Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32256045›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Treatment Satisfaction Among Patients Using Anti-Inflammatory Topical Medications for Dry Eye Disease.

Darrell E White, Yang Zhao, Hemalatha Jayapalan, Pattabhi Machiraju, Ramu Periyasamy, Abayomi Ogundele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Darrell E WhiteSkyVision Centers, Westlake, OH, USA.
Yang ZhaoSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA.
Hemalatha JayapalanIndegene, Inc., Bangalore, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8476-542X
Pattabhi MachirajuIndegene, Inc., Bangalore, India.
Ramu PeriyasamyIndegene, Inc., Bangalore, India.
Abayomi OgundeleSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA.
Sun Pharma (United States) · USNVision Eye Centers (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess patient satisfaction among current and former users of the anti-inflammatory topical medications, cyclosporine A 0.05% (CYC) and lifitegrast 5.0% (LIF), for the management of dry eye disease (DED). PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients with DED were recruited via physician referral to participate in a survey. Current users of CYC or LIF were asked to rate their experience in terms of satisfaction, side effects, and limitation of activities. Switchers of CYC to LIF or LIF to CYC were asked to rate the importance of potential reasons for switching.

resultsSurveys were completed by 207 patients currently treated with CYC (n=98), LIF (n=96), or other DED medications (n=13). Although overall satisfaction with current treatment was high, current users of CYC and LIF reported ineffective relief of DED symptoms (31% and 22%, respectively) and dissatisfaction with the time to onset of effect (29% and 11%). Substantial proportions of patients reported 'sometimes', "usually", or 'always' experiencing the following side effects: burning sensation (72% CYC, 64% LIF), itching (43% CYC, 44% LIF), altered sensation of taste (21% CYC, 56% LIF), blurred vision (37% CYC, 50% LIF), and discharge (28% CYC, 30% LIF). Of the 30 switchers of CYC to LIF and 31 switchers of LIF to CYC, the majority reported inability to relieve DED symptoms as a very or extremely important switching reason. Despite switching, one in four patients were somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their current medication, with 37% of patients reporting ineffective symptom relief.

conclusionAlthough the rate of overall satisfaction was generally high with both LIF and CYC, many patients were unable to achieve effective symptom relief and commonly experienced side effects. The proportion of patients who were dissatisfied and/or unable to achieve effective symptom relief even after switching suggests the need for additional treatment options for managing DED.

Indexed as

cyclosporinedry eye diseaselifitegrastocular surfacepatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID32256045
PMCPMC7089601
OpenAlexW3010961001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.