4.5 Review

Intranasal corticosteroids do not affect intraocular pressure or lens opacity: a systematic review of controlled trials

Journal

RHINOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 290-302

Publisher

INT RHINOLOGIC SOC
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin15.020

Keywords

Intranasal steroids; Intraocular pressure; Glaucoma; Cataract; Chronic upper airway disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are prescribed for the long-term prophylactic treatment of inflammatory upper airway conditions. Although some systemic absorption can occur via topical routes, the clinical relevance is controversial. The effects of orally administered corticosteroids on intraocular pressure (IOP) and lens opacity (LO) are well established, but the impact of the INCS is less well defined. This study aims to systematically review the literature for evidence of adverse occular events with INCS use. Methodology: A systematic review of literature from Medline and Embase databases (January 1974 to 21st of November 2013) was performed. Using the PRISMA guidelines, all controlled clinical trials of patients using INCS, that reported original measures of IOP, LO, glaucoma or cataract incidences were included. Studies with adjuvant administration of oral, inhaled and intravenous steroids were excluded. Results: 665 articles were retrieved with 137 were considered for full-text review. Of these, 116 (85%) were literature reviews and two were case reports. 19 studies (10 RCTs, 1 case-control, 8 case series) were included for the qualitative review, of which 18 reported data on IOP and 10 on cataract/LO. None (n=0) of the 10 RCT reporting data on glaucoma or IOP demonstrated changes in IOP compared to control. Also none (n=0) of the 6 RCTs reporting cataract or lens opacity demonstrated changes compared to control. Conclusion: Data from studies with low levels of bias, do not demonstrate a clinically relevant impact of INCS on neither ocular pressure, glaucoma, lens opacity nor cataract formation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available