BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people seek medical attention for symptoms of visual discomfort due to computer vision syndrome (CVS). We compared the efficacy and adverse event rates of a new eye lubricant, OptiZen (InnoZen, Inc., polysorbate 80 0.5%) and Visine Original (Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, tetrahydrozoline HCl 0.05%). METHODS: In this double-blind parallel arm trial, 50 healthy men and women, ages 18 to 65 years, with symptoms of CVS who use a video display terminal for a minimum of 4 hours per day were randomized to OptiZen (n = 25) orVisine Original (n= 25), 1 to 2 drops b.i.d. for 5 days. The primary end-points were ocular discomfort and adverse events. RESULTS: OptiZen and Visine Original had similar efficacy in alleviating symptoms of ocular discomfort (odds ratio of 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 2.42], P= 0.55). OptiZen and Visine Original were very similar with respect to odds ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each of the measurement times (P= 0.72). Visine Original users reported a significantly higher incidence of temporary ocular stinging/burning immediately after drug instillation (28%, 7/25) than did OptiZen users (4%, 1/24) (P= 0.05). Patients using OptiZen were 89% less likely to have stinging/burning effects than those patients using Visine Original (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.95). DISCUSSION: OptiZen and Visine Original are effective at alleviating ocular discomfort associated with prolonged computer use. Adverse event findings suggest that OptiZen causes less ocular discomfort on instillation, potentially attributable to its milder ingredient profile.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people seek medical attention for symptoms of visual discomfort due to computer vision syndrome (CVS). We compared the efficacy and adverse event rates of a new eye lubricant, OptiZen (InnoZen, Inc., polysorbate 80 0.5%) and Visine Original (Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, tetrahydrozoline HCl 0.05%). METHODS: In this double-blind parallel arm trial, 50 healthy men and women, ages 18 to 65 years, with symptoms of CVS who use a video display terminal for a minimum of 4 hours per day were randomized to OptiZen (n = 25) or Visine Original (n= 25), 1 to 2 drops b.i.d. for 5 days. The primary end-points were ocular discomfort and adverse events. RESULTS: OptiZen and Visine Original had similar efficacy in alleviating symptoms of ocular discomfort (odds ratio of 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 2.42], P= 0.55). OptiZen and Visine Original were very similar with respect to odds ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each of the measurement times (P= 0.72). Visine Original users reported a significantly higher incidence of temporary ocular stinging/burning immediately after drug instillation (28%, 7/25) than did OptiZen users (4%, 1/24) (P= 0.05). Patients using OptiZen were 89% less likely to have stinging/burning effects than those patients using Visine Original (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.95). DISCUSSION: OptiZen and Visine Original are effective at alleviating ocular discomfort associated with prolonged computer use. Adverse event findings suggest that OptiZen causes less ocular discomfort on instillation, potentially attributable to its milder ingredient profile.
Authors: Shelley Brewer; Dwayne Van Eerd; Benjamin C Amick; Emma Irvin; Kent M Daum; Fred Gerr; J Steven Moore; Kim Cullen; David Rempel Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2006-09