PURPOSE: To compare a treatment containing carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and the osmoprotective (OsPr) compatible osmolytes erythritol, L-carnitine, and glycerin (OsPr-CMC) with a standard sodium hyaluronate (Na-HY) formulation in patients with dry eye disease. METHODS: This was a 3-month, phase III, noninferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OsPr-CMC (OPTIVE®) or Na-HY (VISMED®). The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in total ocular staining at day 35, scored using the 15-point Oxford scale. Noninferiority was assessed using the adjusted means. The secondary efficacy outcome was change in ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score from baseline to day 35. Other outcomes included tear osmolarity, Schirmer-I test score, OSDI, ease of use, patient acceptability, tolerability, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were randomized. The primary efficacy analysis was per protocol (OsPr-CMC, n=37; Na-HY, n=29). OsPr-CMC was noninferior to Na-HY in terms of adjusted mean change (SE) in ocular staining score at day 35: -2.0 (0.33) with OsPr-CMC vs -1.7 (0.37) with Na-HY. Similar improvements were seen in tear osmolarity, Schirmer-I test score, OSDI, and ocular staining for OsPr-CMC and Na-HY. More patients treated with OsPr-CMC vs Na-HY liked using their eyedrops, reported that their eyes felt comfortable, and found the treatment easy to use. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no serious treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Na-HY, OsPr-CMC was noninferior in terms of efficacy and safety, preferred by patients, and easier to use. Osmoprotection using OsPr-CMC therefore represents a viable option for dry eye disease management.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare a treatment containing carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and the osmoprotective (OsPr) compatible osmolytes erythritol, L-carnitine, and glycerin (OsPr-CMC) with a standard sodium hyaluronate (Na-HY) formulation in patients with dry eye disease. METHODS: This was a 3-month, phase III, noninferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OsPr-CMC (OPTIVE®) or Na-HY (VISMED®). The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in total ocular staining at day 35, scored using the 15-point Oxford scale. Noninferiority was assessed using the adjusted means. The secondary efficacy outcome was change in ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score from baseline to day 35. Other outcomes included tear osmolarity, Schirmer-I test score, OSDI, ease of use, patient acceptability, tolerability, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were randomized. The primary efficacy analysis was per protocol (OsPr-CMC, n=37; Na-HY, n=29). OsPr-CMC was noninferior to Na-HY in terms of adjusted mean change (SE) in ocular staining score at day 35: -2.0 (0.33) with OsPr-CMC vs -1.7 (0.37) with Na-HY. Similar improvements were seen in tear osmolarity, Schirmer-I test score, OSDI, and ocular staining for OsPr-CMC and Na-HY. More patients treated with OsPr-CMC vs Na-HY liked using their eyedrops, reported that their eyes felt comfortable, and found the treatment easy to use. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no serious treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Na-HY, OsPr-CMC was noninferior in terms of efficacy and safety, preferred by patients, and easier to use. Osmoprotection using OsPr-CMC therefore represents a viable option for dry eye disease management.
Authors: Juan Carlos Pinto-Bonilla; Alberto Del Olmo-Jimeno; Fernando Llovet-Osuna; Emiliano Hernández-Galilea Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 2.423