Clinical Outcomes of Fixed Versus As-Needed Use of Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A 6-Week, Observer-Masked Phase 4 Clinical Trial

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical effects of using fixed (four times daily [QID]) versus as-needed (PRN) dosing of an artificial tear product (polyethylene glycol/propylene glycol [PEG/PG]; Systane Ultra) in individuals with dry eye disease.

Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, observer-masked, active-control, parallel-group trial, participants were randomized (1:2 allocation) to receive 1 drop of PEG/PG QID (n = 34) or PRN (n = 63) for 28 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the total ocular surface staining (TOSS) score (according to the Oxford scale) at day 28.

Results: At day 28, the change from baseline in least squares mean (LSM) TOSS scores for QID and PRN groups were -1.19 and -0.94, respectively (treatment difference [TD]: -0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -∞ to 0.21; P = 0.184); superiority of QID versus PRN dosing was not established, as the upper limit of one-sided 95% CI for TD was not <0 (prespecified limit). At day 28, for QID and PRN groups, the LSM change from baseline in Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) scores was symptom-bother, -7.0 and -2.94 (TD: -4.06, P = 0.037); treatment effectiveness, 2.43 and 0.16 (TD: 2.28, P = 0.278); and treatment-related inconvenience, -11.56 and -2.77 (TD: -8.8, P = 0.996), respectively. Incidence of adverse events was low (≤3.2%) in both the groups; no serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions: QID dosing of PEG/PG was not superior to PRN dosing in terms of ocular staining. The IDEEL symptom-bother score favored QID dosing, suggesting that regular use of artificial tears may provide better symptomatic relief than PRN use. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446015.).