Drug Design, Development and Therapy (Jan 2020)
An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Trials On Topical Cyclosporin A For Dry-Eye Disease
Abstract
Hsin-I Tuan, 1, 2 Sheng-Chu Chi, 3, 4 Yi-No Kang 5, 6 1Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 2School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 4Department of Education, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan; 5Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 6Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, TaiwanCorrespondence: Yi-No KangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, 252 Wuxing Street, Xinyi District, Taipei 110, Taiwan, Tel +886 2 2737 2181 Ext 3759Fax +886 2 6638 9622Email [email protected]/Aims: To evaluate the effects of topical cyclosporin A (CsA) and artificial tears (ATs) for treating patients with dry-eye disease (DED).Methods: On January 25, 2019, five electronic databases and reference lists were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CsA with ATs among patients with DED. The search strategy had no restriction on language or time. Two authors extracted surgery, mean age, anesthesia for Schirmer’s test, tear-breakup time, Schirmer’s test score, fluorescein-staining score, ocular surface–disease index, and adverse events. Mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes and Peto ORs for dichotomous data with zero cells. Results were analyzed with 95% CIs in a random-effect model.Results: Eleven RCTs recruiting 1,085 cases with DED were included. Pooled results showed that CsA had better tear-breakup time (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.08– 1.80), fluorescein-staining score (standardized MD − 0.72, 95% CI − 1.28 to − 0.16), and ocular surface–disease index (MD − 4.75, 95% CI − 6.31 to − 3.18) when compared to ATs. Although CsA had more adverse events than ATs (Peto OR 7.70, 95% CI 3.17– 18.68), no serious adverse events were reported.Conclusion: Overall, CsA is an effective option for treating patients with DED, yet our evidence indicated decreasing effects when CsA was combined with ATs. CsA may be worth suggesting to relatively older patients with DED. We anticipate further RCTs to explore the effects of treatment duration, optimal dosage, and efficacy of CsA in different DED etiology.Keywords: dry eye, cyclosporin A, meta-analysis
