Table 1.

Overview of key characteristics and findings of included articles, sorted by year published.

Study no.	First author	Year	Study objective	Participants follow-up (design)		Comments
1	Soifer et al. [20]	2021	Investigate correlation between MMP-9 and DED parameters	67 (RCR)	10.6 months	• Eyes with detectable MMP-9 had significantly lower tear production over time than those without detectable MMP-9 • Conversion to undetectable MMP-9 was more likely in eyes treated with lifitegrast than with artificial tears
2	White et al. [17]	2020	Investigate satisfaction among DED patients treated with LIF or CYC	207 (CSS)	None	• Satisfaction generally high with both LIF and CYC, however ineffective relieve of symptoms reported
3	White et al. [18]	2020	Investigate satisfaction among physicians treating DED patients with LIF and CYC	210 (CSS)	None	• After onset of action, 81% were satisfied with the effectiveness of CYC while 86% with LIF
4	Tong, Passi, and Gupta [19]	2020	Evaluate the effect and safety of LIF therapy in patients with DED	121 (RCR)	Average 88.1 days	• MMP-9 normalized in 38.9% of eyes after treatment. Significant improvement in ocular symptoms, corneal staining and tear film breakup time
5	Tauber [29]	2020	Compare the effect of LIF versus thermal pulsation procedure in meibomian gland dysfunction	50 (RCT)	42 days	• Eye dryness symptoms, corneal staining and eyelid redness improved more with LIF than thermal pulsation
6	White et al. [21]	2019	Evaluate the adherence, discontinuation, and switching of LIF and CYC in DED	9772 (RCR)	12 months	• Over 60% of the patients discontinued treatment within 12 months of initiation, within median 3 months for CYC and 1 month for LIF
7	Pepose, Qazi, and Devries [23]	2019	Test relation between tear osmolarity and DED symptoms in patients treated with LIF	26 (PL)	2, 6, and 12 weeks	• Significant improvement in symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment, which persisted throughout follow-up. Tear osmolarity did not predict reduction in symptoms
8	Atallah et al. [22]	2019	Evaluate benefits of 6 months LIF therapy in patients with DED	168 (RCR)	1, 2, 3, and 6 months	• Improvement of symptoms rated as significant by 56% of the participants and moderate by 36% • Signs of DED improved in most patients
9	Nichols et al. [15]	2018	Evaluate ocular comfort of LIF compared with placebo therapy in patients with DED	711 (RCT)	14, 42, and 84 days	• Drop comfort scores approached placebo levels 3 min after instillation with LIF, and was similar or better than in the placebo group at 5, 10, and 15 min postinstillation
10	Holland et al. [25]	2017	Investigate the efficacy and safety of LIF versus placebo in patients with DED	711 (RCT)	14, 42, and 84 days	• LIF improved DED symptoms significantly after 14, 42, and 84 days
11	De Paz, Gonzalez, and Ngo [24]	2017	Assess the effectiveness of LIF in reducing symptoms of eye dryness	14 (PL)	28 days	• OSDI improved significantly after LIF therapy • Subjects were allowed to use their current lubricating drops as needed during follow-up
12	Tauber et al. [27]	2015	To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LIF compared with placebo therapy in patients with DED	718 (RCT)	14, 42, and 84 days	• LIF significantly improved DED symptoms after 14, 42 and 84 days
13	Sheppard et al. [26]	2014	Assess the efficacy and safety of LIF compared with placebo in patients with DED	588 (RCT)	14, 42, and 84 days	• LIF significantly improved corneal fluorescein and conjunctival lissamine staining
14	Semba et al. [28]	2012	To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LIF compared with placebo in patients with DED	230 (RCT)	14, 42, and 84 days	• LIF significantly improved OSDI and corneal fluorescein staining

Abbreviations: CSS, cross-sectional survey; CYC, cyclosporine; DED, dry eye disease; LIF, lifitegrast treatment; MMP-9, matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels; OSDI, Ocular Surface Disease Index; PL, prospective longitudinal study; RCR, retrospective chart review; RCT, randomized controlled trial.