ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
A Prospective Study of Cyclosporine A 0.1% Combined with Loteprednol 0.2% vs Cyclosporine A 0.05% Alone in the Treatment of Dry Eye.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of a combination of cyclosporine 0.1% and loteprednol 0.2% (CsA-LE; Klarity CL) in comparison to commercially available cyclosporine 0.05% (CsA; Restasis) in improving signs and symptoms of dry eye. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label study evaluated 60 patients randomized to a single treatment for 4 weeks and evaluated at day 0, day 14, and day 28. Comparison was made of corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs), dry-eye symptoms (SPEED score), tear-breakup time (TBUT), corneal staining, and ocular hyperemia, as well as tolerability of each medication with the validated COMTOL instrument. Results: A total of 56 patients completed enrollment. Corneal HOAs improved significantly with CsA-LE, but not CsA alone. Both groups showed significant improvement (with no significant differences between groups) in SPEED scores, corneal staining, TBUT, and conjunctival hyperemia. Tolerability was similar between the drugs, and no significant safety issues were identified. Conclusion: The combination of CsA 0.1%-LE 0.2% provided significant improvement in corneal HOAs, while CsA 0.05% did not. For all other measures of ocular surface improvement, both medications showed similar benefits. Tolerability was comparable between the formulations. When rapid rehabilitation of the ocular surface is needed to reduce aberrations, CsA-LE is an appropriate choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.