4.6 Article

Long-term outcome after topical ciclosporin in severe dry eye disease with a 10-year follow-up

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 11, Pages 1547-1550

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-306930

Keywords

Ocular surface; Inflammation; Tears

Categories

Funding

  1. Horus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To report a 10-year follow-up of patients suffering from severe dry eye syndrome (DES) initially treated with topical ciclosporin A (tCSA) for 6months. Methods The charts of 26 patients with severe DES related to keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS) and followed for a minimum 10-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. All of them were treated initially with tCSA for 6months. The Schirmer I test, fluorescein and lissamine green staining scores and tear film break-up time (TBUT) were recorded to assess clinical symptoms before, during and after treatment. The subjective signs were evaluated with the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) questionnaire. Prolongation and reintroduction of tCSA after the initial treatment and combined treatments were also noted. Results Overall the median (IQR) duration of tCSA treatment was 23 (7-51) months after a prolonged induction treatment lasting 20 (8-41) months during the 10-year follow-up. For symptoms, a statistically significant difference in the OSDI between baseline and the end of the 10-year follow-up was not found (p=0.67). We noted a statistically significant improvement in all clinical signs after the initial treatment period, still present at the end of follow-up. Only 6.5% of the patients needed reintroduction of tCSA after their prolonged induction treatment. Conclusions The improvement observed after an initial tCSA treatment was sustained after a long-term follow-up with few cases requiring additional tCSA treatment. A prolonged induction treatment to decrease initial inflammatory local signs is a promising option in KCS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available