Treatment of Corneal Infiltrates Secondary to Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis

May 5, 2020 updated by: Asma Khallouli, Military Hospital of Tunis

Treatment of Subepithelial Infiltrates Secondary to Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: Corticosteroids Versus Cyclosporine Eyedrops: A Randomized Double-blind Study

Purpose:

To compare efficiency and tolerance between topical 0.5% cyclosporine A and fluorometholone in patients with subepithelial corneal infiltrates (SEIs).

Methods :

A prospective double-blind randomized study was conducted involving 72 eyes, 38 treated with topical fluorometholone and 34 eyes treated with cyclosporine A 0.5% eyedrops, having SEIs. Treatment was considered successful if there was reduction of SEIs and improvement in visual acuity (two snellen lines). Tolerance was mainly evaluated by Schirmer test, conjunctival hyperemia and burning sensation upon eyedrops instillation.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

This study was performed on the 72 eyes of 51 patients who were referred to our clinics for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC).Diagnosis of EKC was based on the constellation of clinical features. The investigators conducted a double-blind randomized prospective parallel trial involving : 38 patients treated with topical fluorometholone and 34 eyes treated with cyclosporine A 0.5% eye drops. Cyclosporine A eye drops were prepared in Ricin oil by the pharmacy of Tunis Military Hospital. The sample size was measured by our research department, to obtain a conclusion of non-inferiority of cyclosporine A compared to fluorometholone in the chronic phase of EKC.

Duration of the whole regimen was six months. The study included an extra month after the end of the regimen. It was called " wash-out ". Patients who had less than one month of treatment or an uncontrolled treatment side effect or who presented a degenerative iron line were excluded from the rest of the regimen.The regimen was the same for both treatments in order to preserve the double-blind characteristic : 4 times a day for one month then 3 times a day for one month and 2 times a day for four months.

Patients were examined on admission to the study and one month , three months, six months and seven months after the onset of treatment. The investigators followed a double-masked fashion in all the phases of the study.

Information gathered in M0 included basic demographic information (age and sex), medical and ophtalmological history, involved eye(s) and duration of symptoms in the acute episode. The investigators evaluated and recorded the interval of time between the onset of the infection and the beginning of the trial and called it " pretherapeutic period ". At each visit, SEIs were photo-documented, best corrected visual acuity (converted to mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), spheric equivalent, SEIs number, intraocular pressure (with non contact tonometers), break-up time and Schimer test type 1 and cup/disc score were recorded.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

51

Phase

  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Illinois
      • Tunis, Illinois, Tunisia
        • Military Hospital of Tunis

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

9 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • patients having subepithelial infiltrates following epidemic keratoconjunctivites persisting for 14 days or more

Exclusion Criteria:

  • a past history of glaucoma or other anterior or posterior segment disease or surgery
  • a chronic use of topical or systemic medications
  • pregnancy,
  • contact lens wearers,
  • patients who couldn't attend at least two regimen visits

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Fluorometholone group
This group included 38 patients treated with topical fluorometholone 0.1% (FLUCON®) 4 times a day for one month then 3 times a day for one month and 2 times a day for four months.
The drug was prescribed monthly according to the predefined regimen. It was not namely specefied in the prescription and was delivered by the hospital pharmacy according to the randomisation list.The subjects were masked to the contents and were instructed to return the empty tubes on monthly visit, wherein 1 pack of topical treatment was provided to them. Neither the patient nor the ophthalmologist knew the allocated treatment. No other medication was allowed during the trial. Duration of the whole regimen was six months. The study included an extra month after the end of the regimen. It was called " wash-out ". Patients who had less than one month of treatment or an uncontrolled treatment side effect or who presented a degenerative iron line were excluded from the rest of the regimen.
Other Names:
  • Fluorometholone
Active Comparator: Cyclosporine A group
This group included 34 patients treated with cyclosporine A 0.5% eye drops prepared in Ricin oil by the pharmacy of Tunis Military Hospital and prescribed 4 times a day for one month then 3 times a day for one month and 2 times a day for four months.
The same regimen was prescribed for both treatments in order to preserve the double-blind characteristic. Cyclosporine eye drops 0.5%, was prepared from an oral solution of cyclosporine (Sandimmun®) and combined with castor oil, both sterilized by filtration. The preparation was carried out in a pharmacotechnical laboratory where a controlled atmosphere area was dedicated to ophthalmic preparations. The castor oil-Sandimmun® solution mixture is made in a sterile receptacle. After stirring, the mixture is distributed into sterile low density polyethylene bottles. A sterile insert and cap including a tamper-evident seal were placed on each bottle. A content control was then carried out on each batch produced. A sterility test was done on a batch of each day of preparation. Each bottle of each batch is then cleaned, polished, labeled and then packaged in a pre-printed box with an adapted notice. The stability was fixed at 6 months before opening and at 15 days after opening.
Other Names:
  • CsA

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Mean change from baseline in subepithelial infiltrates number
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6, Month 7
The subepithelial infiltrates were counted at baseline and at each control visit.The mean change was then calculated between each two visits. Treatment was considrerd efficient if the subepithelial infiltrates decreased half the baseline number or completely disappeared.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6, Month 7
Mean change from baseline in Schirmer type 1 value
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6, Month 7
The Schirmer value was assessed without local anesthesia. Treatment was considered efficient with a good tolerance when the schirmer type 1 was superior than 5ml/5min.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6, Month 7

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Mean change from baseline in best corrected visual acuity
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
A gain of two snellen lines from baseline was considered a mark of treatment efficiency.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Mean change from baseline in spheric equivalent
Time Frame: day 0, Month 6
Spheric equivalent was calculated using an automatic refraction. An increase from baseline of 0.25 dioptries was considered a mark of treatment efficiency.
day 0, Month 6
Mean change from baseline in clinical score
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
These subjective variables : (1) photophobia; (2) Foreign body sensation ; (3) Visual blurring ; (4) tearing and (5) ocular pain were evaluated according to their severity (0 indicated no ; 1, mild ; and 2, severe). The sum of these variables was calculated for each visit and called clinical score.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Overall satisfaction with treatment subjective evaluation: scale
Time Frame: Month 7
For subjective evaluation of the treatment, patients were asked to evaluate in the seventh month their overall satisfaction with treatment on a scale of 0-10. 0 means no satisfaction with the treatment and 10 means an excellent satisfaction with the treatment.
Month 7
Number of participants with burning sensation upon eyedrops instillation
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Burning sensation upon eyedrops instillation was considered as a treatment intolerance mark.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure
Time Frame: day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Intraocular pressure was measured with with non contact tonometers. An increase of 6 mmHg from baseline value was defined as a steroid-induced glaucoma.
day 0, Month 1, Month 3, Month 6
Number of participants with appearance of lens opacification and corneal ulcer or superinfection
Time Frame: up to six months
Lens opacification and corneal ulcer or superinfection were considered as a mark of corticosteroid intolerance.
up to six months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Afef Maalej, Military Hospital of Tunis

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 1, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

April 1, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

April 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 2, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 5, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

May 6, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 7, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 5, 2020

Last Verified

May 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

Yes

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

Yes

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Adenoviral Keratoconjunctivitis

Clinical Trials on FLUCON®

Subscribe