A comparison between hyaluronic acid and other single ingredient eye drops for dry eye, a review

Author:

Hynnekleiv Leif123ORCID,Magno Morten1456ORCID,Moschowits Emily4,Tønseth Kim Alexander16,Vehof Jelle357ORCID,Utheim Tor P.148910

Affiliation:

1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway

2. Department of Ophthalmology Haukeland University Hospital Bergen Norway

3. Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital London UK

4. Department of Medical Biochemistry Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway

5. Department of Ophthalmology and Epidemiology University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen Groningen The Netherlands

6. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine University of Oslo Oslo Norway

7. Department of Ophthalmology Vestfold Hospital Trust Tønsberg Norway

8. Department of Ophthalmology Sørlandet Hospital Arendal Arendal Norway

9. Department of Ophthalmology Stavanger University Hospital Oslo Norway

10. Department of Quality and Health Technology, The Faculty of Health Sciences University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway

Abstract

AbstractDry eye disease (DED) is a highly prevalent and debilitating condition. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a naturally occurring glycosaminoglycan that has a long history as a safe and effective DED treatment. HA is frequently used as a comparator when assessing other topical DED treatments. This study aims to summarise and critically evaluate the literature describing all isolated active ingredients that have been directly compared with HA in the treatment of DED. A literature search was conducted in Embase using Ovid on the 24th of August 2021 and in PubMed including MEDLINE on the 20th of September 2021. Twenty‐three studies met the inclusion criteria, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials. Seventeen different ingredients representing six treatment categories were compared with HA treatment. Most measures showed no significant difference between treatments, suggesting either equivalency of treatments or that studies were underpowered. Only two ingredients were represented in more than two studies; carboxymethyl cellulose treatment appears equivalent to HA treatment, while Diquafosol treatment appears superior to HA treatment. Drop‐frequency varied from one to eight drops daily. No single study explained the choice of drop frequency. Nine studies used a HA concentration of 0.1% which may be below therapeutic levels. Nine studies reported using preserved formulations, six of them with differences in preservatives between the compared groups. Thirteen studies were financially linked to industry. No major complications were reported. Studies were not designed to find differences in treatment effects for different types or severities of DED. HA is a good comparator treatment when assessing other DED treatments, although consensus after decades of use is still lacking for best choice of concentration, molecular weight and drop tonicity. Well‐designed studies are needed to determine an evidence‐based standard for HA treatment to be used as comparator.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Ophthalmology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3