Clinical Ophthalmology (Jun 2020)
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
Abstract
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, ItalyCorrespondence: Paolo FogagnoloEye Clinic ASST Santi Paolo Carlo, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Via Di Rudinì 8, Milan 20142, ItalyTel +39 02 81844301Email [email protected]: 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
