4.4 Review

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials in the treatment of dry eye disease in Sjogren syndrome

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFLAMMATION-LONDON
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12950-017-0174-3

Keywords

Dry eye; Systematic review; Randomized controlled trials; Sjogren's syndrome; Keratoconjunctivitis sicca

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary Sjgren's syndrome is an autoimmune disease characterized by dry eye and dry mouth. We systematically reviewed all the randomized controlled clinical trials published in the last 15 years that included ocular outcomes. We found 22 trials involving 9 topical, 10 oral, 2 intravenous and 1 subcutaneous modalities of treatment. Fluoromethalone eye drops over 8 weeks were more effective than topical cyclosporine in the treatment of dry eye symptoms and signs; similarly, indomethacin eye drops over 1 month were more efficacious than diclofenac eye drops. Oral pilocarpine 5 mg twice daily over 3 months was superior to use of lubricants or punctal plugs for treating dry eye, but 5% of participants had gastrointestinal adverse effects from pilocarpine, though none discontinued treatment. In contrast, etanercept, a TNF-alpha blocking antibody, administered as subcutaneous injections twice weekly, did not improve dry eye significantly compared to placebo injections. In conclusion, topical corticosteroids have been shown to be effective in dry eye associated with Sjgren's syndrome. As some topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be more effective than others, these should be further evaluated. Systemic secretagogues like pilocarpine have a role in Sjgren's syndrome but the adverse effects may limit their clinical use. It is disappointing that systemic cytokine therapy did not produce encouraging ocular outcomes but participants should have assessment of cytokine levels in such trials, as those with higher baseline cytokine levels may respond better.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available