Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 20 Ilsan-ro, Wonju, Gangwon-Do, South Korea.
Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jun 10;14(1):13306. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63784-4.
This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and investigate patients' preferences for two mucin secretagogues in the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Thirty patients with DED were randomly treated with either 3% diquafosol or 2% rebamipide ophthalmic solution for 4 weeks, followed by an additional 4-week treatment using the other eye drop after a 2-week washout period. Objective and subjective assessments, including the corneal and conjunctival staining score, tear breakup time (TBUT), Schirmer 1 test, tear osmolarity, tear matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), lipid layer thickness (LLT) and ocular surface disease index (OSDI), were performed at baseline, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 10 weeks. Patient preferences were assessed based on four categories (comfort, efficacy, convenience, willingness to continue) using a questionnaire and the overall subjective satisfaction score for each drug was obtained at the end of the trial. In total, 28 eyes from 28 patients were included in the analysis. Both diquafosol and rebamipide significantly improved the OSDI (p = 0.033 and 0.034, respectively), TBUT (p < 0.001 and 0.026, respectively), and corneal (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively) and conjunctival (p = 0.017 and 0.042, respectively) staining after 4 weeks of treatment. An increase in Schirmer test scores was observed only after rebamipide treatment (p = 0.007). No significant changes were detected in tear osmolarity, MMP-9, and LLT following both treatments. The patients' preference was slightly greater for diquafosol (46.4%) than rebamipide (36.7%), presumably due to rebamipide's bitter taste. The self-efficacy of both drugs and overall satisfaction scores were comparable. These findings indicate that two mucin secretagogues showed comparable effects in ameliorating symptoms and improving signs (TBUT, corneal and conjunctival staining) in patients with DED.
本研究旨在比较两种粘蛋白分泌促进剂在治疗干眼(DED)中的临床疗效,并探讨患者对这两种药物的偏好。将 30 例 DED 患者随机分为 3%双氯苯双胍己烷(diguasosol)组或 2%瑞巴派特(rebamipide)组,分别接受为期 4 周的治疗,然后在 2 周洗脱期后使用另一种眼用制剂进行额外的 4 周治疗。在基线、4 周、6 周和 10 周时进行客观和主观评估,包括角膜和结膜染色评分、泪膜破裂时间(tear breakup time,TBUT)、泪液分泌试验(Schirmer 1 试验)、泪液渗透压、泪液基质金属蛋白酶-9(matrix metalloproteinase-9,MMP-9)、脂质层厚度(lipid layer thickness,LLT)和眼表疾病指数(ocular surface disease index,OSDI)。基于舒适度、疗效、便利性和继续使用意愿四个方面(categor ies),使用问卷评估患者的偏好,并在试验结束时获得每种药物的总体主观满意度评分。共有 28 例患者的 28 只眼纳入分析。双氯苯双胍己烷和瑞巴派特均显著改善了 OSDI(p=0.033 和 0.034)、TBUT(p<0.001 和 0.026)以及角膜(p<0.001 和 0.001)和结膜(p=0.017 和 0.042)染色(corneal and conjunctival staining)。仅在瑞巴派特治疗后,Schirmer 试验评分增加(p=0.007)。两种治疗方法均未引起泪液渗透压、MMP-9 和 LLT 的显著变化。患者对双氯苯双胍己烷的偏好略高于瑞巴派特(46.4%比 36.7%),这可能是由于瑞巴派特的苦味。两种药物的自我效能和总体满意度评分相当。这些发现表明,两种粘蛋白分泌促进剂在改善 DED 患者的症状和体征(TBUT、角膜和结膜染色)方面均具有相当的疗效。