Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 14

Efficacy and Safety of VisuEvo® and Cationorm® for the Treatment of Evaporative and Non-Evaporative Dry Eye Disease: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Cross-Over, Randomized Clinical Trial

Authors Fogagnolo P, Quisisana C, Caretti A, Marchina D, Dei Cas M, Melardi E, Rossetti L

Received 18 April 2020

Accepted for publication 3 June 2020

Published 18 June 2020 Volume 2020:14 Pages 1651—1663

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S258081

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser


Paolo Fogagnolo,1 Chiara Quisisana,1 Anna Caretti,2 Daniele Marchina,1 Michele Dei Cas,2 Ettore Melardi,1 Luca Rossetti1

1Eye Clinic ASST Santi Paolo Carlo, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 2Department of Health Sciences, Laboratory of Biochemistry, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Correspondence: Paolo Fogagnolo
Eye Clinic ASST Santi Paolo Carlo, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Via Di Rudinì 8, Milan 20142, Italy
Tel +39 02 81844301
Email paolo.fogagnolo@unimi.it

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of the new lubricating product VisuEvo® (VSE) vs Cationorm® (CTN) in patients with dry eye disease (DED).
Methods: Seventy-two patients with evaporative (n=54) and non-evaporative DED (n=18) were included in a multicenter, double-blind, 12-week cross-over study to receive VSE (6 weeks) and CTN (6 weeks) in randomized sequence. After baseline, two visits were performed during each period (intermediate and final visit, respectively at 2 and 6 weeks from the beginning of each period). Primary (tear break-up time, TBUT) and secondary endpoints (Schirmer I, Ferning, blink rate, osmometry, cytokine and lipid expression, ocular surface staining, patient satisfaction, and OSDI score) were compared.
Results: Sixty-three patients were evaluated for efficacy and 68 patients for safety. The intergroup differences for mean TBUT values were not significant at any study visit (baseline 3.2 ± 1.5 sec; intermediate visits 4.5 ± 1.9 and 4.5 ± 1.8 sec in VSE and CTN groups, respectively, p = 0.10; final visits 5.4 ± 2.4 and 6.0 ± 3.1, respectively, p=0.63). Also, the assessment of secondary endpoints showed no significant difference between the two groups. The two study treatments were equally effective in evaporative and non-evaporative DED. The safety profile was excellent for both ocular treatments; transient blurred vision was observed in 11 patients only during CTN, 10 patients only during VSE, and 16 during both treatments.
Conclusion: VSE was non-inferior to CTN in restoring tear film composition, increasing its stability and reducing ocular surface damage in evaporative and non-evaporative DED patients.
Study Identifier: NCT03833882.

Keywords: evaporative dry eye disease, tear break-up time, Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire, meibomian gland disturbance, glaucoma, ocular surface

Creative Commons License 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]