TABLE 1.

Primary and Key Secondary Outcomes of Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution 0.25% Pivotal Trials

SATURN-1		SATURN-2
Timepoint	Clinically meaningful collarette cure (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)a	Timepoint	Clinically meaningful collarette cure (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)b
Day 8	(23.2% vs 10.6%; P = 0.0003)	Day 8	(3.6% vs 3.4%; P = 0.4622)
Day 15	(40.7% vs 16.3%; P < 0.0001)	Day 15	(18.2% vs 3.5%; P < 0.0001)
Day 22	(60.4% vs 18.4%; P < 0.0001)	Day 22	(28.2% vs 6.0%; P < 0.0001)
Day 43c	(81.3% vs 23.0%; P < 0.0001)	Day 43d	(56.0% vs 12.5%; P < 0.0001)
Timepoint	Mite eradication (mite density of 0 mites/lash) (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)	Timepoint	Mite eradication (mite density of 0 mites/lash) (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)
Day 43e	(67.9% vs 17.6%; P < 0.0001)	Day 43f	(51.8% vs 14.6%; P < 0.0001)
Timepoint	Erythema cure (grade 0) (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)	Timepoint	Erythema cure (grade 0) (% with lotilaner vs % with vehicle)
Day 43e	(19.1% vs 6.9%; P = 0.0001)	Day 43f	(31.1% vs 9.0%; P < 0.0001)

Adapted from Yeu et al3 and Gaddie et al.4

^aProportion of patients with clinically meaningful collarette cure (grade 0-1, ≤10 collarettes) in the upper eyelid of the analysis eye in the study and control groups.

^bProportion of patients with collarette cure (grade 0 [0-2 lashes with collarettes]) in the upper eyelid of the analysis eye in the study and control groups.

^cPrimary endpoint.

^dPrimary endpoint.

^eSecondary endpoint.

^fSecondary endpoint.