Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of SYSTANE UD eye drops versus VISINE INTENSIV 1% EDO eye drops for the treatment of moderate dry eye
ABSTRACT Abstract Purpose: The aim of this prospective, randomized, clinical, single-center study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 2 ocular surface lubricant eye drops: preservative-free hydroxypropyl (HP)-Guar (SYSTANE UD(®)) eye drops versus preservative-free Tamarindus indica seed polysaccharide (TSP) 1% (VISINE INTENSIV 1% EDO(®)) eye drops. Methods: Fifty-six eyes of 28 patients with moderate keratoconjunctivitis sicca (DEWS severity level 2) were enrolled in the trial. Patients were randomized for 2 treatment groups (SYSTANE UD eye drops vs. VISINE INTENSIV 1% EDO eye drops). The eye drops in both groups were applied 5 times per day for 3 months. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica™ software (Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon test). P-Values<0.05 were considered significant. Results: After 3 months of treatment the patients of both groups had subjective benefit in the relief of symptoms of dry eye disease evaluated by the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire score. Patients treated with HP-Guar and TSP showed improvements in tear film stability measured by tear break-up time (TBUT), which are statistically significant in the HP-Guar group (P=0.02). Conclusions: The results of this clinical trial show improvements of symptoms and signs in patients with moderate dry eye after the consistent use of preservative-free HP-Guar and TSP lubricant eye drops. Both artificial tear formulations produce amelioration in tear film stability improving eye conditions and patient quality of life. HP-Guar seems to be slightly more effective in improving ocular surface protection by decreasing tear film evaporation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review the use of ophthalmic rose bengal to assess the ocular surface, especially considering the grading scales used. A literature search was undertaken to identify reports where either rose bengal or lissamine green had been used as a 'vital' stain, with a special interest in identifying studies that provided data before and after treatment for dry eye and also considered the mechanism of action of these two chemicals. Between 1985 and 2006, numerous clinical studies used a consistent grading scheme (that attributed to Van Bijsterveld) to assess the outcome of artificial tear treatments on dry eye patients. With such consistency, including the adoption of a treatment period of 1 month, comparisons can be made to indicate the efficacy of rose bengal staining to assess reduction in ocular surface desiccation. However, in the following years, several alternative grading schemes have been used for both rose bengal and lissamine green and assessment periods have been variable so making inter-study comparisons considerably more difficult to undertake. An attribute of rose bengal appears to be its ability to stain the nuclei of cells, but whether this also occurs for lissamine green is unclear. Ophthalmic rose bengal has been successfully adopted for use to assess the ocular surface over many years as a vital stain. More research is needed to assess whether lissamine green ocular surface staining can simply be substituted for rose bengal in evaluation of dry eye treatments.Contact lens & anterior eye: the journal of the British Contact Lens Association 08/2013; 36(6). DOI:10.1016/j.clae.2013.07.008 · 1.37 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Numerous brands and types of artificial tears are available on the market for the treatment of dysfunctional tear syndrome. Past literature has focused on comparing the components of these products on patient's clinical improvement. The wide array of products on the market presents challenges to both clinicians and patients when trying to choose between available tear replacement therapies. Different formulations affect patients based on etiology and severity of disease. In order to provide an unbiased comparison between available tear replacement therapies, we conducted a literature review of existing studies and National Institutes of Health clinical trials on commercially available, brand name artificial tears. Outcomes evaluated in each study, as well as the percent of patients showing clinical and symptomatic improvement, were analyzed. Fifty-one studies evaluating different brands of artificial tears, and their efficacy were identified. Out of the 51 studies, 18 were comparison studies testing brand name artificial tears directly against each other. Nearly all formulations of artificial tears provided significant benefit to patients with dysfunctional tear syndrome, but some proved superior to others. From the study data, a recommended treatment flowchart was derived.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 07/2014; 8:1419-33. DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S65263
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare changes in corneal staining in patients with dry eye after 6 weeks of treatment with Systane® Gel Drops or Refresh Liquigel® lubricant eye drops. Patients aged ≥18 years with a sodium fluorescein corneal staining sum score of ≥3 in either eye and best-corrected visual acuity of 0.6 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better in each eye who were using a lubricant eye gel or ointment for dry eye were included in this randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, double-blind trial. Patients were randomized to four times daily Systane® Gel Drops (polyethylene glycol 400 0.4% and propylene glycol 0.3%) or Refresh LiquiGel® Drops (carboxymethylcellulose sodium 1%) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline to week 6 in sodium fluorescein corneal staining. Supportive efficacy outcomes included conjunctival staining, tear film break-up time, Patient Global Assessment of Improvement, Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) Treatment Satisfaction/Treatment Bother Questionnaire, Single Symptom Comfort Scale, and Ocular Symptoms Questionnaire. The safety analysis comprised recording of adverse events. In total, 147 patients (Systane group, n=73; Refresh group, n=74; mean ± standard deviation age, 57±16 years) were enrolled and included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Corneal staining was significantly reduced from baseline to week 6 for Systane and Refresh (-3.4±2.5 and -2.5±2.6 units, respectively; P<0.0001, t-test), with a significantly greater improvement with Systane versus Refresh (P=0.0294). Results for conjunctival staining, tear film break-up time, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires were not statistically different between groups. No safety issues were identified; adverse events were reported by 19% of patients with Systane and 30% of patients with Refresh eye drops. Systane Gel Drops were associated with significantly better corneal staining scores versus Refresh Liquigel eye drops in patients with dry eye. Supportive efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 01/2014; 8:157-164. DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S53822