Journals / MN Oftalmoloji / 2008 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3

Topical cyclosporin-A in dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease

Kronik graft versus hastalığıyla ilişkili kuru gözde topikal siklosporin-A

Pages
153–156
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Topical cyclosporine-A might be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with dry eye related to graft versus host disease.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of topical cyclosporine-A in dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Sixteen eyes of 8 patients with dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Topical cyclosporine-A might be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with dry eye related to graft versus host disease.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of topical cyclosporine-A in dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease. Material and Methods: Sixteen eyes of 8 patients with dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) were included in the study. Visual acuity, Schirmer test results, tear break-up time, fluorescein staining of cornea and conjunctiva as well as subjective complaint scores were recorded at the baseline visit. These results were compared with first, third and sixth month results. Patients continued immunosuppressive medications because of ongoing systemic symptoms of chronic GVHD during the study. Results: Mean age of the patients was 38.5 (23-50) years. The mean follow-up period was 31.9 months. There were statistically significant improvement in fluorescein staining of cornea and conjunctiva as well as subjective complaint scores. However, there were no significant differences in visual acuity, Schirmer test results and tear break up time. No serious drug related adverse effects were observed during the course of the study. Conclusion: Topical cyclosporine-A might be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with dry eye related to graft versus host disease.

Özet

Amaç: Graft Versus Host hastalığına bağlı kuru göz tedavisinde topikal siklosporin-A kullanımının semptom ve bulgular üzerine etkisini değerlendirmek. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya kronik Greft Versus Host hastalığına (GVHH) bağlı kuru göz tanısı konmuş olan 8 hastanın 16 gözü dahil edildi. Görme keskinliği, Schirmer testi, gözyaşı filmi kırılma zamanı, konjonktiva ve korneanın floreseinle boyanma şekli ve subjektif semptomlar başlangıç muayenesinde kaydedildi. Bu sonuçlar 1., 3. ve 6. aydaki sonuçlarla kıyaslandı. Çalışma süresince hastalar sistemik kronik GVHH nedeni ile almakta oldukları immünsüpresif tedavilerine de devam ettiler. Bulgular: Olguların yaş ortalaması 38,5 (23-50) yıl idi. Ortalama 31,9 ay takip sonucu subjektif semptomlarda ve korneanın floreseinle boyanma şeklinde tedavi öncesiyle kıyaslandığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı iyileşme gözlendi. Ancak takiplerde görme keskinliğinde, Schirmer test sonucunda ve gözyaşı filmi kırılma zamanında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. Hiçbir olguda ciddi yan etki görülmedi. Sonuç: Graft Versus Host hastalığına bağlı ağır kuru gözü olan hastalarda topikal siklosporin-A kullanımı etkili ve güvenilir bir seçenek olabilir

🔖

Cite This Article

KURT, R. A., YALÇINDAĞ, F. N., ATİLLA, H., ARAT, M. (2008). Topical cyclosporin-A in dry eye associated with chronic graft versus host disease. MN Oftalmoloji, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3, 153–156. https://ajindex.com/articles/295867

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Rao SN, Rao RD. Efficacy of topical cyclosporine 0.05% in the treatment of dry eye associated with graft versus host dis ease. Cornea 2006;25:674-8
  2. Lelli GJ Jr, Musch DC, Gupta A, Farjo QA, Nairus TM, Mian SI. Ophthalmic cyclosporine use in ocular GVHD. Cornea 2006;25:635-8
  3. Trattler W, Katsev D, Kemey D. Self-reported compliance with topical cyclosporine emulsion 0.05% and onset of the ef fects of increased tear production as assessed through pa tient surveys. Clin Ther 2006; 28:1848-56
  4. Nichols KK, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The repeatability of clini cal measuruments of dry eye. Cornea. 2004;23:272-85
  5. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Zadnik A. Frequency of dry eye di agnostic test procedures used in various modes of ophtalmic practice. Cornea 2000; 19:477-82
  6. Bron AJ, Evans VE, Smith JA.Grading of comeal and con junctival staining in the context of other dry eye tests. Cornea 2003;22:640-50
  7. Siegel S, Castellan JN. Nonparametric statistics for behav ioral science 1988 McGrawJHill Inc. New York Page 180 chapter 7.2
  8. Schirra F, Ruprecht KW. Dry eye. An update on epidemiology, diagnosis, therapy and new concepts. Ophthalmologie 2004; 101:10-8
  9. Tatlipinar S, Akpek EK. Topical cyclosporin in the treatment of ocular surface disorders. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89: 1363-7
  10. Lallemand F, Felt-Baeyens O, Besseghir K, Behar-Cohen F, Gurny R. Cyclosporine A delivery to the eye: a pharmaceutical challenge. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2003;56:307-18
  11. Stonecipher K, Perry HD, Gross RH, Kerney DL. The impact of topical cyclosporine A emulsion 0.05% on the outcomes of patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1057-63
  12. Wilson SE, Perry HD. Long-term resolution of chronic dry eye symptoms and signs after topical cyclosporine treatment. Ophthalmology 2007; 114:76-9
  13. Galatoire O, Baudouin C, Pisella PJ, Brignole F. Flow cytom etry in impression cytology during keratoconjunctivitis sicca: effects of topical cyclosporin A on HLA DR expression. J Fr Ophtalmol 2003;26:337-43
  14. Lekhanont K, Leyngold IM, Suwan-Apichon O, Rangsin R, Chuck RS. Comparison of topical dry eye medications for the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in a botulinum toxin B induced mouse model. Cornea 2007;26:84-9