Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2024
Comparison of therapeutic effects of 0.05% Cyclosporine A versus 0.1% Fluorometholone in Chinese patients with mild dry eye unresponsive to artificial tears: a randomized control study.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess and compare the therapeutic outcomes of 0.05% Cyclosporine A (CsA) ophthalmic solution versus 0.1% Fluorometholone (FML) eyedrops in Chinese patients with mild dry eye disease (DED) unresponsive to conventional artificial tears (AT).
methodsA total of 43 patients with mild DED, who have failed to respond to conventional AT therapy for over 3 months, were randomly assigned to receive either 0.05% CsA or 0.1% FML twice daily for 6-months. In addition, all the patients were instructed to use 0.1% SH 4 times a day as supplementary therapy. Dry eye examination, including Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), Schirmer scores, corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) scores, and conjunctival goblet cell (CGC) density, intraocular pressure (IOP), Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was conducted at baseline and then evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Corneal endothelial cell density, corneal dendritic cells (DCs) and nerves were assessed by in vivo confocal microscopy at baseline and 6 months after treatment.
resultsAt 3 and 6 months after treatment, OSDI scores in the 0.05% CsA group showed more improvement than those in the 0.1% FML group. CFS was significantly lower and Schirmer scores were significantly higher in 0.05% CsA group compared with 0.1% FML group. NIBUT improved significantly in both groups, with greater improvement in the 0.05% CsA group at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month visits. Throughout the duration of the study, the 0.1% FML group exhibited no notable enhancement in CGC density. Conversely, a substantial elevation in CGC density was observed in the 0.05% CsA group. After 6 months of treatment, significantly reduced corneal DC density and area were obtained in 0.05% CsA group as compared to 0.1% FML group, while there were no significant changes in cornea nerve fiber density, cornea nerve fiber length and cornea nerve fiber width in both groups. Additionally, after 6 months of treatment, neither group showed any statistically significant changes in IOP, BCVA or in corneal endothelial cell density.
conclusionThe administration of 0.05% CsA proved effective in managing mild DED, offering a supplementary advantage in improving Schirmer scores, restoring CGC density and reducing corneal DC density compared to 0.1% FML eyedrops. Consequently, 0.05% CsA eyedrops are recommended as a safe and efficacious therapeutic alternative for patients with mild DED who fail to respond to conventional tear substitutes therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200066441, Registered 06 December 2022-Retrospectively registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.