Efficacy and safety of 1% and 2% rebamipide clear solution in dry eye disease: a multicenter randomized trial

Background To evaluate the efficacy of 1% and 2% rebamipide clear solution in the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Methods Two hundred twenty patients with DED were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the 1% rebamipide, 2% rebamipide, or placebo (eye drops containing the same ingredients, except for the active components). Each eye drop was instilled four times daily for 12 weeks. Changes in tear film break-up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival staining score, Schirmer 1 test, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) from baseline to 12-week visit between the study groups were compared for efficacy assessment. Results The mean age of study patients was 43.8±14.2 years. The 1% and 2% rebamipide groups showed greater improvement in TBUT (1.99±1.87 and 2.02±2.21 s) at 12 weeks from baseline than the placebo group (1.25±2.93 s). The 2% rebamipide group showed greater improvement in the corneal staining score (− 3.15±2.00) at 12 weeks from baseline than the placebo group (− 2.85±1.80). The 1% and 2% rebamipide groups showed improvement in Schirmer 1 test (1.27±3.86 and 1.50±4.14 mm) at 12 weeks of treatment, but not the placebo group (0.55±2.99 mm). Both the rebamipide groups and the placebo group showed significantly improved OSDI after treatment for 12 weeks; however, there was no significant difference among the three groups. Conclusions 1% and 2% rebamipide clear solutions are an effective therapeutic option for improving TBUT and tear volume, and stabilizing the corneal staining score in DED.This research was funded by Kukje Pharma (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) and Samil Co. Ltd. (Seoul, Republic of Korea

Crystalline Lens Autofluorescence for Presbyopia Diagnosis

To investigate whether presbyopia can be graded by evaluating the degree of autofluorescence in the opacity lesion of the retina using a fundus autofluorescence (FAF) camera with an artificial opacity pattern attached

Comparative evaluation of refractive outcomes after implantation of two types of intraocular lenses with different diopter intervals (0.25 diopter versus 0.50 diopter)

Abstract Background Intraocular lenses (IOLs) with different diopter (D) intervals may have different tolerance, and may provide different accuracy of refractive outcome after cataract surgery. The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of refractive outcome after implantation of IOLs with different D intervals after cataract surgery. Methods A total of 80 eyes from 40 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a 0.50 D interval Akreos AO IOL in one eye and a 0.25 D interval Softec HD™ IOL in the other eye were enrolled. The percentages of eyes with refractive prediction error within ±0.50 D at one month after surgery were compared. To evaluate the effect of the dioptric errors of the IOL itself on refractive prediction error, the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error within ±0.25 D of the IOL with a standard deviation (SD) of ±0.40 D was compared with that of the IOL with a SD of ±0.11 D through Monte Carlo simulations. Results In this clinical study, the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error within ±0.50 D by the Haigis formula in the Softec HD™ group (85.0%) was significantly greater than that in the Akreos AO group (57.5%; P = 0.027). In Monte Carlo simulations, all percentages of eyes with refractive prediction error within ±0.25 D by the Haigis and SRK/T formulas in the Softec HD™ group were significantly greater than those in the Akreos AO group. Conclusions The IOL with a 0.25 D interval was more accurate than the IOL with a 0.50 D interval in predicting refractive outcome after cataract surgery. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials KCT0002192, Retrospectively registered (Date of registration: 6 January 2017)

Short-term changes in tear osmolarity after instillation of different osmolarity eye drops in patients with dry eye

Abstract This study investigated short-term changes in tear osmolarity of dry eye patients after using artificial tears containing sodium hyaluronate (SH) at different osmolarities. It comprised 80 patients with dry eye whose tear osmolarity measurement using the TearLab osmolarity system was 300 mOsm/L or greater. Patients who had external ocular disease, glaucoma, or other concomitant ocular pathology were excluded. After being randomly divided into four groups, the participants received different kinds of SH eye drops as follows: Groups 1–3 were given one of three concentrations (0.1%, 0.15%, and 0.3%) of isotonic drops, while Group 4 received 0.18% hypotonic SH eye drops. The tear osmolarity concentrations were evaluated at baseline and again at 1-, 5-, and 10-min after instillation of each eye drop. Tear osmolarity showed a significant decrease after instillation of four types of SH eye drops after up to 10 min compared to baseline. Patients who received hypotonic SH eye drops showed an enhanced decrease in tear osmolarity compared with the isotonic SH eye drops after 1 min (p < 0.001) and 5 min (p = 0.006), but the difference was not significant at 10 min (p = 0.836). The enhanced immediate effect of hypotonic SH eye drops at lowering tear osmolarity in patients with dry eye seems to be limited unless these drops were used frequently

Influence of corneal power on intraocular lens power of the second eye in the SRK/T formula in bilateral cataract surgery

Abstracts Background To evaluate the effect of different adjustments of the refractive outcome of the first eye according to corneal power (K) in order to improve the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation of the second eye in the SRK/T formula. Methods One hundred thirty-four patients who underwent uncomplicated bilateral, sequential phacoemulsification with AcrySof IQ implantation were enrolled. The optimal partial adjustment of the refractive outcome of the first eye according to K was retrospectively analyzed using a regression formula. Results In all patients, the optimal partial adjustment of the refractive outcome of the first eye was calculated as 56%. For K values between 42.8 D and 44.6 D, the optimal partial adjustment was calculated as 30%; however, this adjustment of the first eye did not significantly improve the refractive outcome in the second eye of the subgroup with K values between 42.8 D and 44.6 D. For K values greater than 44.6 D or less than 42.8 D, the optimal partial adjustments were calculated as 69% and 81%, respectively. According to these results, the adjustment of the first eye significantly improved the refractive outcome in the second eye from 0.36 to 0.26 D (P < 0.001) in the entire data set. This result was significantly lower than that using a single partial adjustment (56%) (0.28 D; P = 0.027). Conclusions For K values greater than 44.6 D or less than 42.8 D, an approximately 70–80% adjustment of the first eye error should be considered. In contrast, for K values between 42.8 D and 44.6 D, a 30% or less adjustment should be considered in the SRK/T formula