Comparing signs and symptoms of dry eye treated with organic versus conventional lubricant eye drops

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate and compare changes in symptoms, signs, and clinical tests between two different lubricant eye drop treatments in patients with dry eye secondary to Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: This prospective clinical study included 20 symptomatic patients with MGD-induced dry eye. Participants who were diagnosed with dry eye were treated with either a certified organic artificial tear (AT) (O group) or a non-organic AT (C group) for 4 weeks and re-evaluated. Both treatments consisted of the same active ingredient, glycerin. The findings from the first and second visit were assessed. Differences between the effect of each treatment on signs and symptoms were analyzed. Dry eye symptoms, subjective wellness, tear break-up time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, and lid margin assessment were the variables evaluated. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated improvements in objective tests, symptoms, and wellness. A larger percentage of patients in the C group reported symptomatic improvement, which was greater than in the O group. The O group exhibited a higher average improvement in wellness as well as greater improvement in TBUT and tear osmolarity than the C group. Conclusion: Conventional and organic lubricant eye drops both achieved clinical improvements in the signs and symptoms of MGD-induced Evaporative dry eye (EDE). Organic eye drops demonstrated a greater effect on overall wellness, TBUT, and tear osmolarity.