Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Oct;34(8):557-564.
doi: 10.1089/jop.2018.0032. Epub 2018 Jul 23.

Comparison of 0.1%, 0.18%, and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid Eye Drops in the Treatment of Experimental Dry Eye

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Comparative Study

Comparison of 0.1%, 0.18%, and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid Eye Drops in the Treatment of Experimental Dry Eye

In Cheon You et al. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of 0.1%, 0.18%, and 0.3% hyaluronic acid (HA) artificial tear in the treatment of experimental dry eye (EDE).

Methods: EDE was established in female C57BL/6 mice through an air draft and subcutaneous scopolamine injection. The mice were divided into 5 groups according to topical treatment regimens (n = 5 each): EDE control, balanced salt solution (BSS), preservative-free 0.1% HA, 0.18% HA, and 0.3% HA. The tear film break-up time (TBUT) and corneal fluorescein staining scores were measured 5, 10, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment. The corneal smoothness scores were measured. In addition, periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) staining were performed.

Results: The values for TBUT and corneal fluorescein staining showed greater improvements in all the HA groups (P < 0.05) than in the EDE and BSS groups after 10 days of treatment. Mice treated with 0.3% HA showed a more significant improvement in all clinical parameters than did those in the EDE control, BSS, 0.1% HA, and 0.18% HA groups (all P < 0.05) after 28 days of treatment. The goblet cell counts were higher in the 0.3% and 0.18% HA groups than in the 0.1% HA group. The number of TUNEL-positive cells was the lowest in the 0.3% HA group.

Conclusions: In EDE, 0.3% HA artificial tears are more effective than the 0.1% and 0.18% HA in improving tear film instability and ocular surface staining and irregularity, in increasing the number of conjunctival goblet cells, and in decreasing corneal epithelial apoptosis.

Keywords: 0.1% hyaluronic acid; 0.18% hyaluronic acid; 0.3% hyaluronic acid; dry eye disease.

Conflict of interest statement

No authors have any financial/conflicting interests to disclose.

Figures

<b>FIG. 1.</b>
FIG. 1.
Mean TBUT changes in the EDE, 0.1% HA-treated, 0.18% HA-treated, and 0.3% HA-treated groups at days 5, 10, 14, 21, and 28. *P < 0.05 compared with the EDE group, P < 0.05 compared with the BSS group, P < 0.05 compared with the 0.1% HA group, and §P < 0.05 compared with the 0.18% HA group. BSS, balanced salt solution; EDE, experimental dry eye; HA, hyaluronic acid; TBUT, tear film break-up time.
<b>FIG. 2.</b>
FIG. 2.
Mean corneal staining scores (A) and representative photographs (B) in the EDE, 0.1% HA-treated, 0.18% HA-treated, and 0.3% HA-treated groups at days 5, 10, 14, 21, and 28. *P < 0.05 compared with the EDE group, P < 0.05 compared with the BSS group, P < 0.05 compared with the 0.1% HA group, and §P < 0.05 compared with the 0.18% HA group.
<b>FIG. 3.</b>
FIG. 3.
Mean corneal smoothness scores in the EDE, 0.1% HA-treated, 0.18% HA-treated, and 0.3% HA-treated groups at day 28. *P < 0.05 compared with the EDE group, P < 0.05 compared with the BSS group, P < 0.05 compared with the 0.1% HA group, and §P < 0.05 compared with the 0.18% HA group.
<b>FIG. 4.</b>
FIG. 4.
Mean number of goblet cells (A) and representative photographs (B) of Periodic acid–Schiff stains of conjunctival specimens in the EDE, 0.1% HA-treated, 0.18% HA-treated, and 0.3% HA-treated groups at day 28. *P < 0.05 compared with the EDE group, P < 0.05 compared with the BSS group, and P < 0.05 compared with the 0.1% HA group.
<b>FIG. 5.</b>
FIG. 5.
Mean number of apoptotic cells (A) and representative photographs (B) of Terminal dUTP nick end labeling assay showing the apoptotic cells in the cornea of the EDE, 0.1% HA-treated, 0.18% HA-treated, and 0.3% HA-treated groups at day 28. *P < 0.05 compared with the EDE group, P < 0.05 compared with the BSS group, P < 0.05 compared with the 0.1% HA group, and §P < 0.05 compared with the 0.18% HA group.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 4 articles

References

    1. Craig J.P., Nichols K.K., Akpek E.K., et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul. Surf. 15:276–283, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Stapleton F., Alves M., Bunya V.Y., et al. TFOS DEWS II epidemiology report. Ocul. Surf. 15:334–365, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Willcox M.D.P., Argüeso P., Georgiev G.A., et al. TFOS DEWS II tear film report. Ocul. Surf. 15:366–403, 2017 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bron A.J., de Paiva C.S., Chauhan S.K., et al. TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul. Surf. 15:438–510, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Jones L., Downie L.E., Korb D., et al. TFOS DEWS II management and therapy report. Ocul. Surf. 15:575–628, 2017 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback