4.2 Article

A Controlled, Randomized Double-Blind Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Chitosan-N-Acetylcysteine for the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCULAR PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 375-382

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2016.0123

Keywords

tear film; dry eye; efficacy; safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of chitosan-N-acetylcysteine (C-NAC) eye drops on tear film thickness (TFT) in patients with dry eye syndrome (DES). Methods: This was a controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical investigation with patients assigned to 2 cohorts. In Cohort I, 21 patients were randomized to receive 1 instillation of C-NAC eye drops in 1 eye and placebo (normal saline solution) in the contralateral eye. In Cohort II, 17 patients were randomized to receive C-NAC eye drops once (QD) or twice (BID) daily for 5 days. TFT was assessed with a custom-built ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography system. Results: In Cohort I, mean TFT increased from 3.90.5m predose to 4.8 +/- 1.1m 10min postdose after treatment with C-NAC. The increase was significantly different from placebo over time (P<0.0001) and remained stable until 24h postdose. In Cohort II, TFT increased with QD and BID instillation, with no significant difference between regimens. In both groups, Ocular Surface Disease Index scores improved, fewer patients presented with corneal damage, and symptoms of ocular discomfort/conjunctival redness were reduced. Conclusions: A single instillation of C-NAC significantly increased mean TFT in patients with DES as early as 10min after instillation and lasted for 24h. The magnitude of the increase in TFT following a single instillation was comparable with that after instillation twice daily over 5 days. Corneal damage improved in >60% of patients. C-NAC could be a viable treatment option for DES.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available