A Prospective, Crossover, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Ocular Comfort of 0.1% Hyaluronic Acid and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2025-02-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S489669
Seong-Jae Kim, Woong-Sun Yoo, Lee-Ha Kwon, Rock Bum Kim, Hyeon-Jeong Yoon, Kyung Chul Yoon
{"title":"A Prospective, Crossover, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Ocular Comfort of 0.1% Hyaluronic Acid and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.","authors":"Seong-Jae Kim, Woong-Sun Yoo, Lee-Ha Kwon, Rock Bum Kim, Hyeon-Jeong Yoon, Kyung Chul Yoon","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S489669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Report the clinical effects and discomfort of using 0.1% hyaluronic acid (HA [Kynex 1<sup>®</sup>, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea]) and 0.3% HA (Kynex 3<sup>®</sup>, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea) to treat dry eye disease (DED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a prospective, crossover, randomized, and double-blind study. Patients aged >19 years with DED level 2 or higher, corneal staining score > 1, and tear break-up time (TBUT) < 10s were included. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group 1 were instilled with 0.1% HA for four weeks and then 0.3% HA for the next four weeks. Group 2 patients were instilled with the eye drops in the reverse order of group 1. Patients were evaluated using a corneal staining score, TBUT, and the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both groups, 0.3% HA showed an increasing trend in TBUT, although the difference was not statistically significant. Changes in the Schirmer test were greater in group 2, but this difference was also not statistically significant. The corneal staining score improved in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. While 0.3% HA was more effective than 0.1% HA according to the absolute value, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the two groups in the SPEED questionnaire evaluation that assessed aspects of discomfort, such as blurred vision, foreign body sensation, and burning sensation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>0.3% HA was more effective for treating DED, although the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of discomfort, 0.3% HA showed no difference compared to 0.1% HA. Using both 0.1% HA and 0.3% HA in a tailored treatment approach can improve patient comfort and treatment outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"407-416"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S489669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Report the clinical effects and discomfort of using 0.1% hyaluronic acid (HA [Kynex 1®, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea]) and 0.3% HA (Kynex 3®, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea) to treat dry eye disease (DED).

Methods: This study was designed as a prospective, crossover, randomized, and double-blind study. Patients aged >19 years with DED level 2 or higher, corneal staining score > 1, and tear break-up time (TBUT) < 10s were included. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group 1 were instilled with 0.1% HA for four weeks and then 0.3% HA for the next four weeks. Group 2 patients were instilled with the eye drops in the reverse order of group 1. Patients were evaluated using a corneal staining score, TBUT, and the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks.

Results: In both groups, 0.3% HA showed an increasing trend in TBUT, although the difference was not statistically significant. Changes in the Schirmer test were greater in group 2, but this difference was also not statistically significant. The corneal staining score improved in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. While 0.3% HA was more effective than 0.1% HA according to the absolute value, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the two groups in the SPEED questionnaire evaluation that assessed aspects of discomfort, such as blurred vision, foreign body sensation, and burning sensation.

Conclusion: 0.3% HA was more effective for treating DED, although the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of discomfort, 0.3% HA showed no difference compared to 0.1% HA. Using both 0.1% HA and 0.3% HA in a tailored treatment approach can improve patient comfort and treatment outcomes.

一项前瞻性、交叉、随机、双盲临床研究,比较0.1%透明质酸和0.3%透明质酸对干眼症患者的疗效和眼部舒适度。
目的:报告0.1%透明质酸(HA [Kynex 1®,Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea])和0.3%透明质酸(Kynex 3®,Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea])治疗干眼病(DED)的临床效果和不适。方法:本研究采用前瞻性、交叉、随机、双盲研究。纳入年龄b>9岁,DED 2级及以上,角膜染色评分>1,泪液破裂时间(TBUT) < 10s的患者。60例患者随机分为两组。第一组患者连续4周灌胃0.1%透明质酸,随后4周灌胃0.3%透明质酸。第2组患者按第1组的相反顺序滴注滴眼液。在基线、4周和8周时,使用角膜染色评分、TBUT和标准化患者眼干评估(SPEED)问卷对患者进行评估。结果:两组0.3% HA均有升高TBUT的趋势,但差异无统计学意义。第二组Schirmer试验的变化更大,但这种差异也没有统计学意义。两组角膜染色评分均有改善,差异无统计学意义。虽然从绝对值来看,0.3%的HA比0.1%的HA更有效,但这种差异没有统计学意义。两组在评估视力模糊、异物感和烧灼感等不适方面的SPEED问卷评估中没有差异。结论:0.3%透明质酸治疗DED更有效,但差异无统计学意义。在不适方面,0.3%的HA与0.1%的HA没有差异。在量身定制的治疗方法中使用0.1%和0.3%的透明质酸可以改善患者的舒适度和治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信