4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The Effect of Topical Cyclosporine A on Clinical Findings and Cytological Grade of the Disease in Patients With Dry Eye

期刊

CORNEA
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1412-1416

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181e7845b

关键词

cyclosporine A; dry eye; cytological grade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the clinical findings and the cytological grade of the disease before and after 6 months of topical cyclosporine A treatment in patients with dry eye. Setting: This single-center prospective study was performed at the Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara University School of Medicine, between January 2007 and June 2008. Method: Forty-five patients with dry eye (with 5 mm/5 minutes or less Schirmer test) were included in the study. Patients were treated with cyclosporine A 0.005% ophthalmic emulsion (RESTASIS) twice daily in addition to lubricant eyedrops 5 times a day. Schirmer test values, tear breakup time (BUT), and impression cytology (goblet cell density, nucleus to cytoplasmic ratio, and epithelial cell morphology) were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months. Results: Before and after 6 months of the treatment with topical cyclosporine A, the median Schirmer test scores were found as 3.00 and 4.00 mm, respectively. The median BUT score at baseline was 4.00 seconds, and after treatment, the median score was 5.00 seconds. There were statistically significant differences in the median Schirmer and BUT values between, before, and after 6 months of treatment (P < 0.05). The mean cytological grade according to Nelson grading system was 1.84 at baseline and 1.51 after treatment with topical cyclosporine A for 6 months. Statistically significant improvement in cytological grades after treatment was observed (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Treatment of patients with dry eye for 6 months with topical cyclosporine A resulted in an increase in Schirmer test results, an increase in BUT scores, and an improvement in cytological grade of the disease.

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

4.4
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