A randomized, double-masked trial of topical ketorolac versus artificial tears for treatment of viral conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if topical ketorolac 0.5% relieves the symptoms and signs of viral conjunctivitis better than artificial tears.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred seventeen patients with a clinical diagnosis of viral conjunctivitis were randomized to the treatment group or control group.

METHODS

Physicians and patients were masked to treatment. Patients in the treatment group received topical ketorolac 0.5% four times daily. Patients in the control group received artificial tears four times daily. Symptom and sign scores were recorded on the day of recruitment and at the time of a follow-up examination 3 to 4 days later.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in six symptoms of conjunctivitis (overall discomfort, itching, foreign body sensation, tearing, redness, and lid swelling) and four signs of conjunctivitis (conjunctival injection, conjunctival chemosis, conjunctival mucus, and lid edema). Adverse effects were also studied.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients returned for their 3- to 4-day follow-up. Both the artificial tear and ketorolac groups showed improvement in all symptom scores at their 3- to 4-day follow-up visit. There was no statistically significant difference between the change in symptom scores between the treatment group and control group in any symptom category except redness. Patients in the control group were more likely to report improvement in redness than those in the treatment group, P = 0.012. There was no statistically significant difference between the change in sign scores between the treatment and control groups. Ketorolac 0.5% was more likely to produce stinging than artificial tears, 59.2% versus 18.8%, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical ketorolac 0.5% used four times daily is no better than artificial tears at relieving the symptoms or signs of viral conjunctivitis and produces more stinging than artificial tears.