Clinical efficacy of Refresh Tears compared to Tears Naturale Free A prospective, randomised clinica

1
Clinical efficacy of Refresh Tears compared to
Tears Naturale Free - A prospective, randomised
clinical trial Colin S.H. Tan, Chee-Chew Yip,
Alex K.H. Lau, Li-Wern VoonThe Eye Institute at
Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Healthcare
Group, Singapore

• Objective
• To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of
  Refresh Tears (with Purite preservative) against
  Tears Naturale Free (preservative free) in dry
  eye patients
• Methods
• Prospective, randomised, single-masked clinical
  trial.
• 68 patients (136 eyes) randomised to receive
  either RT or TNF to both eyes 4 times a day for 3
  months.
• Inclusion criteria
• 18 years of age
• Schirmers (without anesthesia) 10mm over 5 min
  in both eyes
• Dry eye symptoms including irritation, redness,
  discomfort, photosensitivity
• Exclusion criteria
• Co-existing ocular pathology
• Previous anterior segment surgery
• Use of punctal plugs
• Assessment
• 3 masked investigators at baseline, 1 week, 1
  month 3 months

• Results
• The 2 groups were comparable at baseline for age,
  sex and all dry eye parameters (all pgt0.05)
• Changes in parameters for each group and between
  groups after treatment shown below

1 t-test 2 Wilcoxon Signed Rank test

• Conclusion
• Both artificial tears are comparable in terms of
  efficacy and tolerability in dry eye treatment
• Both Refresh Tears and Tears Naturale Free
  demonstrate an improvement in dry eye parameters
  after 3 months of treatment