1% (CsA CE), and an aqueous nanomicellar formulation of 0.09% CsA (OTX-101). Lifitegrast is a 5% ophthalmic solution of a lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1 antagonist that is believed to target T cell activation and recruitment to inhibit ocular inflammation. Here we provide a comprehensive review summarising preclinical studies and pivotal trial data for these treatments to provide a complete understanding of their efficacy and safety profile. Overall, data in the evaluated studies show a favourable risk–benefit profile for the use of targeted topical anti-inflammatory pharmacologic treatments in patients with DED. Pivotal trials for CsA 0.05%, CsA CE, OTX-101, and lifitegrast clearly demonstrate treatment efficacy compared to vehicle across treatments with no serious ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Patients using ophthalmic treatments reported ocular TEAEs more frequently than those treated with vehicle; however, relatively few TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation. The specific signs and symptoms of DED that improve with treatment vary with the treatment prescribed. Long-term and direct comparative studies between treatments are needed to further understand treatment differences in efficacy and safety profiles.

Objectives: To evaluate the noninferiority of intraocular pressure (IOP)lowering latanoprost without benzalkonium chloride (BAK) versus latanoprost with BAK (for treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension). Methods: Overall, 578 patients were randomized 1:1 to latanoprost without BAK or latanoprost with BAK once daily in the affected eye(s) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was IOP, measured on days 0, 7, 28, 56, and 84 (8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM). Noninferiority was established if the following criteria were met: 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between treatments included 0 mm Hg for all time points (N1), 95% CI upper limit less than 1.5 mm Hg (N2), and less than 1 mm Hg for$7 of 12 time points (N3). Primary efficacy analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population. Safety measurements included ocular and systemic adverse event (AE).Results: The 95% CI included 0 mm Hg for 7/12 time points (N1), 95% CI upper limit was less than 1.5 mm Hg for 12/12 time points (N2), and less than 1.0 mm Hg for 4/7 time points (N3). AEs were mild and similarly distributed between groups. Conclusions: Latanoprost without BAK did not meet two of three criteria for noninferiority and showed a similar safety profile relative to latanoprost with BAK.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disorder characterized by loss of tear film homeostasis with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 5% to 50%. In DED, dysfunction of the ocular structures that create and regulate the tear film components—including the lacrimal glands, meibomian glands, cornea, and conjunctiva—causes a qualitative and/or quantitative tear deficiency with resultant tear film instability and hyperosmolarity. This initiates a vicious cycle of ocular surface inflammation and damage that may ultimately impair the quality of life and vision of affected patients. Many factors can contribute to the development of DED, including ocular and systemic diseases, topical and systemic medications, and environmental conditions. Because DED is a chronic disorder, treatment is most often long term and may utilize both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to address all etiologic components. The long-term management of DED can be challenging and most often should involve eye care specialist referral. However, primary care clinicians (PCCs) are often the first points of contact for patients with DED and importantly provide initial diagnosis and preliminary patient education about the disease process. Consideration of DED is also vital for the practice of various specialties due to the large number of comorbidities and medications that can contribute to DED pathogenesis and progression. Therefore, it is important that PCCs and clinical specialists be aware of the etiology of DED and its available therapeutic options. This manuscript provides an overview of DED pathophysiology and treatment and discusses specific considerations regarding DED management for PCCs and clinical specialists. Key messages Successful management of dry eye disease often requires the use of various pharmacologic and/or nonpharmacologic therapies, as well as environmental and lifestyle modifications, to mitigate the underlying etiologies and restore tear film homeostasis. Primary care clinicians play an essential role in dry eye disease management by establishing a diagnosis, educating patients about the disorder, and providing referrals to eye care specialists for initiation of specialized treatment and long-term follow-up. Primary care clinicians and clinical specialists should consider prescribing medications with fewer ocular surface effects whenever possible in patients at risk for or with existing dry eye disease.

Purpose To evaluate the long-term safety of latanoprost benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-free vs currently marketed latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution containing BAK (referred to as reference), to treat open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Patients and Methods This phase 3, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, single group assignment, safety study included patients who previously completed a phase 3 noninferiority study. Patients self-administered 1 drop of latanoprost BAK-free nightly for 36 weeks in the affected eye(s). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), and slit lamp biomicroscopy were assessed predose at baseline and Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, and 168; dilated ophthalmoscopy and visual field (VF) at baseline and Day 168. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. Results A total of 161 patients who previously received latanoprost BAK-free (n = 80) or reference (n = 81) were enrolled. Latanoprost BAK-free maintained lowered IOP for both the study and nonstudy eye in all patients relative to baseline throughout the study. Clinically significant retinal or optic nerve changes were identified in 5 patients (1 mild-to-moderate change, prior latanoprost BAK-free; 4 mild changes, prior reference). No clinically important changes were identified for VA, slit lamp biomicroscopy, and VF measurements. Ocular AEs occurred in 66 (82.5%) vs 74 (91.4%) patients on prior latanoprost BAK-free and reference, respectively; the most frequent being eye pain (50.0% vs 64.2%) and ocular hyperemia (47.5% vs 54.3%). Most AEs were mild. There were 5 serious systemic AEs in 5 patients (n = 3, prior latanoprost BAK-free; n = 2, prior reference); all were considered unrelated or not likely related to treatment. One patient (prior reference) discontinued due to follicular conjunctivitis. There were no deaths or serious ocular AEs. Conclusion Latanoprost BAK-free was well tolerated. These findings support the chronic use of latanoprost BAK-free to treat OAG or OHT. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT00945958.