Cargando…
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
INTRODUCTION: 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....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33061257 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S259331 |
_version_ | 1783587449623019520 |
---|---|
author | Burade, Vinod Zalawadia, Rishit Patel, Alpesh Ogundele, Abayomi |
author_facet | Burade, Vinod Zalawadia, Rishit Patel, Alpesh Ogundele, Abayomi |
author_sort | Burade, Vinod |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 (P<0.05, <0.001, <0.001, respectively) and vs CsA 0.1% eml on day 60 (P<0.05); CsA 0.09% sol once daily significantly increased tear volume on day 45 vs CsA 0.05% eml (P<0.05). Goblet cell density significantly increased with CsA 0.09% sol twice daily vs placebo and NOD control (P<0.01 both). There was no significant difference in corneal staining and IL-1β levels with CsA 0.09% sol. CONCLUSION: Sixty-day treatment with CsA 0.09% sol showed comparatively improved preclinical results vs CsA 0.05% eml and CsA 0.1% eml. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7518773 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75187732020-10-14 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 Burade, Vinod Zalawadia, Rishit Patel, Alpesh Ogundele, Abayomi Clin Ophthalmol Original Research INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 (P<0.05, <0.001, <0.001, respectively) and vs CsA 0.1% eml on day 60 (P<0.05); CsA 0.09% sol once daily significantly increased tear volume on day 45 vs CsA 0.05% eml (P<0.05). Goblet cell density significantly increased with CsA 0.09% sol twice daily vs placebo and NOD control (P<0.01 both). There was no significant difference in corneal staining and IL-1β levels with CsA 0.09% sol. CONCLUSION: Sixty-day treatment with CsA 0.09% sol showed comparatively improved preclinical results vs CsA 0.05% eml and CsA 0.1% eml. Dove 2020-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7518773/ /pubmed/33061257 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S259331 Text en © 2020 Burade et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Burade, Vinod Zalawadia, Rishit Patel, Alpesh Ogundele, Abayomi 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33061257 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S259331 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT buradevinod preclinicalefficacycomparisonofcyclosporineophthalmicsolution009vscyclosporineophthalmicemulsion005vsciclosporinophthalmicemulsion01inanodmousemodelofdryeyedisease AT zalawadiarishit preclinicalefficacycomparisonofcyclosporineophthalmicsolution009vscyclosporineophthalmicemulsion005vsciclosporinophthalmicemulsion01inanodmousemodelofdryeyedisease AT patelalpesh preclinicalefficacycomparisonofcyclosporineophthalmicsolution009vscyclosporineophthalmicemulsion005vsciclosporinophthalmicemulsion01inanodmousemodelofdryeyedisease AT ogundeleabayomi preclinicalefficacycomparisonofcyclosporineophthalmicsolution009vscyclosporineophthalmicemulsion005vsciclosporinophthalmicemulsion01inanodmousemodelofdryeyedisease |