Efficacy and safety of 0.1% ciclosporin A cationic emulsion in dry eye disease: a pooled analysis of two double-masked, randomised, vehicle-controlled phase III clinical studies.
ocular surface
tears
treatment medical
Journal
The British journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 1468-2079
Titre abrégé: Br J Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0421041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
02
01
2018
revised:
14
02
2018
accepted:
20
02
2018
pubmed:
17
3
2018
medline:
21
9
2019
entrez:
17
3
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the treatment effect of 0.1% ciclosporin A cationic emulsion (CsA CE) versus vehicle on signs/symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in various subgroups (moderate-to-severe DED/severe DED/Sjögren's syndrome (SS)/SS with severe DED). Pooled data were analysed from two similar phase III studies: SICCANOVE (moderate-to-severe DED) and SANSIKA (severe DED with severe keratitis). In both studies, patients aged ≥18 years received CsA CE 0.1% (n=395) or vehicle (n=339) once daily for 6 months. A composite responder efficacy endpoint (corneal fluorescein staining-Ocular Surface Disease Index (CFS-OSDI) at month 6) was used to evaluate the efficacy of CsA CE in alleviating signs/symptoms of DED (response defined as improvement of ≥2 grades in CFS and ≥30% in OSDI (baseline to month 6)). Human leucocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) conjunctival expression was used as a biomarker of ocular surface inflammation. CsA CE-treated patients were significantly more likely to be CFS-OSDI responders than vehicle-treated patients in the overall (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.50; P=0.015), severe DED (1.80, 1.04 to 3.19; P=0.038) and SS with severe DED (3.37, 1.20 to 11.19; P=0.030) populations. The difference was not significant for CsA CE versus vehicle for the overall Sjögren's population (OR 1.77, CI 0.89 to 3.66; P=0.109). CsA CE also significantly reduced median HLA-DR expression versus vehicle at 6 months (P=0.002). Pooled phase III data indicate CsA CE produced significant improvement in signs/symptoms versus vehicle in patients with moderate-to-severe DED (especially in those with severe keratitis), including patients with SS with severe DED.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
To assess the treatment effect of 0.1% ciclosporin A cationic emulsion (CsA CE) versus vehicle on signs/symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in various subgroups (moderate-to-severe DED/severe DED/Sjögren's syndrome (SS)/SS with severe DED).
METHODS
Pooled data were analysed from two similar phase III studies: SICCANOVE (moderate-to-severe DED) and SANSIKA (severe DED with severe keratitis). In both studies, patients aged ≥18 years received CsA CE 0.1% (n=395) or vehicle (n=339) once daily for 6 months. A composite responder efficacy endpoint (corneal fluorescein staining-Ocular Surface Disease Index (CFS-OSDI) at month 6) was used to evaluate the efficacy of CsA CE in alleviating signs/symptoms of DED (response defined as improvement of ≥2 grades in CFS and ≥30% in OSDI (baseline to month 6)). Human leucocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) conjunctival expression was used as a biomarker of ocular surface inflammation.
RESULTS
CsA CE-treated patients were significantly more likely to be CFS-OSDI responders than vehicle-treated patients in the overall (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.50; P=0.015), severe DED (1.80, 1.04 to 3.19; P=0.038) and SS with severe DED (3.37, 1.20 to 11.19; P=0.030) populations. The difference was not significant for CsA CE versus vehicle for the overall Sjögren's population (OR 1.77, CI 0.89 to 3.66; P=0.109). CsA CE also significantly reduced median HLA-DR expression versus vehicle at 6 months (P=0.002).
CONCLUSION
Pooled phase III data indicate CsA CE produced significant improvement in signs/symptoms versus vehicle in patients with moderate-to-severe DED (especially in those with severe keratitis), including patients with SS with severe DED.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29545413
pii: bjophthalmol-2017-311801
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311801
pmc: PMC6317444
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Ophthalmic Solutions
0
Cyclosporine
83HN0GTJ6D
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125-131Informations de copyright
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: AL is a consultant for, or has received a research grant from, Allergan, Alcon, MediVis, Santen, SIFI and Théa and was an investigator in the SICCANOVE and SANSIKA studies. EMM is a consultant for, or has received speaker honoraria from, Alcon Pharma GmbH, Dompé, Pharm-Allergan GmbH, Santen GmbH, Shire, Théa Pharma GmbH, TRB Chemedica AG, Ursapharm and VISUfarma and was an investigator in the SICCANOVE study. ML is a consultant for, or has received a research grant from, Alcon, Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Dompé, Santen and Théa and was an investigator in the SICCANOVE and SANSIKA studies. MA is an employee of Santen SAS. J-SG is an employee of Santen SAS. DI is an employee of Santen SAS. MS-d-l-M is a consultant for Santen and was an investigator in the SICCANOVE and SANSIKA studies. FCF is a consultant for, or has received a research grant from, Allergan, Théa and Santen and was an investigator in the SICCANOVE and SANSIKA studies. CB is a consultant for, or has received a research grant from, Alcon, Allergan, Santen and Théa and was a clinical investigator in the SICCANOVE and SANSIKA studies.
Références
Acta Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug;94(5):499-506
pubmed: 27105776
Cornea. 2013 Mar;32(3):345-54
pubmed: 23023401
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727-35
pubmed: 7779114
Ocul Surf. 2009 Oct;7(4):199-211
pubmed: 19948103
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2008 Nov;34(4):987-1000, x
pubmed: 18984417
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Apr 1;58(4):2438-2448
pubmed: 28448672
Eye Contact Lens. 2010 Jan;36(1):33-8
pubmed: 20009946
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2014 Oct;37(8):589-98
pubmed: 25127703
Ocul Surf. 2015 Apr;13(2):118-32
pubmed: 25881996
Acta Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;96(2):111-119
pubmed: 28390092
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2007 Mar;30(3):239-46
pubmed: 17417148
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):276-283
pubmed: 28736335
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jun 10;26(4):287-96
pubmed: 27055414
Ocul Surf. 2013 Oct;11(4):246-58
pubmed: 24112228
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):438-510
pubmed: 28736340
Ophthalmology. 2000 Apr;107(4):631-9
pubmed: 10768324
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug 30;27(5):520-530
pubmed: 28362054
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2014 Apr;66(4):531-41
pubmed: 24001405
Cornea. 2004 Nov;23(8):762-70
pubmed: 15502475
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;98(9):1168-76
pubmed: 24627252
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):334-365
pubmed: 28736337
Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2003 Nov;56(3):307-18
pubmed: 14602172
J Drug Deliv. 2012;2012:604204
pubmed: 22506123
Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2017 Aug;117:14-28
pubmed: 28315447
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2017 Mar;40(3):187-195
pubmed: 28318723
Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:405-12
pubmed: 19688028
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Jan;42(1):90-5
pubmed: 11133852
Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug;101(8):1100-1105
pubmed: 28003235
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov 8;27(6):678-685
pubmed: 28708219