4.3 Article

A prospective study to assess the role of vitamin D individually and in combination with cyclosporine in the treatment of dry eye in patients with deficient serum 25(OH)D levels

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 1020-+

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1492_19

关键词

Cyclosporine; dry eye; OSDI score; Schirmer's; TBUT; vitamin D

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To study the efficiency of vitamin D3 (buccal spray) alone and combination of vitamin D3 with cyclosporine in the treatment of dry eye disease (DED) in patients with deficient serum 25(OH)D levels. Methods: Around 90 patients with DED with deficient serum 25(OH)D levels were included and randomized into three groups and were given treatment for dry eye (Group A- 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), Group B- 0.5% CMC + 2000 IU vitamin D through buccal spray, Group C- 0.5% CMC + 2000 IU vitamin D through buccal spray + 0.05% cyclosporine). The patients were followed at day-15, day-30, and day-90 for improvement in tear breakup time (TBUT) and Schirmer's, and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score. Improvement in serum vitamin D level was assessed at day-90. One way ANOVA test, paired t-test, and Chi-square test were used for analysis. Results: Group B and Group C had significantly higher in Schirmer's test-I values as compared to Group A (P = 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001 at day-15, day-30, and day-90, respectively). Significantly higher values of TBUT and mean serum vitamin D levels were obtained in Group B and Group C as compared to Group A at day-90 (P < 0.05). OSDI scores of patients significantly decreased in all three groups at all follow-up visits (P < 0.05). Overall, Group C and Group B were found statistically better than Group A. Group C showed better results than Group B but they were nonsignificant. Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation leads to earlier and significant improvement in TBUT, Schirmer's, and OSDI score in patients with vitamin D deficient DED.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据