Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
Topical diquafosol versus hyaluronic acid for the treatment of dry eye disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sun Xiaonan, Liu Lei, Liu Chi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Diquafosol enhances fluid transfer and mucin secretion on ocular surface, which has been suggested as an effective treatment for dry eye disease (DED). The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of topical diquafosol versus hyaluronic acid (HA) for DED.
METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were obtained via search of electronic including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A random-effects model was used to pool the results after incorporating the influence of potential heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs involving 1295 patients with DED were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to treatment with 0.1% HA, topical treatment with 3% diquafosol significantly improved the Ocular Surface Disease Index (mean difference (MD): - 3.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 4.68 to - 2.50, p < 0.001; I2 = 6%), results of Schirmer's test (MD: 1.08 mm, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.76, p = 0.002; I2 = 0%), tear breakup time (MD: 0.60 s, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.99, p = 0.003; I2 = 63%), corneal fluorescein staining score (MD: - 0.20, 95% CI: - 0.37 to - 0.03, p = 0.02; I2 = 58%), and ocular rose bengal staining score (MD: - 0.62, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.35, p < 0.001; I2 = 15%). No severe adverse events were reported. Topical use of diquafosol was associated with a higher risk of overall adverse events as compared to HA (odds ratio: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.71, p = 0.02; I2 = 18%).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical treatment with 3% diquafosol may be more effective than 0.1% HA for patients with DED. However, the long-term efficacy and tolerability of diquafosol still need to be determined.
METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were obtained via search of electronic including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A random-effects model was used to pool the results after incorporating the influence of potential heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs involving 1295 patients with DED were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to treatment with 0.1% HA, topical treatment with 3% diquafosol significantly improved the Ocular Surface Disease Index (mean difference (MD): - 3.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 4.68 to - 2.50, p < 0.001; I2 = 6%), results of Schirmer's test (MD: 1.08 mm, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.76, p = 0.002; I2 = 0%), tear breakup time (MD: 0.60 s, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.99, p = 0.003; I2 = 63%), corneal fluorescein staining score (MD: - 0.20, 95% CI: - 0.37 to - 0.03, p = 0.02; I2 = 58%), and ocular rose bengal staining score (MD: - 0.62, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.35, p < 0.001; I2 = 15%). No severe adverse events were reported. Topical use of diquafosol was associated with a higher risk of overall adverse events as compared to HA (odds ratio: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.71, p = 0.02; I2 = 18%).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical treatment with 3% diquafosol may be more effective than 0.1% HA for patients with DED. However, the long-term efficacy and tolerability of diquafosol still need to be determined.