Randomized trial evaluates difluprednate's efficacy in improving vision in chronic central serous chorioretinopathy, suggesting a potential treatment option.
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical Difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% in chronic Central Serous Chorioretinopathy (cCSCR) and compare its outcomes with oral eplerenone and observation. Methods: This pilot open-label randomised controlled trial included patients with cCSCR of ≥3 months’ duration or relapsing cases with subfoveal or juxtafoveal leakage on angiography. After baseline assessment, patients were randomised into three groups: topical Difluprednate, oral Eplerenone, or observation. All participants were followed monthly for 3 months. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography parameters, retinal sensitivity, and adverse events were documented. Results: 53 adults (mean age 42.6 ± 9.5 years; 90.6% male) were enrolled. Complete resolution of subretinal fluid occurred in 90% (n=18) of the patients in the Difluprednate Group, 45% (n=9) in Eplerenone Group, and 23% (n=3) patients in the control arm (p < 0.001). The difluprednate group showed significantly greater reductions in subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) and improvements in 3-mm microperimetry thresholds compared with the observation group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.022, respectively). It also demonstrated the largest decrease in central macular thickness, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.19). Ocular hypertension developed in 30% of difluprednate-treated eyes and was controlled with topical antiglaucoma medication. Conclusion: Topical difluprednate produced superior anatomical and functional improvements in SRF resolution, SFCT reduction, and retinal sensitivity within 3-mm when compared with oral eplerenone and observation. Thus, with a manageable safety profile, it may serve as an effective therapeutic option for cCSCR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yadav et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: