Clinical efficacy of 0.1% cyclosporine A in dry eye patients with inadequate responses to 0.05% cyclosporine A: a switching, prospective, open-label, multicenter study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY BMC Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1186/s12886-025-03862-x
Sook Hyun Yoon, Eun Chul Kim, In-Cheon You, Chul Young Choi, Jae Yong Kim, Jong Suk Song, Joon Young Hyon, Hong Kyun Kim, Kyoung Yul Seo
{"title":"Clinical efficacy of 0.1% cyclosporine A in dry eye patients with inadequate responses to 0.05% cyclosporine A: a switching, prospective, open-label, multicenter study.","authors":"Sook Hyun Yoon, Eun Chul Kim, In-Cheon You, Chul Young Choi, Jae Yong Kim, Jong Suk Song, Joon Young Hyon, Hong Kyun Kim, Kyoung Yul Seo","doi":"10.1186/s12886-025-03862-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the clinical efficacy of 0.1% cyclosporine A (CsA) in dry eye patients who have shown inadequate responses to previous treatment with 0.05% CsA.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study was designed as a switching, prospective, multicenter, 12-week, open-label study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with dry eye disease (DED), who experienced inadequate responses to at least 3 months of treatment with 0.05% cyclosporine, were enrolled in this study. Clinical evaluations included the National Eye Institute (NEI) corneal and conjunctival staining scores, tear film break-up time (TF-BUT), Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE), ocular discomfort scale (ODS), and tear volume. These parameters were assessed at baseline, and again at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after switching to 0.1% CsA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-one patients were enrolled in the study, and 70 patients completed the trial. Statistical analysis was performed on the full analysis set (FAS) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to account for missing data. After switching to 0.1% CsA, subjective symptoms assessed by the Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) and Ocular Discomfort Scale (ODS) showed improvement (p < 0.0001). Objective signs of dry eye, including the National Eye Institute (NEI) score, tear film break-up time (TF-BUT), and tear volume also improved (p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with dry eye disease (DED) who exhibited inadequate responses to 0.05% cyclosporine A (CsA), switching to 0.1% CsA resulted in significant improvements in both subjective symptoms and objective clinical signs. This finding suggests that higher concentrations of CsA may be more effective in treating individuals with moderate to severe DED.</p>","PeriodicalId":9058,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ophthalmology","volume":"25 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-03862-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the clinical efficacy of 0.1% cyclosporine A (CsA) in dry eye patients who have shown inadequate responses to previous treatment with 0.05% CsA.

Design: This study was designed as a switching, prospective, multicenter, 12-week, open-label study.

Methods: Patients with dry eye disease (DED), who experienced inadequate responses to at least 3 months of treatment with 0.05% cyclosporine, were enrolled in this study. Clinical evaluations included the National Eye Institute (NEI) corneal and conjunctival staining scores, tear film break-up time (TF-BUT), Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE), ocular discomfort scale (ODS), and tear volume. These parameters were assessed at baseline, and again at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after switching to 0.1% CsA.

Results: Ninety-one patients were enrolled in the study, and 70 patients completed the trial. Statistical analysis was performed on the full analysis set (FAS) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to account for missing data. After switching to 0.1% CsA, subjective symptoms assessed by the Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) and Ocular Discomfort Scale (ODS) showed improvement (p < 0.0001). Objective signs of dry eye, including the National Eye Institute (NEI) score, tear film break-up time (TF-BUT), and tear volume also improved (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: In patients with dry eye disease (DED) who exhibited inadequate responses to 0.05% cyclosporine A (CsA), switching to 0.1% CsA resulted in significant improvements in both subjective symptoms and objective clinical signs. This finding suggests that higher concentrations of CsA may be more effective in treating individuals with moderate to severe DED.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Ophthalmology
BMC Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
441
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Ophthalmology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of eye disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of a simple intravitreal perfluoropropane injection in treating unclosed idiopathic macular holes following vitrectomy. Selective laser trabeculoplasty for the treatment of intraocular pressure elevation after viscocanalostomy with Ologen implant in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma: a retrospective cohort study. Keratoconus with two consecutive re-emergences: a case report. Effect of crystalline lens decentration and tilt on visual performance in eyes implanted with bifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Visual, clinical and quality of life outcomes of a new multifocal IOL with optimized diffractive grating: a non-randomized clinical trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1