Topical cyclosporine A therapy for dry eye syndrome

Impact of Attrition, Intercellular Shear in Dry Eye Disease: When Cells are Challenged and Neurons are Triggered

The mechanical component in the pathophysiology of dry eye disease (DED) deserves attention as an important factor. The lubrication deficit induced impaired mechano-transduction of lid pressure to the ocular surfaces may lead to the dysregulation of homeostasis in the epithelium, with sensations of pain and secondary inflammation. Ocular pain is possibly the first sign of attrition and may occur in the absence of visible epithelial damage. Attrition is a process which involves the constant or repeated challenge of ocular surface tissues by mechanical shear forces; it is enhanced by the thinning of corneal epithelium in severe DED. As a highly dynamic process leading to pain and neurogenic inflammation, the identification of the impact of attrition and its potential pathogenic role could add a new perspective to the current more tear film-oriented models of ocular surface disease. Treatment of DED addressing lubrication deficiencies and inflammation should also consider the decrease of attrition in order to stimulate epithelial recovery and neural regeneration. The importance of hyaluronic acid, its molecular characteristics, the extracellular matrix and autoregulative mechanisms in this process is outlined. The identification of the attrition and recognition of its impact in dry eye pathophysiology could contribute to a better understanding of the disease and optimized treatment regimens.

Immune - Goblet cell interaction in the conjunctiva

The conjunctiva is a goblet cell rich mucosal tissue. Goblet cells are supported by tear growth factors and IL-13 produced by resident immune cells. Goblet cell secretions are essential for maintaining tear stability and ocular surface homeostasis. In addition to producing tear stabilizing mucins, they also produce cytokines and retinoic acid that condition monocyte-derived phagocytic cells in the conjunctiva. Aqueous tear deficiency from lacrimal gland disease and systemic inflammatory conditions results in goblet cell loss that amplifies dry eye severity. Reduced goblet cell density is correlated with more severe conjunctival disease, increased IFN-γ expression and antigen presenting cell maturation. Sterile Alpha Motif (SAM) pointed domain epithelial specific transcription factor (Spdef) gene deficient mice that lack goblet cells have increased infiltration of monocytes and dendritic cells with greater IL-12 expression in the conjunctiva. Similar findings were observed in the conjunctiva of aged mice. Reduced retinoic acid receptor (RXRα) signaling also increases conjunctival monocyte infiltration, IFN-γ expression and goblet cell loss. Evidence suggests that dry eye therapies that suppress IFN-γ expression preserve conjunctival goblet cell number and function and should be considered in aqueous deficiency.

Topical cyclosporine A therapy for dry eye syndrome

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.