Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 39931678

A Prospective, Crossover, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Ocular Comfort of 0.1% Hyaluronic Acid and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid in Patients With Dry Eye Disease

Overview
Journal Clin Ophthalmol
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2025 Feb 11
PMID 39931678
Authors
Seong-Jae Kim
Woong-Sun Yoo
Lee-Ha Kwon
Rock Bum Kim
Hyeon-Jeong Yoon
Kyung Chul Yoon
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Report the clinical effects and discomfort of using 0.1% hyaluronic acid (HA [Kynex 1, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea]) and 0.3% HA (Kynex 3, Alcon, Seoul, S. Korea) to treat dry eye disease (DED).

Methods: This study was designed as a prospective, crossover, randomized, and double-blind study. Patients aged >19 years with DED level 2 or higher, corneal staining score > 1, and tear break-up time (TBUT) < 10s were included. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group 1 were instilled with 0.1% HA for four weeks and then 0.3% HA for the next four weeks. Group 2 patients were instilled with the eye drops in the reverse order of group 1. Patients were evaluated using a corneal staining score, TBUT, and the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks.

Results: In both groups, 0.3% HA showed an increasing trend in TBUT, although the difference was not statistically significant. Changes in the Schirmer test were greater in group 2, but this difference was also not statistically significant. The corneal staining score improved in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. While 0.3% HA was more effective than 0.1% HA according to the absolute value, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the two groups in the SPEED questionnaire evaluation that assessed aspects of discomfort, such as blurred vision, foreign body sensation, and burning sensation.

Conclusion: 0.3% HA was more effective for treating DED, although the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of discomfort, 0.3% HA showed no difference compared to 0.1% HA. Using both 0.1% HA and 0.3% HA in a tailored treatment approach can improve patient comfort and treatment outcomes.

References
1.
Yang Y, Lee W, Kim Y, Hong Y . A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Eye Drops for the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(5). PMC: 7967738. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052383. View
2.
Li Y, Cui L, Lee H, Kang Y, Choi W, Yoon K . Comparison of 0.3% Hypotonic and Isotonic Sodium Hyaluronate Eye Drops in the Treatment of Experimental Dry Eye. Curr Eye Res. 2017; 42(8):1108-1114. DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2017.1297462. View
3.
Hynnekleiv L, Magno M, Vernhardsdottir R, Moschowits E, Tonseth K, Dartt D . Hyaluronic acid in the treatment of dry eye disease. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022; 100(8):844-860. PMC: 9790727. DOI: 10.1111/aos.15159. View
4.
Calonge M, Sahyoun M, Baillif S, Gain P, Paw E, Mearza A . Sodium hyaluronate 0.30% ocular gel versus sodium hyaluronate 0.18% eye drop in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022; 33(1):188-195. PMC: 9834324. DOI: 10.1177/11206721221096321. View
5.
Sutu C, Fukuoka H, Afshari N . Mechanisms and management of dry eye in cataract surgery patients. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015; 27(1):24-30. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000227. View