Loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis

Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases 2021

Allergic conjunctival disease (ACD) is an inflammatory disease of the conjunctiva that is mainly caused by type I hypersensitivity response to allergens and accompanied by subjective symptoms and other findings induced by antigens. ACD is classified as allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and giant papillary conjunctivitis. This article summarizes the third edition of the Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases published in 2021 and outlines the diagnosis, pathogenesis, and treatment of ACD. Since the introduction of immunosuppressive eye drops, the treatment strategies for severe ACDs have significantly changed. To clarify the recommended standard treatment protocols for ACD, the advantages and disadvantages of these treatments were assessed using clinical questions, with a focus on the use of steroids and immunosuppressive drugs. This knowledge will assist healthcare providers and patients in taking an active role in medical decision making.

The spectrum of allergic ocular diseases

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to review the pathophysiologic mechanisms, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of the various manifestations of ocular allergy, with an especial focus on immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was performed to include articles, using the search terms ocular allergy and allergic conjunctivitis.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Recent and relevant human studies in the English language pertaining to our topic of study were selected. Animal studies pertaining to pathophysiology of ocular allergy were also reviewed. We focused on clinical trials, practice guidelines, reviews, and systematic reviews. In addition, case reports were reviewed if they described rare clinical presentations, disease mechanisms, or novel therapies.

RESULTS

Ocular allergy encompasses both IgE- and non-IgE-mediated disease, and the clinical severity may range from mild to sight-threatening inflammation. A comprehensive treatment regimen including education, lifestyle measures, topical therapies, and even systemic interventions may be necessary for the effective management of ocular allergies, tailored according to symptom severity.

CONCLUSION

Ocular allergy is frequently encountered by allergists and eye-care specialists, and despite progressively increasing incidence, it often remains underdiagnosed and, hence, untreated.

Efficacy, Safety and Steroid-sparing Effect of Topical Cyclosporine A 0.05% for Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis in Indian Children

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and steroid-sparing effect of topical cyclosporine A (Cs A) 0.05% in patients with moderate to severe steroid dependent vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC).

Methods

A prospective, comparative, placebo controlled study was carried out on 68 VKC patients, with 34 patients treated with topical Cs A 0.05% and the remaining 34 with topical carboxymethyl cellulose 0.5% (placebo). Both groups also received topical loteprednol etabonate 0.5%. Symptom (itching, photophobia, tearing, and discharge) score, sign (tarsal and limbal papillae, corneal involvement, and conjunctival hyperemia) score, and drug score (steroid drop usage/day/eye) were recorded at baseline and each follow-up visit. The intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement and evaluation of any ocular side effects were carried out.

Results

Significant reduction in symptom score and sign score was seen in both groups. Cs A group significantly showed more reduction in symptom (P < 0.0001 in all follow-up visits) and sign (P < 0.0001 in all follow-up visits) scores compared to the placebo group. At day 7, mean steroid usage reduced from 4 to 3.44 ± 0.5 and 3.79 ± 0.4 in Cs A and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Steroid drops completely stopped in 21 patients at day 60 in the Cs A group compared to none in the placebo group. No significant rise in IOP or any side effects were noted in either group.

Conclusion

Topical Cs A 0.05% is effective and safe in patients with moderate to severe VKC with good steroid-sparing effect.

Management of ocular allergy

The treatment and management of ocular allergy (OA) remain a major concern for different specialties, including allergists, ophthalmologists, primary care physicians, rhinologists, pediatricians, dermatologists, clinical immunologists, and pharmacists. We performed a systematic review of all relevant publications in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web Science including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Publications were considered relevant if they addressed treatments, or management strategies of OA. A further wider systematic literature search was performed if no evidence or good quality evidence was found. There are effective drugs for the treatment of OA; however, there is a lack an optimal treatment for the perennial and severe forms. Topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, or double-action drugs are the first choice of treatment. All of them are effective in reducing signs and symptoms of OA. The safety and optimal dosing regimen of the most effective topical anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, are still a major concern. Topical calcineurin inhibitors may be used in steroid-dependent/resistant cases of severe allergic keratoconjunctivitis. Allergen-specific immunotherapy may be considered in cases of failure of first-line treatments or to modify the natural course of OA disease. Based on the current wealth of publications and on the collective experience, recommendations on management of OA have been proposed.

Comparison of Loteprednol with Fluorometholone after Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy

Purpose:

To compare the efficacy and side effects of loteprednol versus fluorometholone after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods:

One hundred and twenty four eyes of 62 patients who underwent PRK were enrolled in this study. One eye of each subject was randomized to receive loteprednol 0.5% and the fellow eye was given fluorometholone 0.1%. Patients were followed up for three months.

Results:

There was no significant difference in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, corneal haze, intraocular pressure (IOP), and ocular discomfort and redness between groups at the final visit. At 3 months postoperatively, 20/25 or better UDVA was achieved in 95% of the loteprednol group and 92% of the fluorometholone group (P > 0.05). There was neither visually significant corneal haze nor ocular hypertension (IOP rise > 10 mmHg or IOP > 21 mmHg) in any group.

Conclusion:

The efficacy and side effects of loteprednol 0.5% and fluorometholone 0.1% after myopic PRK are comparable.