European journal of ophthalmology · 1998
Polyacrylic acid gel in patients with dry eyes: a randomised comparison with polyvinyl alcohol.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bron A J, Mangat H, Quinlan M, Foley-Nolan A, Eustace P, Fsadni M, Sunder Raj P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of polyacrylic acid 0.2% (PAA) gel and polyvinylalcohol 1.4% (PVA) in the treatment of patients with dry eyes.
METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with dry eyes were randomly allocated to treatment with either PAA (48) or PVA (41) in a prospective, investigator-masked study in two centres. The parameters assessed were daily frequency of instillation of the study medications, ocular signs and symptoms, tear film break up time, Schirmer's test values, local tolerance and global assessment of the improvement following treatment.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in patient demographics and study parameters at baseline. The total score of symptoms (gritty or foreign body sensation, burning sensation, dry eye sensation, photophobia, others) and signs (conjunctival hyperaemia, ciliary injection, corneal and conjunctival epithelial staining) was reduced significantly more by treatment with PAA than with PVA at both three and six weeks (p < 0.0001). The daily frequency of instillation of PAA was significantly less than that PVA on 38 of the 41 (93%) study days. Both PAA and PVA were safe and equally well-tolerated except for blurred vision, usually mild and transient, on PAA. On global assessment of the improvement in their dry eye condition, significantly more PAA patients felt better on treatment at six (p = 0.02) weeks compared with those on PVA.
CONCLUSIONS: Polyacrylic acid gel was as safe as and more effective than polyvinylalcohol in the treatment of patients with dry eyes.
METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with dry eyes were randomly allocated to treatment with either PAA (48) or PVA (41) in a prospective, investigator-masked study in two centres. The parameters assessed were daily frequency of instillation of the study medications, ocular signs and symptoms, tear film break up time, Schirmer's test values, local tolerance and global assessment of the improvement following treatment.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in patient demographics and study parameters at baseline. The total score of symptoms (gritty or foreign body sensation, burning sensation, dry eye sensation, photophobia, others) and signs (conjunctival hyperaemia, ciliary injection, corneal and conjunctival epithelial staining) was reduced significantly more by treatment with PAA than with PVA at both three and six weeks (p < 0.0001). The daily frequency of instillation of PAA was significantly less than that PVA on 38 of the 41 (93%) study days. Both PAA and PVA were safe and equally well-tolerated except for blurred vision, usually mild and transient, on PAA. On global assessment of the improvement in their dry eye condition, significantly more PAA patients felt better on treatment at six (p = 0.02) weeks compared with those on PVA.
CONCLUSIONS: Polyacrylic acid gel was as safe as and more effective than polyvinylalcohol in the treatment of patients with dry eyes.