Efficacy and Safety of Topical Cysteamine in Corneal Cystinosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To evaluate safety and efficacy of topical cysteamine ophthalmic solution for corneal cystinosis. Seven databases were searched (PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov) for relevant studies, using appropriate keywords. Comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing cysteamine with control or other formulations for treatment of corneal or ophthalmic cystinosis were included. Outcome measurements were improvement or response to therapy, change in corneal cystine crystal score (CCCS), in vivo confocal microscopy score (IVCM), cystine crystal depth, contrast sensitivity (CS), photophobia score, and safety. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven studies were included. Compared to placebo and control, the cysteamine arm was better in terms of improvements and responses to therapy (2 studies showed a risk ratio [RR] of 16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.30-111.37) and crystal density score (1 study showed a mean difference [MD] of -0.80; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.04). No significant differences were observed in terms of improvement in CS (1 study showed an RR of 7.00; 95% CI: 0.47-103.27). Compared to cystamine, cysteamine showed benefits in terms of crystal density score (MD -0.94; 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.24). Compared to a newer formulation, the standard formulation (cysteamine [Cystaran]; 0.55% cysteamine hydrochloride + benzalkonium chloride 0.01%) performed better in terms of decreasing CCCS. Another newer, viscous formulation, Cystadrops, performed better than the standard formulation in terms of change in CCCS, IVCM score, corneal crystal depth, and photophobia score; however, local adverse effects and blurring were higher in the group receiving Cystadrops. Conventional cysteamine (0.1% to 0.3%) performed better than placebo (control) in terms of response to therapy. In terms of decreasing corneal cystine density, cysteamine (0.55%) was better than cystamine (0.55%), and the viscous Cystadrops (0.55%) was better than the standard formulation (0.1%).

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.