4.2 Review

Evaluating the novel application of cyclosporine 0.1% in ocular surface disease

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY
Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 1027-1039

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1479742

Keywords

Cationic emulsion; dry eye disease; DED; cyclosporine 0; 1%; CsA; glaucoma; Ikervis; immunomodulation; ocular surface disease; OSD; ocular inflammation; T-cells

Funding

  1. Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Ocular surface disease (OSD) is a highly prevalent symptomatic condition caused by dry eye disease (DED), intrinsic, environmental, or iatrogenic causes. It affects patient's visual function and quality of life. Its pathophysiology is centered on tear hyperosmolarity, inflammation, and epithelial damage. Current management is suboptimal and includes artificial tear supplementation and short-term use of topical steroids in severe cases. The recent approval of cyclosporine 0.1% has transformed management strategies of severe DED and moderate-to-severe OSD.Areas covered: This review summarizes existing information on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the new cyclosporine 0.1% formulation.Expert opinion: Topical cyclosporine A 0.1% represents a promising, novel medication for the management of DED, Meibomian gland dysfunction, and inflammatory OSD. It is primarily beneficial for those patients requiring topical immunomodulatory therapy. This topical formulation also has the potential to meaningfully improve the management of moderate-to-severe glaucoma therapy-related OSD. Currently there is limited published clinical data concerning the efficacy of topical cyclosporine. There are, however, theoretical advantages when comparing this cyclosporine formulation with other established commercial preparations. Future research is needed to delineate the precise role and value of this medication.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available