Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A review of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Lacrycon® eye drops for the treatment of dry eye syndrome.
Eberle Heitzmann, M; Thumm, D; Baudouin, C.
Afiliação
  • Eberle Heitzmann M; Augenarztpraxis Dr med. Melanie Eberle Heitzmann, Augenärtzin FMH, 6020 Emmenbrücke, Switzerland. Electronic address: praxis.eberle@hin.ch.
  • Thumm D; Augenarztpraxis Dr med. Dietmar Thumm, Augenarzt FMH, 6003 Luzern, Augentagesklinik Sursee, 6210 Sursee, Switzerland.
  • Baudouin C; Department of Ophthalmology III, Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, Paris, France; Inserm, U968, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC University Paris 06, UMR_S 968, Institut de la Vision, 75012 Paris, France; CNRS, UMR_7210, 75012 Paris, France.
J Fr Ophtalmol ; 42(6): 642-654, 2019 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30929965
ABSTRACT
Lacrycon® is a preservative-free hypotonic artificial tear for the treatment of dry eye syndrome containing hyaluronic acid, carbomer, and glycerol. Lacrycon has been used for many years; this is the first comprehensive review of clinical efficacy and tolerability. Eight clinical studies (1992-2013) were reviewed. Comparators included phosphate-buffered saline (Phase I) and active controls (Phase II Lacrisol™; Phase III Gel-larmes™, Lacrisol, Hyalistil®, Vismed®, or the currently prescribed tear substitute). Administration schedules varied from 3 to 8 instillations per day for 7 to 84 days, and evaluation timepoints varied between studies. Pre-corneal retention of Lacrycon was 22% better than phosphate-buffered saline in terms of AUC (P=0.048). Patients' evaluation of efficacy was better for Lacrycon than Gel-larmes on Day 15 and 45 (P<0.05) and similar on Day 90 (P>0.05); there was no difference (P>0.05) versus Hyalistil (Day 30) or Vismed (Day 35 and 85). Functional tests were either in favor of Lacrycon (P<0.05) (fluorescein test [versus Gel-larmes/Lacrisol/Hyalistil], tear break-up time [TBUT] and rose Bengal test, Schirmer I test, and tear meniscus [versus Lacrisol]), or there was no difference between treatments (P>0.05) (fluorescein test [versus Vismed], TBUT and rose Bengal test [versus Gel-larmes], Schirmer I test [versus Gel-larmes/Lacrisol/Hyalistil/VisMed], tear meniscus [versus Lacrisol/Hyalistil], Oxford Grading Score, OSDI, van Bijsterveld score, and conjunctival hyperemia [versus Vismed]). Lacrycon was better tolerated than most comparators and had a similar safety profile to Vismed. No comparison showed favored the comparator over Lacrycon. These good efficacy, tolerability and safety data support the use of Lacrycon in dry eye syndrome.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Resinas Acrílicas / Síndromes do Olho Seco / Lubrificantes Oftálmicos / Glicerol / Ácido Hialurônico Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Fr Ophtalmol Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Resinas Acrílicas / Síndromes do Olho Seco / Lubrificantes Oftálmicos / Glicerol / Ácido Hialurônico Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Fr Ophtalmol Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article