4.1 Article

Efficacy and safety of a cationic emulsion in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease: a randomized controlled study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 546-555

出版社

WICHTIG PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000830

关键词

Cationic emulsion; Dry eye; Ocular staining; Tear film

资金

  1. Santen SAS, Evry, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a preservative-free cationic emulsion (CE) with a 0.18% hyaluronate sodium (HS) solution in patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED) with keratitis or keratoconjunctivitis. Methods: Eighty-five patients were randomized (1: 1) in this multicenter, prospective, reference-controlled, parallel-group, investigator-masked study to receive CE (n = 44) or HS (n = 41). Clinical signs and symptoms were assessed over 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was noninferiority of CE to HS in change from baseline of ocular surface staining (OSS) score at 1 month. Results: In the per protocol (PP) set and full analysis set (FAS), CE showed a similar and noninferior (p < 0.0001) improvement in OSS scores compared with HS at 1 month (PP: -2.5 +/- 1.3 vs -1.9 +/- 1.6; FAS: -2.2 +/- 1.5 vs -2.0 +/- 1.8 for CE vs HS). Other clinical signs of DED similarly improved in both groups. In the FAS, global symptoms score of ocular discomfort was significantly better with CE compared with HS at 1 month (-14.8 +/- 17.3 vs -7.6 +/- 14.2; p = 0.0469), including greater alleviation of itching (-14.8 +/- 21.2 vs -1.7 +/- 19.7; p = 0.0100) and eye dryness (-21.9 +/- 28.3 vs -8.4 +/- 21.4; p = 0.0016). Similar trends were observed at 3 months for itching and eye dryness. Investigator global efficacy assessment and quality of life scores for eye pain and driving favored CE at 3 months. Incidence of adverse events was low in both treatment groups. Conclusions: CE was similar to HS with regards to safety and efficacy for objective signs but was superior to HS in improving DED symptoms in patients with moderate to severe DED.

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

4.1
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