[The clinical efficacy and safety study of Esculin and Digitalis glycosides Eye Drops in treating ametropic asthenopia].

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical efficacy and safety of the Esculin and Digitalis glycosides Eye Drops used in the patients of ametropic asthenopia. METHODS: Multicenter clinical trial. Asthenopia patients were chosen from eleven hospitals cross China from July, 2008 to January, 2009. The experiment was conducted asthenopia patients who used the Esculin and Digitalis glycosides Eye Drops for 4 weeks continuously. Symptoms of asthenopia, UCVA (uncorrected vision acuity), refraction, amplitude of accommodation, accommodative lag, accommodative sensitivity and positive/negative relative accommodation were measured at different time points, such as treated before, 1 week and 4 week in treated after. RESULTS: After the 4-week's use of Esculin and Digitalis glycosides Eye Drops, each subjective symptom of the patients was decreased significantly (F=353.30, P<0.05). In addition, most of the objective exams of accommodation ability were significantly improved, such as UCVA (left eye: F=23.39, P<0.05; right eye: F=15.62, P<0.05), refraction (left eye: F=10.34, P<0.05; right eye: F=17.13, P<0.05), amplitude of accommodation (left eye: F=14.46, P<0.05; right eye: F=8.29, P<0.05; eyes: F=13.86, P<0.05), accommodative lag (F=14.89, P<0.05) and accommodative sensitivity (left eye: F=62.67, P<0.05; right eye: F=68.77, P<0.05; eyes: F=82.74, P<0.05). And no patient appeared any adverse reaction in whole experiment. CONCLUSIONS: Esculin and Digitalis glycosides Eye Drops is effective and safety for use in the patients of ametropia asthenopia.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of two ointment and suppository preparations ('Uniroid' and 'Proctosedyl') in the treatment of second degree haemorrhoids in general practice.

A multi-centre general practice, open study was carried out in 89 patients with second degree haemorrhoids to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two antibiotic-corticosteroid combinations ('Uniroid' and 'Proctosedyl') in ointment and suppository formulations. Patients were allocated at random into 4 groups and received treatment with one of the trial preparations for 1, 2 or 3 weeks, as required, with weekly assessments of response. There were no significant differences between the various groups at the start of treatment. Significant improvement occurred in all groups during treatment. Both suppository and ointment formulations were broadly comparable and control of symptoms was achieved from Week 2 onwards, building up to levels in excess of 90% after 3 weeks of therapy. With regard to the symptoms of pain and itching, suppositories gave marginally greater relief in the early stages of treatment, while both ointment and suppositories were associated with similar reduction in bleeding from haemorrhoids. Whereas both suppository formulations were about equal in reducing anal discharge, 'Uniroid' ointment was clinically superior to 'Proctosedyl' ointment in controlling this symptom over the 3-week trial period. No unwanted effects were experienced attributable to treatment. No statistically significant differences between the two ointment and the two suppository formulations were identified in this study and all four preparations were found to be efficacious in the majority of patients studied.