Cargando…

Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review

Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Semp, David A, Beeson, Danielle, Sheppard, Amy L, Dutta, Debarun, Wolffsohn, James S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36647552
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S350185
_version_ 1784869628150808576
author Semp, David A
Beeson, Danielle
Sheppard, Amy L
Dutta, Debarun
Wolffsohn, James S
author_facet Semp, David A
Beeson, Danielle
Sheppard, Amy L
Dutta, Debarun
Wolffsohn, James S
author_sort Semp, David A
collection PubMed
description Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO registration CRD42022369619) comparing the efficacy of artificial tears in patients with dry eye to inform prescribing choices using Web of Science, PubMed and Medline databases identified 64 relevant articles. There is good evidence that artificial tears improve symptoms of dry eye disease within a month of regular use, applied about four times a day, but signs generally take several months to improve. Not all patients with dry eye disease benefit from artificial tears, so if there is no benefit over a month, alternative management should be considered. Combination formulations are more effective than single active ingredient artificial tears. Artificial tears containing polyethylene glycol are more effective than those containing carboxymethylcellulose/carmellose sodium and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Those classified as having evaporative dry eye disease, benefit from artificial tears with liposomes, especially of higher concentration. The data available is limited by the definition of dry eye disease applied in published studies being variable, as well as the disease severity examined and compliance with artificial tears being rarely quantified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9840372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98403722023-01-15 Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review Semp, David A Beeson, Danielle Sheppard, Amy L Dutta, Debarun Wolffsohn, James S Clin Optom (Auckl) Review Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO registration CRD42022369619) comparing the efficacy of artificial tears in patients with dry eye to inform prescribing choices using Web of Science, PubMed and Medline databases identified 64 relevant articles. There is good evidence that artificial tears improve symptoms of dry eye disease within a month of regular use, applied about four times a day, but signs generally take several months to improve. Not all patients with dry eye disease benefit from artificial tears, so if there is no benefit over a month, alternative management should be considered. Combination formulations are more effective than single active ingredient artificial tears. Artificial tears containing polyethylene glycol are more effective than those containing carboxymethylcellulose/carmellose sodium and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Those classified as having evaporative dry eye disease, benefit from artificial tears with liposomes, especially of higher concentration. The data available is limited by the definition of dry eye disease applied in published studies being variable, as well as the disease severity examined and compliance with artificial tears being rarely quantified. Dove 2023-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9840372/ /pubmed/36647552 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S350185 Text en © 2023 Semp et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). 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 (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Semp, David A
Beeson, Danielle
Sheppard, Amy L
Dutta, Debarun
Wolffsohn, James S
Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title_full Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title_short Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review
title_sort artificial tears: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36647552
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S350185
work_keys_str_mv AT sempdavida artificialtearsasystematicreview
AT beesondanielle artificialtearsasystematicreview
AT sheppardamyl artificialtearsasystematicreview
AT duttadebarun artificialtearsasystematicreview
AT wolffsohnjamess artificialtearsasystematicreview