A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical evaluation of an oil-based lubricant eyedrop in dry eye patients with lipid deficiency. | LitMetric

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of a lipid-based lubricant eyedrop formulation (hydroxypropyl guar/propylene glycol/phospholipid [HPG/PG/PL]) with preservative-free saline for the treatment of dry eye.

Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-masked, parallel-group phase 4 clinical study. Patients ≥18 years diagnosed with dry eye received 1 drop of saline 4 times daily (QID) for 15 days during a run-in phase, followed by randomization. Patients then instilled HPG/PG/PL or saline QID through day 35 and as needed through day 90. Change in tear film break-up time (TFBUT), change in total ocular surface staining (TOSS) score, and Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) were evaluated on day 35.

Results: Increase in TFBUT from baseline to day 35 was assessed during the interim and final analyses. Mean ± SE difference between the HPG/PG/PL (n = 110) and saline groups (n = 100) was 1.3 ± 0.4 seconds (interim analysis; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-2.1 seconds; p = 0.0012) and 1.0 ± 0.3 seconds (final analysis; 95% CI 0.4-1.6 seconds; p = 0.0011), demonstrating the superiority of HPG/PG/PL. The mean ± SE difference between the HPG/PG/PL and saline groups for IDEEL treatment effectiveness scores was 16.0 ± 3.6 (95% CI 8.9-23.1; p<0.0001). No significant differences in TOSS scores or IDEEL inconvenience scores were observed between treatment groups.

Conclusions: Thirty-five days of QID HPG/PG/PL treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement in TFBUT and IDEEL treatment effectiveness scores compared with saline but not in TOSS or IDEEL treatment inconvenience scores. HPG/PG/PL was well-tolerated by patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000883DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dry eye
12
lubricant eyedrop
8
hpg/pg/pl saline
8
difference hpg/pg/pl
8
saline groups
8
analysis 95%
8
saline
5
clinical evaluation
4
evaluation oil-based
4
oil-based lubricant
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!