MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416415503 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013550.pub2

Topical immunosuppressants for blepharitis in adults

2025· article· en· W4416415503 sur OpenAlexaff
Ka Wai Kam, Parsa Mehraban Far, Tsz Wing Yim, Li Jia Chen, Andrew C. Y. Mak, Alvin L. Young

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlepharitisProtocol (science)MEDLINEAdverse effect

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Blepharitis is a common ocular condition characterized by inflammation of the eyelid margins, which can cause irritating symptoms and ocular surface damage. Conventional treatment of blepharitis consists of eyelid hygiene and artificial tears. To suppress inflammation, topical corticosteroids, with or without antibiotics, are frequently prescribed. However, long-term use is limited by side effects such as increased intraocular pressure, glaucoma and/or cataract formation. Newer steroid-sparing topical immunosuppressants have emerged as alternative treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of topical immunosuppressants for blepharitis in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries from inception to 6 April 2025. We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. There were no date or language restrictions on the selection of eligible studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical immunosuppressants (corticosteroids, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus) of different doses or carrier, with placebo, no treatment, conventional treatment (lid hygiene, artificial tears) or other topical immunosuppressants in adults with blepharitis. We excluded paired-eye studies and highly specific blepharitis subtypes. OUTCOMES: Our outcomes were: (1) change from baseline in composite (or total) symptom score; (2) change from baseline in tear film breakup time; (3) change from baseline in corneal staining scores; (4) proportion of individuals experiencing symptomatic improvement; (5) reduction in number of or eradication of colonies of positive cultures of bacteria; (6) quality of life measures; (7) economic costs of different topical immunosuppressants; and (8) adverse effects. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB) 2 tool for all outcomes reported in the summary of findings tables. SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine data and forest plots to assess heterogeneity, effect size, and direction. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. When meta-analysis was not possible, we used narrative synthesis. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 12 RCTs with 2752 participants (2802 eyes) in total. Six of the trials were conducted in the USA. Topical corticosteroid was the most frequently studied immunosuppressant, followed by cyclosporine and tacrolimus. The point of assessment and duration of treatment ranged from two to 12 weeks. No study measured the proportion of individuals experiencing symptomatic improvement. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We report outcomes of interest for three key comparisons below at four to 12 weeks. No study assessed reduction or eradication of colonies of positive cultures of bacteria, quality of life or economic costs. Topical corticosteroids (with or without antibiotics) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of topical corticosteroids on composite symptom scores (corticosteroids with antibiotics: standard mean difference [SMD] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 1.44; 2 studies, 57 participants; corticosteroids alone: SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.20; 2 studies, 232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported tear breakup time. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of topical corticosteroids on corneal staining scores (corticosteroids with antibiotics: MD 0.70, 95% CI -1.05 to 2.45; 1 study, 27 participants; corticosteroids alone: MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.22; 1 study, 27 participants); both, very low-certainty evidence. The adverse event of irritation of the ocular surface was reported narratively and was similar between the two groups. The adverse event of ocular hypertension was reported narratively and not detected in either group in one study where it was reported. Topical corticosteroids (with or without antibiotics) versus antibiotics The evidence for topical corticosteroids was inconclusive. One study found that topical corticosteroid with antibiotic treatment may reduce symptom scores more than antibiotics alone (MD -11.34, 95% CI -13.13 to -9.55; 1 study, 148 participants), whereas the other found that it may have little to no effect (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.91; 1 study, 201 participants); both, low-certainty evidence. Topical corticosteroids plus antibiotics probably result in greater reduction in corneal staining scores compared with antibiotics alone (MD -1.26, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.96; 1 study, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, this effect was not observed for tear breakup time when antibiotics alone are likely to perform better (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.81; 1 study, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse event of irritation of the ocular surface was reported narratively, and was similar between the two groups. The adverse event of ocular hypertension was reported narratively, and was higher in the corticosteroid (with or without antibiotics) group. Topical cyclosporine versus placebo Topical cyclosporine may have little to no effect on the composite symptom score compared with placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.57; 2 studies, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical cyclosporine on tear breakup time compared with placebo (invasive time: MD 4.70, 95% CI -0.24 to 9.64; 1 study, 26 participants, although for non-invasive time, it may provide a potential benefit: MD 1.59, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.70; 1 study, 64 participants; both very low-certainty evidence). Topical cyclosporine may improve corneal staining compared with placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 2.60, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.52; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids, with or without antibiotics, including cyclosporine may make little to no difference in reducing signs and symptoms of blepharitis at four to 12 weeks, compared with placebo or antibiotics alone. Topical corticosteroids are generally well tolerated and associated with minimal risk of ocular surface irritation. Topical corticosteroids plus antibiotics probably improve corneal staining compared to antibiotics alone. When managing patients with blepharitis, clinicians should consider the limited quantity and very low certainty of evidence for topical corticosteroids. Conventional lid hygiene and warm compress remain valid therapeutic options. FUNDING: This Cochrane Review was funded (in part) by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA, the National Institute for Health Research, UK, and the Public Health Agency, UK. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013550.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,053

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetOcular Surface and Contact LensTravaux en français237 207