-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
A randomized controlled trial involving college student: Comparing 0.15% hyaluronic acid with 0.05% cyclosporine A and 3% diquafosol sodium in the Treatment of Dry Eye.
- Wenhao Xu, Xinrui Zhao, Haiyan Jin, Hua Jin, Fali Jia, Lilan Jiang, and Zhengri Li.
- Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Yanbian University, Yanji, China.
- Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Sep 8; 102 (36): e34923e34923.
BackgroundTo compare the efficacy of 0.15% hyaluronic acid (HA), 0.05% cyclosporine A (CsA) and 3% diquafosol sodium (DQS) ophthalmic solution for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dry eye disease (DED) in college students and the effect on inflammatory factors in tears.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. A total of 282 college students diagnosed with moderate-to-severe DED between October 2, 2022 and March 1, 2023 were included. A total of 282 patients were randomized to treatment in the group of 0.15% HA or 0.05% CsA or 3% DQS in a 1:1:1 assignment. There was a main end point which is the variations in the corneal staining score to determine non-inferiority of 0.15% HA. Secondary target end points were ocular surface disease index score, Schirmer test, tear meniscus height and tear film breakup time. In addition, the inflammatory factor levels of Interleukin-1β, Interleukin-6, transforming growth factor-β1 in tears were measured. Effectiveness was assessed at baseline, 4- and 12-weeks.ResultsIn our analysis, the average change from baseline in corneal staining score confirmed non-inferiority of 0.15% HA to 0.05% CsA and 3% DQS and manifested obvious improvement of all groups as well (P < .05). Values for ocular surface disease index score, Schirmer test, tear meniscus height and tear film breakup time showed obvious improvements in all groups (P < .05), however, the difference intergroup was not statistically significant. Value for inflammatory factor was significant improvement across all groups, although inflammatory factor scores in the 0.05% CsA group showed a clear trend of better improvement at 12 weeks compared with 0.15% HA groups (P < .01). No serious adverse reactions were observed.ConclusionsCollege students taking 0.15% HA had clinically and statistically significant improvement in corneal staining score and other indicators, but it was inferior to 0.05% CsA in anti-inflammatory therapy for moderate to severe DED. However, 0.15% HA is still an effective, safe and well-tolerated treatment option that may offer additional benefits in terms of convenience and compliance.Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.