Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Comparison of Rebamipide and Diquafosol Eyedrops in Dry Eye Disease with Short Tear Break-Up Time.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eun Chul Kim
    Ophthalmology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Seo Woo Park
    Ophthalmology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Hyun Seung Kim
    Ophthalmology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Eun Chul Kim None; Seo Woo Park None; Hyun Seung Kim None
  • Footnotes
    Support  National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (No. 2022R1F1A1069218).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 2976. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eun Chul Kim, Seo Woo Park, Hyun Seung Kim; Comparison of Rebamipide and Diquafosol Eyedrops in Dry Eye Disease with Short Tear Break-Up Time.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):2976.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the efficacy of rebamipide 2% and diquafosol 3% eyedrops in dry eye disease with a short tear break-up time (tBUT).

Methods : 120 eyes from 60 patients who had been diagnosed with dry eye disease were retrospectively enrolled. 30 patients (group 1, 60 eyes) were treated with rebamipide 2%, and 30 patients (group 2, 60 eyes) were treated with diquafosol 3%. The Ocular Surface Disease Index Questionnaire (OSDI), Schirmer I test, noninvasive tBUT (NItBUT), corneal and conjunctival staining score, impression cytology, and goblet cell density were examined before treatment and at 1 and 3 months after treatment.

Results : All dry eye signs and symptoms of both groups at 1 and 3 months were significantly improved compared with those before treatment, respectively (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups according to OSDI, NItBUT, corneal and conunctival fluorescein score, MMP-9 grade, goblet cell density, and impression cytology grade changes from baseline at 1 and 3 months after treatment (P > 0.05). Schirmer I change from baseline in group 2 (1.65 ± 0.57 mm) was significantly improved compared with group 1 (0.87 ± 0.46) at 3 months after treatment (P<0.05).

Conclusions : Both rebamipide and diquafosol eyedrops were effective for relieving dry eye signs and symptoms. But diquafosol eyedrops secrete aqueous tears more than rebamipide eyedrops.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

 

Figure 1. Impression cytology in both groups before and after treatment.

There were no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to goblet cell density and impression cytology grade changes from baseline at 3 months after treatment (P > 0.05). Red arror: goblet cells, PAS-hematoxylin staining (x200).

Figure 1. Impression cytology in both groups before and after treatment.

There were no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to goblet cell density and impression cytology grade changes from baseline at 3 months after treatment (P > 0.05). Red arror: goblet cells, PAS-hematoxylin staining (x200).

 

Figure 2. Schirmer I change from baseline after treatment in both groups.

Schirmer I change from baseline in diquafosol group (1.65 ± 0.57 mm) was significantly improved compared with rebamipide group (0.87 ± 0.46) at 3 months after treatment (P<0.05).

Figure 2. Schirmer I change from baseline after treatment in both groups.

Schirmer I change from baseline in diquafosol group (1.65 ± 0.57 mm) was significantly improved compared with rebamipide group (0.87 ± 0.46) at 3 months after treatment (P<0.05).

×
×

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.

×