Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2019
Randomized, Controlled, Double-Masked, Multicenter, Pilot Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Intranasal Neurostimulation for Dry Eye Disease.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cohn Geoffrey S, Corbett Dean, Tenen Abi, Coroneo Minas, McAlister James, Craig Jennifer P, Gray Trevor, Kent David, Murray Neil, Petsoglou Con, Baba Stephanie N, Holland Edward J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We assess the safety and effectiveness of intranasal neurostimulation to promote tear production via the nasolacrimal pathway in subjects with dry eye disease.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-masked pilot study was conducted in adults with dry eye diagnosis and at least one eye with corneal fluorescein staining ≥2 in at least one region or a sum of all regions ≥5 (National Eye Institute grading), basal Schirmer test score ≤10 mm, a cotton-swab stimulated Schirmer score ≥7 mm higher, and an Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≥23. Subjects were randomized to receive active intranasal neurostimulation or sham control intranasal stimulation 4 to 8 times per day. Assessments were scheduled before (unstimulated) and during (stimulated) device application at days 0, 7, 14, 30, and 90. The primary effectiveness endpoint was stimulation-induced change in Schirmer test (with anesthesia) score. Primary safety measure was incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects were randomized at nine sites in Australia and New Zealand; 56 completed the 90-day study. Stimulation-induced change in Schirmer score was significantly greater with active intranasal (mean ± SEM, 9.0 ± 2.0) than sham control intranasal stimulation (0.4 ± 0.6; P < 0.001) at day 90. Similar results were observed at days 0, 7, 14, and 30 (P < 0.001). No serious device-related AEs were observed. Mild nosebleed, the most common device-related AE, was reported in five (16.7%) subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal neurostimulation was effective in inducing acute tear production after 90 days of use and generally was well tolerated in subjects with dry eye disease.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-masked pilot study was conducted in adults with dry eye diagnosis and at least one eye with corneal fluorescein staining ≥2 in at least one region or a sum of all regions ≥5 (National Eye Institute grading), basal Schirmer test score ≤10 mm, a cotton-swab stimulated Schirmer score ≥7 mm higher, and an Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≥23. Subjects were randomized to receive active intranasal neurostimulation or sham control intranasal stimulation 4 to 8 times per day. Assessments were scheduled before (unstimulated) and during (stimulated) device application at days 0, 7, 14, 30, and 90. The primary effectiveness endpoint was stimulation-induced change in Schirmer test (with anesthesia) score. Primary safety measure was incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects were randomized at nine sites in Australia and New Zealand; 56 completed the 90-day study. Stimulation-induced change in Schirmer score was significantly greater with active intranasal (mean ± SEM, 9.0 ± 2.0) than sham control intranasal stimulation (0.4 ± 0.6; P < 0.001) at day 90. Similar results were observed at days 0, 7, 14, and 30 (P < 0.001). No serious device-related AEs were observed. Mild nosebleed, the most common device-related AE, was reported in five (16.7%) subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal neurostimulation was effective in inducing acute tear production after 90 days of use and generally was well tolerated in subjects with dry eye disease.