A comparative assessment of the efficacy of carbomer gel and carboxymethyl cellulose containing artificial tears in dry eyes

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of a 0.4% carbomer gel and 1% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) containing artificial tears in treatment of dry eye patients. Sixty subjects with mean age of 45.89 years who had symptoms and signs of dry eye were enrolled in this prospective, investigator-masked and stratified random sampling study. The subjects were divided into two parallel groups with 30 subjects (60 eyes) in each group. One group received carbomer gel, and the other group received 1% CMC containing artificial tears. Subjects received the drops 3 to 4 times or more per day for 3 months. At the first visit time, the precorneal residence time of these two drops was measured. The efficacy was assessed by comparing the subjective symptoms (ocular dryness, foreign body sensation, burning sensation and pain), and the objective test results of tears breakup time, Schirmer’s test and corneal fluorescein staining prior to the study and after the treatment. As a result, the ocular residence time of carbomer gel was significantly longer than that of 1% CMC (P<0.001). Most of the primary subjective symptoms and objective test results were improved after treatment in both carbomer gel group and 1% CMC group. As to the improvement of each symptom and objective test result, carbomer gel was more effective than 1% CMC group (P<0.01). In conclusion, carbomer gel had longer precorneal residence time and was more effective than 1% CMC in the treatment of patients with dry eyes.

Keywords

carbomer gel / carboxymethyl cellulose / tears / dry eye / efficacy

References

[1] SullivanD. A.. Gender and dry eye. Research to Prevent Blindness Science Writers Seminar, 1997, New York, NY, Research to Prevent Blindness: 57-60

[2] LempM. A.. Epidemiology and classification of dry eye. Adv Exp Med Biol, 1998, 438: 791-803

[3] MossS. E., KleinR., KleinB. E.. Prevalence of and risk factors for dry eye syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol, 2000, 118: 1264-1268

[4] SchaumbergD. A., SullivanD. A., BuringJ. E., et al.. Prevalence of dry eye syndrome among US women. Am J Ophthalmol, 2003, 136: 318-326

[5] LinP. Y., TsaiS. Y., ChengC. Y., et al.. Prevalence of dry eye among an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: the Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology, 2003, 110: 1096-1101

[6] VersuraP., CelliniM., TorreggianiA., et al.. Dryness symptoms, diagnostic protocol and therapeutic management: a report on 1200 patients. Ophthalmic Res, 2001, 33: 221-227

[7] PflugfelderS. C., SolomonA., SternM. E.. The diagnosis and management of dry eye: a twenty-five-year review. Cornea, 2000, 19: 644-649

[8] TripathiB. J., TripathiR. C., KolliS. P.. Cytotoxicity of ophthalmic preservatives on human corneal epithelium. Lens Eye Toxicity Res, 1992, 9: 361-375

[9] BecquetF., GoldschildM., MoldovanM. S., et al.. Histopathological effects of topical ophthalmic preservatives on rat corneoconjunctival surface. Curr Eye Res, 1998, 17: 419-425

[10] DebbaschC., PisellaP. J., De Saint JeanM., et al.. Mitochondrial activity and glutathione injury in apoptosis induced by unpreserved and preserved β-blockers on Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2001, 42: 2525-2533

[11] GeerlingG., DanielsJ. T., DartJ. K., et al.. Toxicity of natural tear substitutes in a fully defined culture model of human corneal epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2001, 42: 948-956

[12] al-MansouriS., TabbaraK. F., Rask-PedersenE.. Lubrithal (Leo viscous eye gel), precorneal residence time in normal and dry eyes. Doc Ophthalmol, 1994, 88: 187-194

[13] WilsonC. G., ZhuY. P., FrierM., et al.. Ocular contact time of a carbomer gel (GelTears) in humans. Br J Ophthalmol, 1998, 82: 1131-1134

[14] MiljanovićB., DanaR., SullivanD. A., et al.. Impact of dry eye syndrome on vision-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol, 2007, 143: 409-415

[15] SchaumbergD. A., BuringJ. E., SullivanD. A., et al.. Hormone replacement therapy and dry eye syndrome. JAMA, 2001, 286: 2114-2119

[16] PflugfelderS. C.. Antiinflammatory therapy for dry eye. Am J Ophthalmol, 2004, 137: 337-342

[17] MossS. E., KleinR., KleinB. E.. Incidence of dry eye in an older population. Arch Ophthalmol, 2004, 122: 369-373

[18] KaisermanI., KaisermanN., NakarS., et al.. Dry eye in diabetic patients. Am J Ophthalmolm, 2005, 139: 498-503

[19] De PaivaC. S., ChenZ., KochD. D., et al.. The incidence and risk factors for developing dry eye after myopic LASIK. Am J Ophthalmol, 2006, 141: 438-445

[20] GotoE., DogruM., FukagawaK., et al.. Successful tear lipid layer treatment for refractory dry eye in office workers by low-dose lipid application on the full-length eyelid margin. Am J Ophthalmol, 2006, 142: 264-270

[21] LentonL. M., AlbietzJ. M.. Effect of carmellose-based artificial tears on the ocular surface in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg, 1999, 15: 227-231

[22] SullivanL. J., McCurrachF., LeeS., et al.. Efficacy and safety of 0.3% carbomer gel compared to placebo in patients with moderate to severe dry syndrome. Ophthalmology, 1997, 104: 1402-1408

[23] BrodwallJ., AlmeG., Gedde-DahlS., et al.. A comparative study of polyacrylic acid (Viscotears) liquid gel versus polyvinylalcohol in the treatment of dry eyes. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 1997, 75: 457-461

[24] BronA. J., MangatH., QuinlanM., et al.. Polyacrylic acid gel in patients with dry eyes: a randomized comparison with polyvinyl alcohol. Eur Ophthalmol, 1998, 8: 81-89