Purchase this article with an account.
Milton M. Hom; Comparison Of Tolerability And Clinical Performance Of Two Emulsion-type Artificial Tears. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):2348.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
This was a randomized, investigator-masked, single center, prospective cross-over study looking at dry eye patients’ tolerability of two lipid-containing artificial tears: Refresh Optive Advanced (OA) and Systane Balance (SB).
Forty-six patients with a history of ocular dryness completed the study. Patients were evaluated during four study visits, two for each product (baseline and follow-up after 10 to 17 days of usage), with 7 to 10 days washout before each period. At each visit, questionnaires were administered to ascertain tolerability and product preferences.
For tolerability, there was no significant difference between OA and SB. However, there was a trend for subjects to rate OA higher on Clear Vision (73.9±28.1vs 66.9±31.6, p=0.14) and lower on Blur (28.5±30.6 vs 33.4±33.8, p=0.15), and to rate SB lower on Burning and Stinging (16.5±23.5vs 23.1±29.3, p=0.15).The preference questionnaire showed more patients preferred OA compared to SB for overall comfort (OA 43.5%, SB 39.1%, no preference 17.4%), symptom relief (OA 41.3%, SB 32.6%, no preference 26.1%), less burning (OA 41.3%, SB 39.1%, no preference 19.6%) and prefer to purchase (OA 47.8%, SB 34.8%, no preference 17.4%).
Both test products demonstrated some benefits to dry eye subjects in this limited clinical evaluation. However, Optive Advanced was preferred overall in the end-of-study questionnaire.
Clinical Trial: :
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only