Home Current Issue Previous Issues Published Ahead-of-Print For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > January 2006 - Volume 32 - Issue 1 > An Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Cyclosporine-Based Dry Ey...
You could be reading the full-text of this article now...
If you have access to this article through your institution, you can view this article in OvidSP.
Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice:
January 2006 - Volume 32 - Issue 1 - pp 21-26
Articles

An Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Cyclosporine-Based Dry Eye Therapy When Used With Marketed Artificial Tears as Supportive Therapy in Dry Eye

Sall, Ken N. M.D.; Cohen, Stephen M. O.D.; Christensen, Mike T. O.D., Ph.D.; Stein, Jerry M. Ph.D.

Collapse Box

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy of marketed artificial tears in relieving the signs and symptoms of dry eye when used as supportive therapy to a cyclosporine-based ophthalmic emulsion.

Methods. Sixty-one patients were enrolled in this randomized, investigator-masked, parallel study of 6 months' duration. Eligible patients needed a Schirmer I score without anesthesia of 7 mm or less at day -7 and to answer that they needed artificial tears at least some of the time. Corneal staining of 3 or more (National Eye Institute grid, 15 points) at day -7 and day 0 in the same eye was also required. Patients were randomized to one of three regimens: Restasis (0.05% cyclosporine) twice per day with Systane used a minimum of once per day (Restasis + Systane); Restasis twice per day with Refresh Tears used a minimum of once per day (Restasis + Refresh); and Systane alone used four times per day. Signs and symptoms were measured at days -7, 0, 7, 14, 28, 42, 120, and 180.

Results. A statistical difference was seen in favor of Restasis + Systane versus Restasis + Refresh for corneal staining (P=0.0048) change from baseline and a trend (P=0.0725) for increased tear film breakup time at 6 months. There were no differences between treatment groups for Schirmer score, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival injection. Significant differences were seen in favor of Restasis + Systane versus Restasis + Refresh for less ocular burning (P=0.0210), stinging (P=0.0314), grittiness (P=0.0128), and dryness (P=0.0132). Systane was better than Restasis + Refresh for less burning (P=0.0288), dryness (P=0.0480), and scratchiness (P=0.0294).

Conclusions. Results indicate that the choice of concomitant therapy used with Restasis has significant effects on outcome measures. Both supportive therapies were compatible with Restasis.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login




Help

Forgot Password?

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.