Hypochlorous acid hygiene solution in patients affected by blepharitis: a prospective randomised study.
Eye Lids
Microbiology
Treatment Medical
Journal
BMJ open ophthalmology
ISSN: 2397-3269
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101714806
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Dec 2023
07 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
20
11
2022
accepted:
02
09
2023
medline:
13
12
2023
pubmed:
13
12
2023
entrez:
13
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate the clinical outcomes and antimicrobial activity of an hypochlorous acid hygiene solution compared with hyaluronic acid wipes for blepharitis treatment in patients with dry eye disease (DED). This study involved 48 eyes of 48 patients affected by blepharitis with mild to moderate DED. 24 patients were treated with a hypochlorous acid hygiene solution (HOCL group) and 24 patients were treated with hyaluronic acid wipes (HYAL group) for a period of 4 weeks. The following clinical outcomes were assessed before (V0) and after the treatment period (V1): non-invasive keratograph break up time (NIK-BUT), tear film BUT (TF-BUT) tear meniscus height (TMH), Keratograph meibography, Meibomian Gland Yield Secretion Score (MGYSS), Corneal Staining Score (CSS), Schirmer test I, Keratograph conjunctival redness score and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Moreover, microbiological analysis of upper and lower eyelid margins was performed at V0 both before and 5 min after treatment. After 1-month NIK-BUT and TF-BUT significantly increased in HOCL group, while they did not show a statistically significant difference in HYAL group compared with baseline. OSDI, TMH and MGYSS showed a significant difference in both groups, while Schirmer test, meibography, CSS and conjunctival redness score did not significantly change in both groups. Bacterial load showed a significant reduction in both groups, more pronounced in HOCL group compared with HYAL group. Hypochlorous acid hygiene solution can be securely employed in blepharitis treatment considering the satisfying clinical outcomes and antimicrobial activity compared with hyaluronic acid wipes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the clinical outcomes and antimicrobial activity of an hypochlorous acid hygiene solution compared with hyaluronic acid wipes for blepharitis treatment in patients with dry eye disease (DED).
METHODS
METHODS
This study involved 48 eyes of 48 patients affected by blepharitis with mild to moderate DED. 24 patients were treated with a hypochlorous acid hygiene solution (HOCL group) and 24 patients were treated with hyaluronic acid wipes (HYAL group) for a period of 4 weeks. The following clinical outcomes were assessed before (V0) and after the treatment period (V1): non-invasive keratograph break up time (NIK-BUT), tear film BUT (TF-BUT) tear meniscus height (TMH), Keratograph meibography, Meibomian Gland Yield Secretion Score (MGYSS), Corneal Staining Score (CSS), Schirmer test I, Keratograph conjunctival redness score and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Moreover, microbiological analysis of upper and lower eyelid margins was performed at V0 both before and 5 min after treatment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After 1-month NIK-BUT and TF-BUT significantly increased in HOCL group, while they did not show a statistically significant difference in HYAL group compared with baseline. OSDI, TMH and MGYSS showed a significant difference in both groups, while Schirmer test, meibography, CSS and conjunctival redness score did not significantly change in both groups. Bacterial load showed a significant reduction in both groups, more pronounced in HOCL group compared with HYAL group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Hypochlorous acid hygiene solution can be securely employed in blepharitis treatment considering the satisfying clinical outcomes and antimicrobial activity compared with hyaluronic acid wipes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38088255
pii: bmjophth-2022-001209
doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2022-001209
pmc: PMC10711848
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Optom Vis Sci. 2021 Sep 1;98(9):1113-1121
pubmed: 34510155
Can J Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct;55(5):424-436
pubmed: 32835674
Ophthalmology. 2019 Jan;126(1):P56-P93
pubmed: 30366800
Eye (Lond). 2021 Oct;35(10):2657-2659
pubmed: 33594245
Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr 15;9:657-64
pubmed: 25931806
Dis Markers. 2022 Jan 05;2022:8631038
pubmed: 35035613
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD005556
pubmed: 22592706
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Mar 30;52(4):1930-7
pubmed: 21450914
Arch Ophthalmol. 2000 May;118(5):615-21
pubmed: 10815152
Surv Ophthalmol. 2020 Mar - Apr;65(2):205-217
pubmed: 31494111
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019 Dec;42(6):591-597
pubmed: 31635938
Clin Optom (Auckl). 2016 Aug 08;8:71-78
pubmed: 30214351
Eye Contact Lens. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 2:S187-S191
pubmed: 29369234
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep;61(5):369-377
pubmed: 28597192
Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr 13;11:707-714
pubmed: 28458509
Adv Ther. 2020 Apr;37(4):1664-1674
pubmed: 32185729
Ocul Surf. 2018 Jan;16(1):77-83
pubmed: 29128682
Transpl Infect Dis. 2019 Aug;21(4):e13123
pubmed: 31165536
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 25;9(1):2683
pubmed: 30804362
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015 Jul;26(4):289-94
pubmed: 26058027