Dry eye disease (DED) is a chronic ocular surface disorder often characterized by decreased tear production and rapid tear evaporation that affect tear film stability and homeostasis. The common symptoms of DED include ocular discomfort, visual disturbances, dryness, and itching. Artificial tears are the mainstay of DED management and supplement one or more layers of the tear film. Artificial tear drops are available as a combination of viscosity-enhancing agents (demulcents/lubricants), humectants, and buffers either with or without preservatives. Artificial tears, as a combination of components (polymers/demulcents/viscosity-enhancing agents), can provide synergistic action compared with a single component for the management of multifactorial signs and symptoms of DED. This review describes the formulation components, physicochemical properties, mechanism of action, and summary of preclinical and clinical evidence on the hydroxypropyl guar-hyaluronic acid (HPG-HA) dual-polymer lubricant eye drops (SYSTANE™ HYDRATION). The dual-polymer eye drops consist of dual demulcents (propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol 400) and the polymers hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) and hyaluronic acid (HA). When instilled on the ocular surface, HPG forms a cross-linked gel matrix with borate ions that prolongs the retention of demulcents, thus providing long-lasting lubrication and ocular surface protection. Additionally, HA stabilizes the tear film, increases corneal wettability, and reduces friction during blinks due to its hygroscopic and viscoelastic properties. Preclinical evidence demonstrates that HPG HA dual-polymer lubricant eye drops provide protection against desiccation by cell hydration and surface retention, cell barrier protection, prolonged lubrication, and promotion of corneal re-epithelialization. Clinical scientific evidence demonstrates that HPG HA dual-polymer lubricant eye drops are safe and effective in the management of DED. Specifically, they reduce the signs and symptoms of DED, reduce dry eye symptoms post-cataract surgery, and improve tear film quality in healthy eyes.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a highly prevalent and debilitating condition. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a naturally occurring glycosaminoglycan that has a long history as a safe and effective DED treatment. HA is frequently used as a comparator when assessing other topical DED treatments. This study aims to summarise and critically evaluate the literature describing all isolated active ingredients that have been directly compared with HA in the treatment of DED. A literature search was conducted in Embase using Ovid on the 24th of August 2021 and in PubMed including MEDLINE on the 20th of September 2021. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials. Seventeen different ingredients representing six treatment categories were compared with HA treatment. Most measures showed no significant difference between treatments, suggesting either equivalency of treatments or that studies were underpowered. Only two ingredients were represented in more than two studies; carboxymethyl cellulose treatment appears equivalent to HA treatment, while Diquafosol treatment appears superior to HA treatment. Drop-frequency varied from one to eight drops daily. No single study explained the choice of drop frequency. Nine studies used a HA concentration of 0.1% which may be below therapeutic levels. Nine studies reported using preserved formulations, six of them with differences in preservatives between the compared groups. Thirteen studies were financially linked to industry. No major complications were reported. Studies were not designed to find differences in treatment effects for different types or severities of DED. HA is a good comparator treatment when assessing other DED treatments, although consensus after decades of use is still lacking for best choice of concentration, molecular weight and drop tonicity. Well-designed studies are needed to determine an evidence-based standard for HA treatment to be used as comparator.

Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO registration CRD42022369619) comparing the efficacy of artificial tears in patients with dry eye to inform prescribing choices using Web of Science, PubMed and Medline databases identified 64 relevant articles. There is good evidence that artificial tears improve symptoms of dry eye disease within a month of regular use, applied about four times a day, but signs generally take several months to improve. Not all patients with dry eye disease benefit from artificial tears, so if there is no benefit over a month, alternative management should be considered. Combination formulations are more effective than single active ingredient artificial tears. Artificial tears containing polyethylene glycol are more effective than those containing carboxymethylcellulose/carmellose sodium and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Those classified as having evaporative dry eye disease, benefit from artificial tears with liposomes, especially of higher concentration. The data available is limited by the definition of dry eye disease applied in published studies being variable, as well as the disease severity examined and compliance with artificial tears being rarely quantified.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that compromises the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years, a scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED.
Electronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, tear film break-up time, Schirmer test score, VRQoL Score, and tear film osmolarity. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a fixed effect model if heterogeneity ≤ 50% or a random effect model if heterogeneity > 50%. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively.
Based on the evidence obtained, we will evaluate the effect of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process.
PROSPERO CRD42020218407 .

The purpose of this work was to review the safety and efficacy of topical artificial tears and rewetting drops with contact lenses (CLs) and the ocular surface.
Manuscripts were obtained by searching PubMed with the term \"contact lens\" and \"artificial tears\" or \"rewetting drops\" or \"lubricant\". Recovered texts were searched to find additional references. No date exclusions were applied, though only articles written in English were included.
Preserved and non-preserved artificial tears and rewetting drops are commonly used before and after, and sometimes directly with CLs to treat CL discomfort, or ocular surface disease and to minimize the impact of wearing a CL. Data suggest that all of these products are generally safe and effective and have a minimal impact on the ocular surface when used with CLs, especially if the drops are preservative free. Data likewise suggests that comfort drops may keep CLs cleaner and improve ocular surface health.
Over-the-counter, topical, artificial tears and rewetting drops are safe and effective to use with CLs. Non-preserved drops should be used when possible to avoid eye irritation; however, if preservative-containing drops are used, preservatives that have demonstrated safety profiles should be selected rather than drops containing benzalkonium chloride or thimerosal.

The symptom severity of patients with dry eye disease (DED) varies over a 24-hour period. It is typically worse upon waking than later in the morning and deteriorates towards the evening. Substantial differences in the characteristics and physical properties of the tear film, such as levels of inflammation, pH, osmolarity, volume and stability, also exist between night (sleeping) and day (waking), and over the course of the day itself. Data on diurnal variation in symptom severity and tear film characteristics have been reviewed to recommend a management strategy that supports the various needs of patients with DED over a full 24-hour period. Treatment strategies for DED must be matched to the variations in the severity of DED and to the environments that eyes are subjected to over a 24-hour period. While artificial tears are used to moisturise the ocular surface and reduce damage to the corneal epithelium during the day, gels are used at night-time; they are more viscous and have a longer ocular surface retention time than artificial tears. Several combinations of these products are currently available in tandem to support the 24-hour variation in tear film characteristics. The present review of published literature provides evidence that the approach of the daytime use of artificial tears to protect the eye from aggravating environmental factors in combination with the night-time use of gels to relieve more severe symptomatology. This, in turn, should provide optimal \'around-the-clock\' DED management.

Several aspects of the quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction of patients with dry eye disease (DED) may be underestimated. Ocular symptoms, which are assessed by validated patient-reported questionnaires and may include stinging, burning, itchiness, grittiness, dryness and discomfort, reduce QoL by affecting daily activities and work productivity. Self-reported symptoms do not always correlate with post-treatment improvements in clinical measures such as tear film break-up time, inflammation and osmolarity. Thus, treatments may improve clinical ocular features without improving symptoms that affect daily life. This review explores 1500 abstracts from congress presentations and peer-reviewed journals for QoL and treatment satisfaction data on the use of active lubricants, osmoprotectants, secretagogues, and immunomodulators present in topical formulations for DED treatment, and validated symptom questionnaires. Patient-reported symptoms of DED are generally improved after treatment with topical formulations for tear replacement, tear stimulation or anti-inflammatory therapy compared with baseline or a control treatment. However, more data are required to compare the performance of active ingredients. It is fundamental to diagnose patients with DED accurately, recognising the major cause behind their dry eyes. Studies are also necessary to identify how patient satisfaction and QoL may be improved through long-term use of topical preparations. We conclude that careful and thorough consideration of patient-reported symptoms should be integrated into DED management to help tailor treatment to patient needs.

Numerous brands and types of artificial tears are available on the market for the treatment of dysfunctional tear syndrome. Past literature has focused on comparing the components of these products on patient\'s clinical improvement. The wide array of products on the market presents challenges to both clinicians and patients when trying to choose between available tear replacement therapies. Different formulations affect patients based on etiology and severity of disease. In order to provide an unbiased comparison between available tear replacement therapies, we conducted a literature review of existing studies and National Institutes of Health clinical trials on commercially available, brand name artificial tears. Outcomes evaluated in each study, as well as the percent of patients showing clinical and symptomatic improvement, were analyzed. Fifty-one studies evaluating different brands of artificial tears, and their efficacy were identified. Out of the 51 studies, 18 were comparison studies testing brand name artificial tears directly against each other. Nearly all formulations of artificial tears provided significant benefit to patients with dysfunctional tear syndrome, but some proved superior to others. From the study data, a recommended treatment flowchart was derived.

OBJECTIVE: To review outcomes of studies where fluorescein-tear breakup time (fTBUT) measurements had been made before and after treatment with artificial tears.
METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles were identified that reported average values for fTBUT before and after approximately 1 month of treatment of dry eye with aqueous-based artificial tears. 48 data sets were used for calculating the net (percentage) change in fTBUT, with 21 including information of variability (as reported SD of average value) of the fTBUT data suitable for a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Prior to treatment, average fTBUT values ranged from 0.9 s to 11.8 s (group mean 4.7 +/- 1.7 s, n = 48 data sets). After treatment, these values ranged from 2.2 to 10.7 s (group mean 6.1 +/- 2.3 s; P<.001), with net increase for the treatment effect being 1.4 +/- 1.2 s (range - 1.4 to + 4.5 s). Similar changes were reported regardless of the type of product type. The meta-analysis confirmed a net effect at 1.3 s, with the magnitude of the variability (as a weighted SE) having a similar overall value of 1.1 s.
CONCLUSIONS: Following use of \'artificial tears\' by dry eye patients, a small but predictable increase in tear film stability has generally been reported, the net magnitude of which is close to a 33% improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To review the use of ophthalmic rose bengal to assess the ocular surface, especially considering the grading scales used.
METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify reports where either rose bengal or lissamine green had been used as a \'vital\' stain, with a special interest in identifying studies that provided data before and after treatment for dry eye and also considered the mechanism of action of these two chemicals.
RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2006, numerous clinical studies used a consistent grading scheme (that attributed to Van Bijsterveld) to assess the outcome of artificial tear treatments on dry eye patients. With such consistency, including the adoption of a treatment period of 1 month, comparisons can be made to indicate the efficacy of rose bengal staining to assess reduction in ocular surface desiccation. However, in the following years, several alternative grading schemes have been used for both rose bengal and lissamine green and assessment periods have been variable so making inter-study comparisons considerably more difficult to undertake. An attribute of rose bengal appears to be its ability to stain the nuclei of cells, but whether this also occurs for lissamine green is unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic rose bengal has been successfully adopted for use to assess the ocular surface over many years as a vital stain. More research is needed to assess whether lissamine green ocular surface staining can simply be substituted for rose bengal in evaluation of dry eye treatments.