Bilateral Effect of OC-01 (Varenicline Solution) Nasal Spray for Treatment of Signs and Symptoms in Individuals with Mild, Moderate, and Severe Dry Eye Disease

Comparison of manual versus automated thermal lid therapy with expression for meibomian gland dysfunction in patients with dry eye disease

To compare two types of lipid expression procedures to treat dry eye disease. Standardized treatment and evaluation methods were used in patients treated with either manual thermoelectric lipid expression (MiBoFlo) or automated lipid expression (Lipiflow) of the Meibomian glands. This was a contemporaneous, non-randomized study of both treatment methods. Treatment was per the manufacturers' recommendation. The primary outcome included two types of dry eye questionnaires as well as objective analysis of ocular surface including tear break up time, Schirmer testing, Osmolarity, and fluorescein staining. Baseline characteristics analyzed included floppy lid, conjunctivochalasis and lagophthalmos. Statistical analysis was performed correcting for baseline factors such as age and co existing pathology using multivariable analysis. Both treatments improved the results of the OSDI and SPEED dry eye questionnaire results. Both treatments resulted in improvement of many objective findings including SPK, lissamine green staining and tear break up time with the MiBoFlo showing more improvement than Lipiflow. OSDI was more sensitive to improvement of symptoms than the SPEED questionnaire. Manual expression with MiBoFlo device resulted in statistically more improvement in questionnaire scores than did automated expression with Lipiflow. Negative prognostic factors for symptomatic improvement included blepharitis, autoimmune disease and ocular allergies. Thermal lid therapy along with mechanical expression of lipids from the meibomian glands successfully treats dry eye symptoms and signs. Manual therapy with MiBoFlo resulted in more subjective and objective improvement scores than automated therapy with the Lipiflow device.

Efficacy and safety of trigeminal parasympathetic pathway stimulation for dry eye: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of trigeminal parasympathetic pathway (TPP) stimulation in the treatment of dry eye. A comprehensive search for randomized clinical trials was performed in seven databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, etc.) up to 28 February 2023. After screening the suitable studies, the data were extracted and transformed as necessary. Data synthesis and analysis were performed using Review Manager 5.4, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated with the recommended tools. Fourteen studies enrolling 1714 patients with two methods (electrical and chemical) of TPP stimulation were included. Overall findings indicate that TPP stimulation was effective in reducing subjective symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.63 to -0.28), corneal fluorescence staining (mean difference [MD], -0.78; 95% CI, -1.39 to -0.18), goblet cell area (MD, -32.10; 95% CI, -54.58 to -9.62) and perimeter (MD, -5.90; 95% CI, -10.27 to -1.53), and increasing Schirmer's test score (SMD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.31) and tear film break-up time (SMD, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.95). Compared to inactive or low-activity stimulation controls, it has a higher incidence of adverse events. Therefore, TPP stimulation may be an effective treatment for dry eye, whether electrical or chemical. Adverse events are relatively mild and tolerable. Due to the high heterogeneity and low level of evidence, the current conclusions require to be further verified.

Novel treatments for dry eye syndrome

Dry eye syndrome (DES) is a prevalent and multifactorial disease that leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of inflammation and damage to the ocular surface. This results in symptoms such as redness, burning, and blurred vision, which can negatively affect a patient's quality of life. While treatments are available to manage DES, they only temporarily relieve symptoms. Furthermore, long-term use of certain medications can cause harm to the ocular surface. Therefore, there is a need for safer and effective treatments for DES. This review highlights the latest advancements in DES therapy, providing valuable insights into ongoing efforts to improve patient outcomes.

Efficacy of bilateral OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray in alleviating signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of OC-01 varenicline nasal spray versus vehicle nasal spray (VNS) in the treatment in dry eye disease (DED).

METHODS

A systematic review that included full-length randomized controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on OC-01 VNS treatment in three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period included studies published between December 2021 and September 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyze the quality of the studies selected.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. OC-01 VNS treatment achieved higher improvement than vehicle in all reported variables. The mean differences between both groups were in favor of OC-01 VNS treatment and were as follow: eye dryness score base on a visual analogue scale (EDS-VAS) of -7.5 ± 2.2 points [-11.6 to -5.6], Schirmer test (ST) with anesthesia of 6.6 ± 2.3 mm [4.9 to 11.8] and total corneal fluorescein staining (tCFS) of -1.2 ± 0.01 points [-1.2 to -1.1]. Similar improvements were reported with OC-01 VNS 0.03 mg and 0.06 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were 15.5 ± 19.4 % [-13 to 80.5] higher in the OC-01 VNS group with an overall adherence > 93 %.

CONCLUSIONS

OC-01 VNS improves dry eye symptoms and signs with a satisfactory tolerability. Therefore, OC-01 VNS seems to be a safe and effective treatment that could be recommended in patients with DED. This new treatment could be particularly useful in those patients who have difficulties with the administration of traditional topical therapies.