Maria Markoulli1, Amanda Sobbizadeh1, Jacqueline Tan1, Nancy Briggs2, Minas Coroneo3. 1. a Faculty of Science , School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney , Sydney , Australia. 2. b Stats Central, Mark Wainwright Analytical Centre , UNSW Sydney , Sydney , Australia. 3. c Department of Ophthalmology, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine , UNSW Sydney , Sydney , Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of Optive (Allergan, Irvine, CA) and Optive Advanced (Allergan, Irvine, CA) on tear film stability and quality during a one-hour observation period when compared to saline (Pfizer, Perth, WA). METHODS: This was a double-masked, cross-over study. Twenty participants attended three visits, randomly receiving eitherOptive, Optive Advanced or saline. Oculus Keratograph 5M (Oculus, Arlington, WA, USA), non-invasive keratograph break-up time (NIKBUT), Lipiview (TearScience Inc, Morrisville, NC, USA), lipid layer thickness (LLT) and comfort were measured prior to and 5, 15 and 60 min after drop instillation. RESULTS: Optive Advanced demonstrated a significant increase in LLT between baseline (57.5 ± 12.3 nm) and both 5 min (67.5 ± 18.8 nm, p = 0.04) and 15 min (68.9 ± 17.3 nm, p = 0.04) but not 60 min (61.6 ± 14.3 nm, p = 0.47). Optive and saline were not different between timepoints for LLT (p > 0.05). There was no difference between timepoints for any of the drops for NIKBUT (p = 0.75). Comfort was significantly better at 5 min compared to baseline for Optive (8.3 ± 1.2 and 7.3 ± 1.4, respectively, p = 0.03) but not different for Optive Advance or saline (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Optive Advanced increased LLT for 15 min following instillation, returning to baseline within one hour. This did not however, translate into an improvement in tear film stability over this time period. Only Optive demonstrated an improvement in comfort.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of Optive (Allergan, Irvine, CA) and Optive Advanced (Allergan, Irvine, CA) on tear film stability and quality during a one-hour observation period when compared to saline (Pfizer, Perth, WA). METHODS: This was a double-masked, cross-over study. Twenty participants attended three visits, randomly receiving either Optive, Optive Advanced or saline. Oculus Keratograph 5M (Oculus, Arlington, WA, USA), non-invasive keratograph break-up time (NIKBUT), Lipiview (TearScience Inc, Morrisville, NC, USA), lipid layer thickness (LLT) and comfort were measured prior to and 5, 15 and 60 min after drop instillation. RESULTS: Optive Advanced demonstrated a significant increase in LLT between baseline (57.5 ± 12.3 nm) and both 5 min (67.5 ± 18.8 nm, p = 0.04) and 15 min (68.9 ± 17.3 nm, p = 0.04) but not 60 min (61.6 ± 14.3 nm, p = 0.47). Optive and saline were not different between timepoints for LLT (p > 0.05). There was no difference between timepoints for any of the drops for NIKBUT (p = 0.75). Comfort was significantly better at 5 min compared to baseline for Optive (8.3 ± 1.2 and 7.3 ± 1.4, respectively, p = 0.03) but not different for Optive Advance or saline (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Optive Advanced increased LLT for 15 min following instillation, returning to baseline within one hour. This did not however, translate into an improvement in tear film stability over this time period. Only Optive demonstrated an improvement in comfort.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artificial tears; dry eye; lipid layer thickness; tear film break-up time
Authors: Pedro Molina-Solana; Francisco de Borja Domínguez-Serrano; Antonio Manuel Garrido-Hermosilla; Jesús Montero-Iruzubieta; Ana Fernández-Palacín; Enrique Rodríguez-de-la-Rúa-Franch; Manuel Caro-Magdaleno Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-04-28