4.5 Article

Evaluation of the effects on conjunctival tissues of Optive eyedrops over one month usage

期刊

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 93-99

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2010.01.007

关键词

Dry eye; Conjunctival staining; Lissamine green; Sodium fluorescein; Optive; Hylocomod

资金

  1. Allergan Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective was to compare the effect on conjunctival tissues of the repeated use, over a one-month period, of Optive compared to Hylocomod eyedrops by a population of dry eye sufferers. The rationale for the study was that among dry eye sufferers who attend eye care practices for symptomatic relief, a large number present with conjunctival anomalies evidenced by tissue staining and that conjunctival recovery is essential to their successful long term management. The hypothesis tested was that the decrease in conjunctival staining with Optive is at least as good, and possibly greater, than that with Hylocomod. The cohort population was made up of 47 subjects (11 male and 26 female) aged 42 +/- 16 years with at least mild dry eye symptoms and conjunctival and/or corneal staining. The population included contact lens wearers (n = 26) and non-wearers (n = 21). The subjects were randomly allocated to use one of the two study products: they were instructed to use the products as often as needed but at least three times a day. Conjunctival staining was rated on forced choice scales and measured objectively using digital photographs and image analysis. The findings showed that, whereas the staining at the start of the investigation was similar (p = 0.318-0.664), staining after one month of use was significantly less with Optive than Hylocomod (p = 0.028-0.002). The results demonstrated that the regular use of Optive over one month was significantly superior to Hylocomod in improving conjunctival status by producing a greater reduction in the staining of dry eye sufferers. (C) 2010 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据