Efficacy and safety of dual-polymer hydroxypropyl guar- and hyaluronic acid-containing lubricant eyedrops for the management of dry-eye disease: a randomized double-masked clinical study
Received 13 June 2018
Accepted for publication 27 September 2018
Published 5 December 2018 Volume 2018:12 Pages 2499—2508
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Marc Labetoulle,1 Stefanie Schmickler,2 David Galarreta,3 Daniel Böhringer,4 Abayomi Ogundele,5 Michel Guillon,6 Christophe Baudouin7,8
1Ophtalmologie, Hôpital Bicêtre, APHP, South Paris Université, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Paris, France; 2Augen-Zentrum-Nordwest Augenpraxis, Ahaus, Germany; 3Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain; 4Eye Center, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; 5Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Fort Worth, TX, USA; 6Ocular Technology Group, London, UK; 7Quinze-Vingts Hospital, DHU Sight Restore, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, INSERM-DHOS CIC, Paris, France; 8Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France
Background: An artificial-tear formulation containing the dual polymers hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) and hyaluronic acid (HA) is approved for the treatment of dry-eye disease (DED). The present study compared the efficacy and safety of the HPG-HA dual-polymer formulation vs a sodium hyaluronate (SH)-containing artificial-tear formulation in patients with DED.
Methods: In a prospective, 6-week, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group study, patients with DED aged ≥18 years and total ocular surface staining (TOSS) score ≥4 and ≤9 were randomized (1:1) to receive either HPG-HA or SH four times a day for 42 days. Changes from baseline in TOSS (primary end point), impact of dry eye on everyday life (IDEEL) treatment-satisfaction scores (effectiveness and inconvenience), and tear-film breakup time (TFBUT) at day 42 were assessed using a fixed-sequence testing strategy. Noninferiority was assessed on the primary end point based on the upper limit of two-sided 95% CIs for mean treatment difference (HPG-HA or SH) <2 units.
Results: In total, 99 patients were randomized (HPG-HA, n= 50; SH, n= 49). At day 42, the least square (LS) mean ± SE change from baseline in TOSS was -1.16±0.24 and -0.92±0.23 in the HPG-HA and SH groups, respectively, and the treatment difference was -0.24±0.33 (95% CI -0.90 to 0.42). Noninferiority was demonstrated as the upper limit of the 95% CI was <2 units. LS mean change from baseline at day 42 for HPG-HA vs SH was -3.18 (P=0.4817) in IDEEL treatment-effectiveness scores, -12.56 (P=0.0001) in treatment-inconvenience scores, and 0.30 seconds (P=0.5789) in TFBUT.
Conclusion: The HPG-HA dual-polymer formulation was noninferior to the SH lubricant eyedrops for improvement in ocular surface staining in DED. HPG-HA did not show improvement over SH in IDEEL treatment-satisfaction scores. No new safety findings were reported.
Keywords: dry-eye disease, dual polymer, artificial tears, hydroxypropyl guar, hyaluronic acid
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]