A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparison of loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension, 0.5%, and placebo for treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in patients with delayed tear clearance - 25/08/11
, Teresa Micuda, BS f, Howard M. Proskin, PhD g, Roger Vogel, MD hRésumé |
Purpose |
To evaluate loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic 0.5% suspension, versus placebo for treatment of the inflammatory component of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in patients with delayed tear clearance.
Design |
Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Methods |
Sixty-four patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca and delayed tear clearance were randomly assigned to receive either loteprednol or vehicle 4 times a day for 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment and 2 weeks after treatment was discontinued. Symptoms were scored using a visual analog scale (VAS) of 1 to 100. Corneal fluorescein staining was scored 0 to 4 in five areas. Conjunctival injection was graded 0 to 3 in the inferior bulbar, nasal bulbar, and inferior tarsal areas. Lid margin injection was graded 0 to 3. Safety was assessed by funduscopy, lens examination, biomicroscopy, visual acuity, and Goldmann tonometry, and by monitoring adverse events and changes in symptoms.
Results |
In subsets of patients with at least moderate clinical inflammation, there was a significant difference between the loteprednol-treated group and vehicle-treated group after 2 weeks of therapy. The differences did not reach statistical significance at 4 weeks, although the loteprednol-treated patients retained their improvement compared with the vehicle-treated group. Safety evaluations showed both treatments to be well tolerated and similar in the frequency and type of adverse event reported.
Conclusion |
The use of topical loteprednol etabonate 0.5% 4 times a day may be beneficial in patients who have keratoconjunctivitis sicca with at least a moderate inflammatory component.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| This study was supported by Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York. |
|
| Biosketch and/or additional information at www.ajo.com. |
Vol 138 - N° 3
P. 444-457 - septembre 2004 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
