A review of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Lacrycon® eye drops for the treatment of dry eye syndrome.

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.

[The tolerance of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in implantation of posterior chamber lenses]. / Die Verträglichkeit von Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose bei der Implantation von Hinterkammer-Linsen.

In 65 patients, the safety of a 2% solution of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) was investigated by comparing HPMC with a balanced salt solution during posterior chamber lens implantation. The controlled open randomized trial consisted of two groups of patients: 1) in 37 patients the surface of the implant was coated with HPMC and the inner wound sealed prior to insertion; 2) in the control group with 28 patients the lens was dipped in the balanced salt solution. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups as regards any of the characteristics investigated, such as visual acuity, intraocular pressure, corneal thickness, endothelial cell loss, and postoperative irritation within the anterior chamber. There was no rise in mean intraocular pressure in the HPMC group on the first postoperative day, and a rise of 1 mm Hg in the control group. The increase in corneal thickness on the first postoperative day in the HPMC group was 0.07 and in the control group 0.04 mm. At re-examination (50th postoperative day) the mean thickness in both groups was identical to the initial values. The mean endothelial cell loss at re-examination was 18% (+/- 16%). No serious side effects were observed. HPMC may be regarded as a well-tolerated viscoelastic substance.