Abstract
Purpose
To compare the efficacy, safety, and local tolerance between carbomer-based artificial tears, cellulose-, and mineral oil-based artificial tears.
Methods
A randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative 28-day study was designed for 67 patients who were randomized into three treatment groups. Measurements included the scoring of total subjective symptoms and objective signs, Schirmer-Jones test values, and tear break-up time (BUT) at baseline, and after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Safety of study treatment was also assessed. Outcomes measured at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks follow-up included the scoring of total subjective symptoms and objective signs, Schirmer-Jones test values, and tear BUT, subjective assessments, and safety.
Results
There were no differences regarding total scores, Schirmer-Jones test, or tear BUT at baseline among these three groups at 2 and 4 weeks. Patients in all three treatment groups experienced a significant improvement from baseline in total scores and Schirmer-Jones test values after treatment. Subjective assessment was better with carbomer-based treatment.
Conclusions
Each artificial tear formulation successfully relieved symptoms and signs of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. The tolerance of carbomer-based artificial tears was comparable to that of cellulose- and mineral oil-based artificial tears. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17: 151–9)
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.