4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

An evaluation of tear film breakup time extension and ocular protection index scores among three marketed lubricant eye drops

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages 949-952

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3180de1c38

Keywords

dry eye; artificial tears; tear film breakup time; ocular protection index; clinical study

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To report the performance of an artificial tear containing propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol as active demulcents with hydroxyropyl-guar as a gelling agent (Systane Lubricant Eye Drops; Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) and compare it with that of 2 artificial tears containin-carboxymethylcellulose (Refresh Tears and Refresh Endura Lubricant Eye Drops; Allergan, Irvine, CA). Methods: This was a single-center, 3-visit, randomized, double-masked crossover study that evaluated the effect of Systane versus Refresh Tears and Refresh Endura using tear film breakup time (TEBUT) and ocular protection index (OPI) in subjects with dry eye (n = 50). TFBUT values (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after instillation) divided by interblink interval (IBI) yielded OPI scores. Results: Systane significantly improved TFBUT at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 60 minutes versus Refresh Tears and at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes versus Refresh Endura. Systane OPI scores were significantly higher than Refresh Tears at 15 and 30 minutes and than Refresh Endura at 5 minutes. Conclusions: This study suggests that Systane Lubricant Eye Drops was more effective than Refresh Tears at prolonging TFBUT up to 20 minutes after instillation and more effective than Refresh Endura at prolonging TFBUT up to 30 minutes after instillation. These data show that Systane is an effective first-line dry eye therapy and a superior ocular surface protector compared with Refresh Endura and Refresh Tears in the sample test population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available