Drug appears safe, effective for ocular GVHD

Reza Dana, MD

Photo courtesy of

Massachusetts Eye and Ear

A topical immunosuppressant may be a feasible treatment option for ocular graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), according to a phase 1/2 study.

The immunosuppressant, tacrolimus, proved equally as effective as the steroid methylprednisolone.

And although tacrolimus was significantly more likely to produce a burning sensation, the drug did not significantly increase intraocular pressure (IOP) the way methylprednisolone did.

These results were published in Ophthalmology. The study was supported by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness.

“We found tacrolimus to be very effective—just as good as the steroid, in the reduction of ocular symptoms of GVHD,” said study author Reza Dana, MD, of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary in Boston.

“We saw this improvement without any of the negative effects, such as a rise in pressure in the eye, as we saw with the steroid.”

The trial included 40 patients with ocular GVHD. They had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant to treat leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and thrombocytopenia.

The patients were randomized to receive topical tacrolimus 0.05% (n=24) or topical methylprednisolone 0.5% (n=16). Their median ages were 54±12 and 58±11, respectively. And the mean baseline ocular GVHD duration was 27±34 months and 28±33 months, respectively.

The patients received treatment for 10 weeks. Three patients were lost to follow-up in the tacrolimus group, 3 withdrew from the study because of a burning sensation when applying tacrolimus, and 1 patient from the methylprednisolone group was withdrawn due to a geographic corneal epithelial defect.

Safety/tolerability

There were no major adverse events in either treatment group, and there was no significant difference in the composite tolerability scores between the groups (P=0.06).

Tolerability scores were calculated based on patients’ reports of burning sensation, discharge, redness, itchiness, and foreign body sensation (scale, 0-4 for each variable).

The burning sensation score was higher in the tacrolimus group than the methylprednisolone group. At week 5, the scores were 3.6 and 1.6, respectively (P<0.001). At week 10, they were 3.5 and 2.2, respectively (P=0.002).

There was no significant change from baseline in the mean IOP in the tacrolimus group at week 5 (P=0.50) or week 10 (P=0.20). But there was a significant change in the methylprednisolone group at both time points (P=0.04 for both).

Still, this did not amount to a significant difference between the treatment groups. In the tacrolimus group, the mean IOP was 15.6 mmHg at baseline, 16 mmHg at week 5, and 16.5 at week 10. In the methylprednisolone group the mean IOPs were 15.3 mmHg, 17.5 mmHg, and 17 mmHg, respectively.

Efficacy

The main efficacy endpoints were corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), tear film break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test results, and expression of the ocular surface inflammatory markers human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).

Topical tacrolimus was more effective than methylprednisolone in reducing the CFS score from baseline to week 10. CFS scores were reduced by 55% and 23%, respectively (P=0.01).

There was a significant increase in TBUT from baseline to week 10 in the tacrolimus group (0.7-2.6 seconds, P=0.003) but not in the methylprednisolone group (0.6-1.0 seconds, P=0.42). However, there was no significant difference in TBUT changes between the treatment groups (P=0.06).

Schirmer test scores did not change significantly in either treatment group.

ICAM-1 expression decreased significantly from baseline in both the tacrolimus group (39% reduction, P=0.003) and the methylprednisolone group (40% reduction, P=0.008).

HLA-DR expression decreased significantly in the tacrolimus group (46% reduction, P=0.03) but not the methylprednisolone group (24% reduction, P=0.09).

“The problem with steroid treatment for ocular GVHD is that it can cause the pressure in the eye to rise, and it can also cause cataracts,” Dr Dana noted.

“The results of this trial give us reassurance that [tacrolimus] is another effective treatment for GVHD, without the negative side effects of steroids. This is a game-changer in terms of managing their care.”

Reza Dana, MD

Photo courtesy of

Massachusetts Eye and Ear

A topical immunosuppressant may be a feasible treatment option for ocular graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), according to a phase 1/2 study.

The immunosuppressant, tacrolimus, proved equally as effective as the steroid methylprednisolone.

And although tacrolimus was significantly more likely to produce a burning sensation, the drug did not significantly increase intraocular pressure (IOP) the way methylprednisolone did.

These results were published in Ophthalmology. The study was supported by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness.

“We found tacrolimus to be very effective—just as good as the steroid, in the reduction of ocular symptoms of GVHD,” said study author Reza Dana, MD, of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary in Boston.

“We saw this improvement without any of the negative effects, such as a rise in pressure in the eye, as we saw with the steroid.”

The trial included 40 patients with ocular GVHD. They had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant to treat leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and thrombocytopenia.

The patients were randomized to receive topical tacrolimus 0.05% (n=24) or topical methylprednisolone 0.5% (n=16). Their median ages were 54±12 and 58±11, respectively. And the mean baseline ocular GVHD duration was 27±34 months and 28±33 months, respectively.

The patients received treatment for 10 weeks. Three patients were lost to follow-up in the tacrolimus group, 3 withdrew from the study because of a burning sensation when applying tacrolimus, and 1 patient from the methylprednisolone group was withdrawn due to a geographic corneal epithelial defect.

Safety/tolerability

There were no major adverse events in either treatment group, and there was no significant difference in the composite tolerability scores between the groups (P=0.06).

Tolerability scores were calculated based on patients’ reports of burning sensation, discharge, redness, itchiness, and foreign body sensation (scale, 0-4 for each variable).

The burning sensation score was higher in the tacrolimus group than the methylprednisolone group. At week 5, the scores were 3.6 and 1.6, respectively (P<0.001). At week 10, they were 3.5 and 2.2, respectively (P=0.002).

There was no significant change from baseline in the mean IOP in the tacrolimus group at week 5 (P=0.50) or week 10 (P=0.20). But there was a significant change in the methylprednisolone group at both time points (P=0.04 for both).

Still, this did not amount to a significant difference between the treatment groups. In the tacrolimus group, the mean IOP was 15.6 mmHg at baseline, 16 mmHg at week 5, and 16.5 at week 10. In the methylprednisolone group the mean IOPs were 15.3 mmHg, 17.5 mmHg, and 17 mmHg, respectively.

Efficacy

The main efficacy endpoints were corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), tear film break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test results, and expression of the ocular surface inflammatory markers human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).

Topical tacrolimus was more effective than methylprednisolone in reducing the CFS score from baseline to week 10. CFS scores were reduced by 55% and 23%, respectively (P=0.01).

There was a significant increase in TBUT from baseline to week 10 in the tacrolimus group (0.7-2.6 seconds, P=0.003) but not in the methylprednisolone group (0.6-1.0 seconds, P=0.42). However, there was no significant difference in TBUT changes between the treatment groups (P=0.06).

Schirmer test scores did not change significantly in either treatment group.

ICAM-1 expression decreased significantly from baseline in both the tacrolimus group (39% reduction, P=0.003) and the methylprednisolone group (40% reduction, P=0.008).

HLA-DR expression decreased significantly in the tacrolimus group (46% reduction, P=0.03) but not the methylprednisolone group (24% reduction, P=0.09).

“The problem with steroid treatment for ocular GVHD is that it can cause the pressure in the eye to rise, and it can also cause cataracts,” Dr Dana noted.

“The results of this trial give us reassurance that [tacrolimus] is another effective treatment for GVHD, without the negative side effects of steroids. This is a game-changer in terms of managing their care.”

Reza Dana, MD

Photo courtesy of

Massachusetts Eye and Ear

A topical immunosuppressant may be a feasible treatment option for ocular graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), according to a phase 1/2 study.

The immunosuppressant, tacrolimus, proved equally as effective as the steroid methylprednisolone.

And although tacrolimus was significantly more likely to produce a burning sensation, the drug did not significantly increase intraocular pressure (IOP) the way methylprednisolone did.

These results were published in Ophthalmology. The study was supported by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness.

“We found tacrolimus to be very effective—just as good as the steroid, in the reduction of ocular symptoms of GVHD,” said study author Reza Dana, MD, of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary in Boston.

“We saw this improvement without any of the negative effects, such as a rise in pressure in the eye, as we saw with the steroid.”

The trial included 40 patients with ocular GVHD. They had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant to treat leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and thrombocytopenia.

The patients were randomized to receive topical tacrolimus 0.05% (n=24) or topical methylprednisolone 0.5% (n=16). Their median ages were 54±12 and 58±11, respectively. And the mean baseline ocular GVHD duration was 27±34 months and 28±33 months, respectively.

The patients received treatment for 10 weeks. Three patients were lost to follow-up in the tacrolimus group, 3 withdrew from the study because of a burning sensation when applying tacrolimus, and 1 patient from the methylprednisolone group was withdrawn due to a geographic corneal epithelial defect.

Safety/tolerability

There were no major adverse events in either treatment group, and there was no significant difference in the composite tolerability scores between the groups (P=0.06).

Tolerability scores were calculated based on patients’ reports of burning sensation, discharge, redness, itchiness, and foreign body sensation (scale, 0-4 for each variable).

The burning sensation score was higher in the tacrolimus group than the methylprednisolone group. At week 5, the scores were 3.6 and 1.6, respectively (P<0.001). At week 10, they were 3.5 and 2.2, respectively (P=0.002).

There was no significant change from baseline in the mean IOP in the tacrolimus group at week 5 (P=0.50) or week 10 (P=0.20). But there was a significant change in the methylprednisolone group at both time points (P=0.04 for both).

Still, this did not amount to a significant difference between the treatment groups. In the tacrolimus group, the mean IOP was 15.6 mmHg at baseline, 16 mmHg at week 5, and 16.5 at week 10. In the methylprednisolone group the mean IOPs were 15.3 mmHg, 17.5 mmHg, and 17 mmHg, respectively.

Efficacy

The main efficacy endpoints were corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), tear film break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test results, and expression of the ocular surface inflammatory markers human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).

Topical tacrolimus was more effective than methylprednisolone in reducing the CFS score from baseline to week 10. CFS scores were reduced by 55% and 23%, respectively (P=0.01).

There was a significant increase in TBUT from baseline to week 10 in the tacrolimus group (0.7-2.6 seconds, P=0.003) but not in the methylprednisolone group (0.6-1.0 seconds, P=0.42). However, there was no significant difference in TBUT changes between the treatment groups (P=0.06).

Schirmer test scores did not change significantly in either treatment group.

ICAM-1 expression decreased significantly from baseline in both the tacrolimus group (39% reduction, P=0.003) and the methylprednisolone group (40% reduction, P=0.008).

HLA-DR expression decreased significantly in the tacrolimus group (46% reduction, P=0.03) but not the methylprednisolone group (24% reduction, P=0.09).

“The problem with steroid treatment for ocular GVHD is that it can cause the pressure in the eye to rise, and it can also cause cataracts,” Dr Dana noted.

“The results of this trial give us reassurance that [tacrolimus] is another effective treatment for GVHD, without the negative side effects of steroids. This is a game-changer in terms of managing their care.”