Efficacy and Safety of a Water-Free Topical Cyclosporine, 0.1%, Solution for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Dry Eye Disease: The ESSENCE-2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Importance: Dry 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.

Objective: To 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 participants: CyclASol 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.

Interventions: Cyclosporine solution vs vehicle administered 2 times per day for 29 days.

Main outcomes and measures: The 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.

Results: A 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 relevance: The 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 registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523129.

Figure 1.. Study Participant Disposition Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a Water-Free Cyclosporine, 0.1%, Solution vs Vehicle in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Dry Eye Disease

Key reasons for screen failure were not meeting inclusion criteria due to the severity of dryness (n = 339), total corneal fluorescein staining score (n = 196), and previous use of artificial tears (n = 154). Participants who had missing data or visits out of window (eg, participants had their assessments taken 7 days or more outside the visit window for the primary end point [day 29 ±2]) were not considered for analyses.

Figure 2.. Total Corneal Fluorescein Staining (tCFS) at Day 29 Responder Analysis and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Symptoms for tCFS Responders

A, Proportion of corneal fluorescein staining responders (≥3 score improvement on the National Eye Institute scale) at day 29 using a water-free cyclosporine, 0.1%, solution vs vehicle in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease. B, Improvement in symptoms in tCFS responders vs nonresponders irrespective of treatment.