March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Comparison Of Tolerability And Clinical Performance Of Two Emulsion-type Artificial Tears
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Milton M. Hom
    Private Practice, Azusa, California
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Milton M. Hom, Allergan (C, R)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Allergan
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 2348. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      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)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : 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).

Methods: : 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.

Results: : 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%).

Conclusions: : 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: : NCT01335126

Keywords: cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye • cornea: clinical science 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.