Preclinical Efficacy Comparison of Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Solution 0.09% vs Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion 0.05% vs Ciclosporin Ophthalmic Emulsion 0.1% in a NOD Mouse Model of Dry Eye Disease.
cyclosporine A
goblet cell density
keratoconjunctivitis sicca
preclinical
tear production
Journal
Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
ISSN: 1177-5467
Titre abrégé: Clin Ophthalmol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101321512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
accepted:
20
08
2020
entrez:
16
10
2020
pubmed:
17
10
2020
medline:
17
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cyclosporine ophthalmic solution 0.09% (CsA 0.09% sol) is approved to increase tear production in patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca. This study evaluated the efficacy of CsA 0.09% sol vs cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (CsA 0.05% eml) vs ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion 0.1% (CsA 0.1% eml) in a NOD mice model. Mice were randomized and administered placebo, CsA 0.09% sol twice daily, CsA 0.05% eml twice daily, CsA 0.09% sol once daily, or CsA 0.1% eml once daily in the conjunctival sac of both eyes for 60 days. Tear volume was measured with phenol red threads at baseline and 4 hours after treatment every 15 days. On day 58, the corneal surface was observed under a slit-lamp after staining with 3% lissamine green administered into the inferior lateral conjunctival sac. On day 61, mice were euthanized, globes excised, sliced into 4 µm sections in 3 areas per section, and stained. Total number of stained goblet cell/µm was counted, and the sum per eye was averaged. Lacrimal gland tissues were removed and interleukin (IL) 1-β cytokine levels estimated. Groups comprised 11 mice each, including an untreated normal and untreated diseased control group (7 groups total). CsA 0.09% sol twice daily significantly increased tear volume on day 30, 45, and 60 vs CsA 0.05% eml ( Sixty-day treatment with CsA 0.09% sol showed comparatively improved preclinical results vs CsA 0.05% eml and CsA 0.1% eml.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33061257
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S259331
pii: 259331
pmc: PMC7518773
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2747-2755Informations de copyright
© 2020 Burade et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Vinod Burade, Rishit Zalawadia, and Alpesh Patel are employees of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Abayomi Ogundele is an employee of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 May 13;10:887-95
pubmed: 27257373
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Mar;120(3):330-7
pubmed: 11879137
JCI Insight. 2018 Feb 8;3(3):
pubmed: 29415888
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2014 Sep-Oct;6(5):422-37
pubmed: 24888969
Ophthalmology. 2019 Sep;126(9):1230-1237
pubmed: 30965064
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2016 Sep;54:49-63
pubmed: 27091323
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):438-510
pubmed: 28736340
Cornea. 2019 Oct;38(10):1259-1265
pubmed: 31306284
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019 May-Jun;37 Suppl 118(3):209-216
pubmed: 31376261
Eye (Lond). 2011 Nov;25(11):1429-34
pubmed: 21836630
Am J Pathol. 2014 Mar;184(3):631-43
pubmed: 24389165
Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2017 Aug;117:14-28
pubmed: 28315447
Clin Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct 02;12:1921-1929
pubmed: 30323548
Ocul Surf. 2017 Oct;15(4):802-812
pubmed: 28797892
Invest Ophthalmol. 1975 Apr;14(4):299-302
pubmed: 1123285
Br J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jan;103(1):125-131
pubmed: 29545413
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):575-628
pubmed: 28736343
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):276-283
pubmed: 28736335
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Feb;137(2):337-42
pubmed: 14962426
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1161:13-25
pubmed: 31562618
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov 8;27(6):678-685
pubmed: 28708219
Eye Contact Lens. 2020 Jan;46 Suppl 1:S14-S19
pubmed: 31361655
Am J Pathol. 2013 Jul;183(1):35-48
pubmed: 23665202
Ophthalmology. 2000 Apr;107(4):631-9
pubmed: 10768324