-
PloS One 2020Fixed-combination (FC) therapy is used in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) patients who require more than one medication to reach their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol versus other fixed combinations for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Fixed-combination (FC) therapy is used in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) patients who require more than one medication to reach their target intraocular pressure (IOP). Currently, there are several FC therapies available for the treatment of glaucoma. The FC of latanoprost/timolol (LTFC) is a commonly used FC. Here, we conducted systematic review to compare the IOP-lowering effects of LTFC with other FCs for patients with POAG and OHT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized-controlled clinical trials and cross-over studies. The outcomes were mean IOP and IOP fluctuation after one month of treatment. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (version 5.1) software. After conducting meta-analyses, we rated the quality of each meta-analysis as high, moderate, low, or very low using the "GRADE" system.
RESULTS
We included 16 trials in this meta-analysis. Moderate-quality meta-analysis showed that LTFC had a comparable mean IOP to that of a fixed combination of travoprost and timolol (TTFC) [mean difference (MD): 0.07 mmHg] and a fixed combination of dorzolamide and timolol (DTFC) [MD: -0.31 mmHg], and it also had a comparable IOP-fluctuation effect compared to that of TTFC [MD: 0.13 mm Hg] and DTFC [MD: 0.25 mmHg]. Compared to the fixed combination of bimatoprost and timolol (BiTFC), moderate-quality evidence showed a higher mean IOP in the LTFC group [MD 0.76 mmHg], whereas low-quality meta-analysis showed higher IOP fluctuation [MD 1.09 mmHg] in the LTFC group.
CONCLUSIONS
LTFC is as effective as TTFC and DTFC, but worse than BiTFC in controlling mean IOP and IOP fluctuation for POAG or OHT patients. The quality of our meta-analyses was assessed as moderate, with the exception of one low-quality analysis that compared the IOP fluctuation of LTFC and BiTFC.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Bimatoprost; Drug Combinations; Female; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Latanoprost; Male; Ocular Hypertension; Sulfonamides; Thiophenes; Timolol; Travoprost; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32106236
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229682 -
Medicine Feb 2020Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a multifactorial and common type of ocular surface disease that affects many people. The quality of life for AC patients can be...
BACKGROUND
Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a multifactorial and common type of ocular surface disease that affects many people. The quality of life for AC patients can be significantly decreased caused by symptoms of ocular itching, swelling, redness, and tearing. Topical antihistaminics, mast cell stabilizers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids have been widely used to treat AC. Many clinical trials have indicated that olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops can provide quick relief of symptoms and signs. The purpose of this review is to evaluate systematically the effectiveness of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for treating AC.
METHODS
A systematic review of all of the randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for AC will be conducted. We will search PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), EMBASE (OVID), the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and CBM, from the database inception date to October 31, 2019. There are no language or publication status restrictions. Registers of clinical trials, potential gray literature, reference lists of studies, and conference abstracts will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently read the articles, extract the data information, and assess the quality of the studies. Data will be synthesized by a heterogeneity test. The primary outcomes include the main symptom and sign scores before and after treatment, the eye redness index, the presence of eosinophils in the conjunctival scraping. Quality of life, the total treatment efficacy, and safety will be evaluated as the secondary outcomes. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The study will provide an objective and normative systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for the treatment of AC.
CONCLUSION
Our review will provide useful information to judge whether olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops is an effective intervention for patients with AC.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
It is not necessary to obtain ethical approval as participants are not involved patients. The protocol and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The systematic review will also be disseminated electronically and in print to help guide health care practice and policy.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42019132232.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Humans; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32049778
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018618 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2020To evaluate the effects of topical cyclosporin A (CsA) and artificial tears (ATs) for treating patients with dry-eye disease (DED). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/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.
Topics: Administration, Ophthalmic; Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32021110
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S207743 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions, including spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents in slowing myopia progression in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; the LILACS Database; and two trial registrations up to February 2018. A top up search was done in February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We excluded studies when most participants were older than 18 years at baseline. We also excluded studies when participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 studies (6772 participants). Twenty-one studies contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Interventions included spectacles, contact lenses, pharmaceutical agents, and combination treatments. Most studies were conducted in Asia or in the United States. Except one, all studies included children 18 years or younger. Many studies were at high risk of performance and attrition bias. Spectacle lenses: undercorrection of myopia increased myopia progression slightly in two studies; children whose vision was undercorrected progressed on average -0.15 D (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.29 to 0.00; n = 142; low-certainty evidence) more than those wearing fully corrected single vision lenses (SVLs). In one study, axial length increased 0.05 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) more in the undercorrected group than in the fully corrected group (n = 94; low-certainty evidence). Multifocal lenses (bifocal spectacles or progressive addition lenses) yielded small effect in slowing myopia progression; children wearing multifocal lenses progressed on average 0.14 D (95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; n = 1463; moderate-certainty evidence) less than children wearing SVLs. In four studies, axial elongation was less for multifocal lens wearers than for SVL wearers (-0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; n = 896; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluating different peripheral plus spectacle lenses versus SVLs reported inconsistent results for refractive error and axial length outcomes (n = 597; low-certainty evidence). Contact lenses: there may be little or no difference between vision of children wearing bifocal soft contact lenses (SCLs) and children wearing single vision SCLs (mean difference (MD) 0.20D, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.47; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for bifocal SCL wearers than for single vision SCL wearers (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.08; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Two studies investigating rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) showed inconsistent results in myopia progression; these two studies also found no evidence of difference in axial elongation (MD 0.02mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; n = 415; very low-certainty evidence). Orthokeratology contact lenses were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.19; n = 106; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies comparing spherical aberration SCLs with single vision SCLs reported no difference in myopia progression nor in axial length (n = 209; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical agents: at one year, children receiving atropine eye drops (3 studies; n = 629), pirenzepine gel (2 studies; n = 326), or cyclopentolate eye drops (1 study; n = 64) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo: MD 1.00 D (95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), 0.31 D (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), and 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for children treated with atropine (MD -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.31; n = 502) and pirenzepine (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.12; n = 326) than for those treated with placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) in two studies. Another study showed favorable results for three different doses of atropine eye drops compared with tropicamide eye drops (MD 0.78 D, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07 for 0.1% atropine; MD 0.81 D, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05 for 0.25% atropine; and MD 1.01 D, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28 for 0.5% atropine; n = 196; low-certainty evidence) but did not report axial length. Systemic 7-methylxanthine had little to no effect on myopic progression (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) nor on axial elongation (MD -0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) compared with placebo in one study (n = 77; moderate-certainty evidence). One study did not find slowed myopia progression when comparing timolol eye drops with no drops (MD -0.05 D, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; n = 95; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of interventions: two studies found that children treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.78 D (95% CI 0.54 to 1.02) less than children treated with placebo plus SVLs (n = 191; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported -0.37 mm (95% CI -0.47 to -0.27) axial elongation for atropine and multifocal spectacles when compared with placebo plus SVLs (n = 127; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with children treated with cyclopentolate plus SVLs, those treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.36 D less (95% CI 0.11 to 0.61; n = 64; moderate-certainty evidence). Bifocal spectacles showed small or negligible effect compared with SVLs plus timolol drops in one study (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32; n = 97; moderate-certainty evidence). One study comparing tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles versus SVLs reported no statistically significant differences between groups without quantitative results. No serious adverse events were reported across all interventions. Participants receiving antimuscarinic topical medications were more likely to experience accommodation difficulties (Risk Ratio [RR] 9.05, 95% CI 4.09 to 20.01) and papillae and follicles (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.11 to 4.90) than participants receiving placebo (n=387; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antimuscarinic topical medication is effective in slowing myopia progression in children. Multifocal lenses, either spectacles or contact lenses, may also confer a small benefit. Orthokeratology contact lenses, although not intended to modify refractive error, were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation. We found only low or very low-certainty evidence to support RGPCLs and sperical aberration SCLs.
Topics: Atropine; Child; Contact Lenses; Cyclopentolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Myopia, Degenerative; Ophthalmic Solutions; Pirenzepine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31930781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub4 -
Ophthalmic Research 2020To compare the efficacy of autologous serum (AS) eye drops and artificial tears (AT) in dry eye disease (DED). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of autologous serum (AS) eye drops and artificial tears (AT) in dry eye disease (DED).
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy was evaluated in terms of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Schirmer I test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and fluorescein and rose bengal staining of ocular surface. The estimated effects of AS or AT were expressed as a proportion with the 95% confidence interval and plotted on a forest plot.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs with 267 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. For most of the studies, subjects' age was around 50 years old, and the mostly treatment duration was within 8 weeks. The follow-up results showed that the OSDI after AS treatment was lower than that after the AT treatment: the mean difference (MD) was -10.75 (95% CI, -18.12; -3.39) points. There was no difference on the Schirmer I test after treatment between the two groups: the MD was 1.68 (95% CI, -0.65; 4.00) mm. The TBUT of the AS group was longer than that of the AT group, with an MD of 4.53 (95% CI, 2.02; 7.05) s. There was no statistically significant difference on fluorescein staining score of the ocular surface between the AS group and the AT group, the MD was -2.53 (95% CI, -6.08; 1.03) points. The rose bengal staining score of the AS group was slightly lower than that of the AT group after treatment: the MD was -0.78 (95% CI, -1.34; -0.22) points.
CONCLUSION
AS could be an effective treatment for DED, improving OSDI, TBUT, and rose bengal staining score. Further RCTs with large samples and long-term follow-up are still needed to determine the exact role of AS in the management of DED.
Topics: Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serum
PubMed: 31884498
DOI: 10.1159/000505630 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements, involving omega-3 and/or omega-6 components, have been proposed as a therapy for dry eye. Omega-3 PUFAs exist in both... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements, involving omega-3 and/or omega-6 components, have been proposed as a therapy for dry eye. Omega-3 PUFAs exist in both short- (alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]) and long-chain (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) forms, which largely derive from certain plant- and marine-based foods respectively. Omega-6 PUFAs are present in some vegetable oils, meats, and other animal products.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements on dry eye signs and symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, two other databases and three trial registries were searched in February 2018, together with reference checking. A top-up search was conducted in October 2019, but the results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving dry eye participants, in which omega-3 and/or omega-6 supplements were compared with a placebo/control supplement, artificial tears, or no treatment. We included head-to-head trials comparing different forms or doses of PUFAs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs, involving 4314 adult participants from 13 countries with dry eye of variable severity and etiology. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Nine (26.5%) studies had published protocols and/or were registered. Over half of studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus placebo or no treatment (10 RCTs) We found low certainty evidence that there may be little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with long-chain omega-3 versus placebo (four studies, 677 participants; mean difference [MD] -2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.14 to 0.19 units). We found moderate certainty evidence for a probable benefit of long-chain omega-3 supplements in increasing aqueous tear production relative to placebo (six studies, 1704 participants; MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.09 mm/5 min using the Schirmer test), although we did not judge this difference to be clinically meaningful. We found low certainty evidence for a possible reduction in tear osmolarity (one study, 54 participants; MD -17.71, 95% CI -28.07 to -7.35 mOsmol/L). Heterogeneity was too substantial to pool data on tear break-up time (TBUT) and adverse effects. Combined omega-3 and omega-6 versus placebo (four RCTs) For symptoms (low certainty) and ocular surface staining (moderate certainty), data from the four included trials could not be meta-analyzed, and thus effects on these outcomes were unclear. For the Schirmer test, we found moderate certainty evidence that there was no intergroup difference (four studies, 455 participants; MD: 0.66, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.77 mm/5 min). There was moderate certainty for a probable improvement in TBUT with the PUFA intervention relative to placebo (four studies, 455 participants; MD 0.55, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.07 seconds). Effects on tear osmolarity and adverse events were unclear, with data only available from a single small study for each outcome. Omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (two RCTs) For omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, we found low certainty evidence suggesting an intergroup difference in symptoms favoring the omega-3 group (two studies, 70 participants; MD -7.16, 95% CI -13.97 to -0.34 OSDI units). Data could not be combined for all other outcomes. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus omega-6 (five RCTs) For long-chain omega-3 versus omega-6 supplementation, we found moderate certainty evidence for a probable improvement in dry eye symptoms (two studies, 130 participants; MD -11.88, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.92 OSDI units). Meta-analysis was not possible for outcomes relating to ocular surface staining, Schirmer test or TBUT. We found low certainty evidence for a potential improvement in tear osmolarity (one study, 105 participants; MD -11.10, 95% CI -12.15 to -10.05 mOsmol/L). There was low level certainty regarding any potential effect on gastrointestinal side effects (two studies, 91 participants; RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.35 to 15.54).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the findings in this review suggest a possible role for long-chain omega-3 supplementation in managing dry eye disease, although the evidence is uncertain and inconsistent. A core outcome set would work toward improving the consistency of reporting and the capacity to synthesize evidence.
Topics: Dry Eye Syndromes; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Fatty Acids, Omega-6; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31847055
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011016.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA...
BACKGROUND
Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA eyedrops have been approved by US Food and Drug Administration for managing dry eye: Restasis (CsA 0.05%, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA, USA), approved in 2002, and Cequa (CsA 0.09%, Sun Pharma, Cranbury, NJ, USA), approved in 2018. Numerous clinical trials have been performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of CsA for dry eye; however, there is no universal consensus with regard to its effect.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical CsA in the treatment of dry eye.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 February 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with dry eye regardless of age, sex, severity, etiology, or classification of dry eye. We included RCTs in which different concentrations of topical CsA were compared with one another or with artificial tears, placebo, or vehicle. We also included RCTs in which CsA in combination with artificial tears was compared to artificial tears alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 RCTs (4009 participants) with follow-up periods ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. We studied dry eye of various severity and underlying causes. The interventions investigated also varied across RCTs: CsA versus artificial tears; CsA with artificial tears versus artificial tears alone; and in some studies, more than one concentration of CsA. Artificial tears were used as adjunctive to study medication in all but five trials. Almost all trials had deficiencies in the reporting of results (e.g. reporting P values or direction only), precluding the calculation of between-group estimates of effect or meta-analysis.Eighteen trials compared topical CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears or artificial tears alone. One trial reported subjective symptoms of dry eye at 6 months and the results were in favor of CsA (mean difference (MD) -4.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.41 to -3.19; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported MD in ocular surface dye staining at 6 months, but the results were inconsistent in these two trials (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01 in one and MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.10 in the other; low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in Schirmer test scores at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -4.05 (95% CI -6.67 to -1.73) to 3.26 (95% CI -1.52 to 5.00) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported risk ratio (RR) of improved Schirmer test scores at 6 months; estimates ranged from 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.17) to 3.50 (95% CI 2.09 to 5.85) (low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in tear film stability measured by tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -1.98 (95% CI -3.59 to -0.37) to 1.90 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.36) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported RR of improved tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from 0.90 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) to 4.00 (95% CI 2.25 to 7.12) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported frequency of artificial tear usage at 6 months without providing any estimates of effect; the direction of effect seem to be in favor of CsA (low-certainty evidence). Because of incomplete reporting of the results data or considerable statistical heterogeneity, we were only able to perform a meta-analysis on mean conjunctival goblet cell density. Mean conjunctival goblet cell density in the CsA treated group may be greater than that in the control group at the end of follow-up at four and 12 months (MD 22.5 cells per unit, 95% CI 16.3 to 28.8; low-certainty evidence). All but two trials reported adverse events that included burning and stinging. Participants treated with CsA may be more likely to have treatment-related adverse events than those who treated with vehicle (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78; low-certainty evidence).Other comparisons evaluated were CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus higher concentrations of CsA plus artificial tears (4 trials); CsA 0.05% versus placebo or vehicle (4 trials); CsA 0.1% plus artificial tears versus placebo or vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials);CsA 0.1% cationic emulsion plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials); CsA 1% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials); and CsA 2% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials). Almost all of these trials reported P value or direction of effect only (mostly in favor of CsA), precluding calculation of between-group effect estimates or meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the widespread use of topical CsA to treat dry eye, we found that evidence on the effect of CsA on ocular discomfort and ocular surface and tear film parameters such as corneal fluorescein staining, Schirmer's test, and TBUT is inconsistent and sometimes may not be different from vehicle or artificial tears for the time periods reported in the trials. There may be an increase in non-serious, treatment-related adverse effects (particularly burning) in the CsA group. Topical CsA may increase the number of conjunctival goblet cells. However, current evidence does not support that improvements in conjunctival mucus production (through increased conjunctival goblet cells) translate to improved symptoms or ocular surface and tear film parameters. All published trials were short term and did not assess whether CsA has longer-term disease-modifying effects. Well-planned, long-term, large clinical trials are needed to better assess CsA on long-term dry eye-modifying effects. A core outcome set, which ideally includes both biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes in the field of dry eye, is needed.
Topics: Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31517988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010051.pub2 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia Sep 2019This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in Universidade Federal de Alagoas (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018089933). Online databases were searched (LILACS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL) from inception to April 2018; references from included papers were also searched. The following keywords were used: lubricants OR artificial tears OR artificial tears, lubricants AND dry eye OR dry eye syndrome OR syndromes, dry eye OR dry eyes. Among the 2028 electronic search results, 29 full papers were retrieved and four were considered relevant. The number of participants from these studies ranged from 15 to 76. Meta-analysis was possible for the following outcomes: score of symptoms according to the Ocular Surface Disease Index - Allergan (OSDI), tear secretion rate using the Schirmer test, tear evaporation rate using the tear film breakup time test, burning, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, and no side effects were attributed to the interventions. Evidence proving that preservative-free artificial tears are more effective than preserved artificial tears is lacking.
Topics: Bias; Dry Eye Syndromes; Female; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Ophthalmic Solutions; Preservatives, Pharmaceutical; Tears
PubMed: 31508669
DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20190097 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing...
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.
OBJECTIVES
In performing this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion therapy compared to atropine penalization in treating amblyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN; and the WHO ICTRP on 7 September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (five randomized controlled trials and two quasi-randomized controlled trials) conducted in six countries (China, India, Iran, Ireland, Spain, and the United States) with a total of 1177 amblyopic eyes. Three of these seven trials were from the original 2009 version of the review. We assessed two trials as having a low risk of bias across all domains, and the remaining five trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for some domains.As different occlusion modalities, atropine penalization regimens, and populations were used across the included trials, we did not conduct any meta-analysis due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Evidence from six trials (two at low risk of bias) suggests that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion in improving visual acuity. Similar improvement in visual acuity was reported at all time points at which it was assessed, ranging from five weeks (improvement of 1 line) to 10 years (improvement of greater than 3 lines). At six months, although most participants (363/522) come from a trial rated as at low risk of bias with a precise estimate (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.06), two other trials rated as at high risk of bias produced inconsistent estimates and wide confidence intervals (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07 and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 months, additional improvement was found in both groups, but there continued to be no meaningful difference between those receiving occlusion and those receiving atropine therapies (moderate-certainty evidence).We did not find any difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity, or sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments were well tolerated. Atropine was associated with better adherence (moderate-certainty evidence) and quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), but also a higher reported risk of adverse events in terms of mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment and light sensitivity (high-certainty evidence). Skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation were more common among participants receiving patching than those receiving atropine (high-certainty evidence). Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the trials we analyzed.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31461545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub3 -
Medicine Jul 2019To evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of 3 prostaglandin analogues (0.005% latanoprost, 0.004% travoprost, and 0.03% bimatoprost) in treatment of primary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of 3 prostaglandin analogues (0.005% latanoprost, 0.004% travoprost, and 0.03% bimatoprost) in treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, CNKI, Wanfang, and Vip database, published between January 1, 2000 and June 1, 2018, were systematically examined for randomized controlled trials (RCT) based on prostaglandin analogues for POAG or OHT treatment. Statistical analyses including weighted mean difference (WMD) calculation and odds ratio (OR) were performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3.
RESULT
The 17 studies were included in this analysis (N = 2433 participants) with 1∼12 months' follow-ups. The difference of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction between latanoprost and travoprost group had not significant; there was significant difference of IOP reduction between latanoprost and bimatoprost group in the third month and sixth month; Travoprost was significantly different from bimatoprost in reducing IOP in the third month. Travoprost revealed an elevated risk of conjunctival hyperemia compared with latanoprost. An elevated risk of conjunctival hyperemia and growth of lashes compared with latanoprost. Bimatoprost shows lower ocular tolerability with higher incidence of side effects such as conjunctival hyperemia.
CONCLUSIONS
0.03% bimatoprost appears more effective following long time use (3 and 6 month post-treatment) for IOP control compared to 0.005% latanoprost, and is more effective compared to 0.004% travoprost after being used for a certain period of time (3 months post-treatment); nevertheless, 0.005% latanoprost is better tolerated in patients with POAG or OHT.
Topics: Bimatoprost; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Latanoprost; Ocular Hypertension; Prostaglandins, Synthetic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Travoprost
PubMed: 31348303
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016597