4.5 Article

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine Treatment on Dry Eyes in Subjects with Primary Sjogren's Syndrome: A Double-Blind Randomized Control Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 31, Issue 7, Pages 1127-1135

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.7.1127

Keywords

Hydroxychloroquine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Sjogren's Syndrome; Double-Blind Method; Prospective Studies

Funding

  1. Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund [0320130050, 0420110480]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on dry eye has not been fully determined. This study aimed to compare the 12-week efficacy of HCQ medication with that of a placebo in the management of dry eye in primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS). A double-blind, randomized control study was conducted in 39 pSS subjects from May 2011 through August 2013. pSS was diagnosed based on the classification criteria of the American-European Consensus Group. Subjects received 300 mg of HCQ or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and were evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks, with a re-visit at 16 weeks after drug discontinuance. The fluorescein staining score, Schirmer test score, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) were measured, and tears and blood were collected for ESR, IL-6, IL-17, B-cell activating factor (BAFF), and Th17 cell analysis. Color testing was performed and the fundus was examined to monitor HCQ complications. Twenty-six subjects completed the follow-up. The fluorescein staining score and Schirmer test score did not differ significantly. The OSDI improved with medication in the HCQ group but was not significantly different between the groups. TBUT, serum IL-6, ESR, serum and tear BAFF, and the proportion of Th17 cells did not change in either group. HCQ at 300 mg daily for 12 weeks has no apparent clinical benefit for dry eye and systemic inflammation in pSS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available