• Medicine · Sep 2023

    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.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…