| Literature DB >> 32185729 |
Paolo Fogagnolo1,2, Eleonora Favuzza3, Daniele Marchina4,5, Michela Cennamo3, Roberto Vignapiano3, Chiara Quisisana4,5, Luca Rossetti4,5, Rita Mencucci3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the effects of a new lubricating, antioxidant solution (VisuEvo®) on dry eye disease (DED) in patients undergoing cataract surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Cataract surgery; Dry eye disease; Lubricating eye drops; Ocular surface; Ophthalmology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32185729 PMCID: PMC7140734 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01288-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Ther ISSN: 0741-238X Impact factor: 3.845
Demographic results (ITT population)
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Total ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 7 (30.4%) | 8 (36.4%) | 15 (33.3%) |
| Female | 16 (69.6%) | 14 (63.6%) | 30 (66.7%) |
| Ethnic group | |||
| Caucasian | 23 | 22 | 45 |
| Age (years) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 73 ± 7 | 76 ± 8 | 74 ± 8 |
| Median (range) | 72 (52–88) | 77 (54–86) | 76 (52–88) |
| Height (cm) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 163 ± 10 | 163 ± 8 | 163 ± 9 |
| Median (range) | 164 (146–180) | 160 (140–175) | 162 (140–180) |
| Weight (kg) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 69 ± 16 | 71 ± 13 | 70 ± 14 |
| Median (range) | 68 (45–95) | 68 (45–100) | 68 (45–100) |
| Time elapsed from cataract diagnosis (days)a | |||
| Mean ± SD | 600 ± 291 | 763 ± 321 | 679 ± 314 |
| Median | 732 | 765 | 740 |
aTime elapsed from cataract diagnosis was calculated as (Cataract diagnosis date—Visit − 1 date) + 1
Primary and secondary efficacy variables at each study visit (ITT population)
| Variables at study visits | Group A ( | Group B ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TBUT—mean ± SD | |||
| Visit − 1 | 8.5 ± 1.8 | 7.8 ± 0.7 | 0.11 |
| Visit 0 | 8.4 ± 1.8 | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 0.01 |
| Visit 1 | 7.4 ± 1.5 | 6.0 ± 1.3 | 0.002 |
| Visit 2 | 7.9 ± 1.6 | 6.0 ± 1.5 | 0.0002 |
| OSDI Questionnaire Score—mean ± SD | |||
| Visit − 1 | 13 ± 8 | 14 ± 8 | 0.55 |
| Visit 0 | 6 ± 5 | 11 ± 7 | 0.01 |
| Visit 1 | 8 ± 7 | 16 ± 12 | 0.014 |
| Visit 2 | 9 ± 8 | 16 ± 11 | 0.027 |
| Osmolimetry test—mean ± SD | |||
| Visit − 1 | 305 ± 17 | 303 ± 13 | 0.77 |
| Visit 0 | 306 ± 17 | 299 ± 17 | 0.21 |
| Visit 1 | 302 ± 18 | 304 ± 17 | 0.79 |
| Visit 2 | 304 ± 16 | 302 ± 13 | 0.66 |
| Schirmer | |||
| Visit − 1 | 20 ± 6 | 18 ± 5 | 0.31 |
| Visit 0 | 20 ± 7 | 16 ± 5 | 0.08 |
| Visit 1 | 16 ± 6 | 16 ± 8 | 0.84 |
| Visit 2 | 18 ± 8 | 16 ± 7 | 0.52 |
| Staining grade with fluorescein— | |||
| Visit 1 | |||
| 0 | 18 (78.3%) | 13 (59.1%) | |
| 1 | 4 (17.4%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| 2 | 1 (4.3%) | 4 (18.2%) | |
| Visit 2 | |||
| 0 | 15 (65.2%) | 12 (54.5%) | |
| 1 | 7 (30.4%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| 2 | 1 (4.3%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
Visit − 1 screening; Visit 0 baseline; Visit 1 week 1; Visit 2 week 2
Fig. 1Trend of TBUT (s) among study visits by study treatment group
Number and proportion of patients improved, stablilized and worsened in TBUT values during study visits compared to screening visit (visit − 1) by treatment group (ITT population)
| Group A | Group B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improved | Stabilized | Worsened | Improved | Stabilized | Worsened | |
| Visit − 1 vs Visit 0 | 5 (22) | 8 (35) | 10 (43) | 3 (14) | 10 (45) | 9 (41) |
| Visit − 1 vs Visit 1 | 2 (9) | 8 (35) | 13 (57) | 0 (0) | 2 (9) | 20 (91) |
| Visit − 1 vs Visit 2 | 6 (26) | 4 (17) | 13 (57) | 1 (5) | 3 (14) | 18 (82) |
Improved difference between two TBUT values > 0; Stabilized difference between two TBUT values = 0; Worsened difference between two TBUT values < 0
Stratification of patients of both treatment groups into classes of TBUT severity
| TBUT classes | Visit -1 | Visit 0 | Visit 1 | Visit 2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Group A ( | Group B ( | Group A ( | Group B ( | Group A ( | Group B ( | |||||
| < 5 s | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0.17 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0.02 | 0 (0.00) | 4 (18.2) | 0.01 | 0 (0.00) | 3 (13.6) | 0.004 |
| 5–7 s | 6 (26.1) | 7 (31.8) | 8 (34.8) | 14 (63.6) | 12 (52.2) | 15 (68.2) | 11 (47.8) | 17 (77.3) | ||||
| 8–9 s | 13 (56.5) | 15 (68.2) | 9 (39.1) | 8 (36.4) | 10 (43.5) | 3 (13.6) | 7 (30.4) | 2 (9.1) | ||||
| ≥ 10 s | 4 (17.4) | 0 (0.00) | 6 (26.1) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (4.3) | 0 (0.00) | 5 (21.8) | 0 (0.00) | ||||
aFisher p value
Fig. 2Trend of OSDI Questionnaire Score among study visits by study treatment group
Fig. 3Distribution of patients assessed by staining grade with fluorescein by study group at Visit 1 and Visit 2 post-surgery
| An adequate ocular surface preparation is needed in patients scheduled for cataract surgery, both in individuals with ocular surface disease and a healthy ocular surface. This practice is poorly adopted. |
| Cataract surgery often induces or exacerbates DED, especially in the elderly. |
| The use of a prophylactic lubricating treatment 2 weeks before scheduled cataract surgery, and continued 2 weeks postoperatively, protected patients from iatrogenic DED. |
| The preoperative administration of the new ophthalmic solution, VisuEvo®, guaranteed optimal ocular surface health until the day of surgery and preserved patients from the natural course of DED postoperatively. |