Purpose To compare the safety and efficacy of polyacrylic acid 0.2% (PAA) gel and polyvinylalcohol 1.4% (PVA) in the treatment of patients with dry eyes. Methods Eighty-nine patients with dry eyes were randomly allocated to treatment with either PAA (48) or PVA (41) in a prospective, investigator-masked study in two centres. The parameters assessed were daily frequency of instillation of the study medications, ocular signs and symptoms, tear film break up time, Schirmer's test values, local tolerance and global assessment of the improvement following treatment. Results The two groups were similar in patient demographics and study parameters at baseline. The total score of symptoms (gritty or foreign body sensation, burning sensation, dry eye sensation, photophobia, others) and signs (conjunctival hyperaemia, ciliary injection, corneal and conjunctival epithelial staining) was reduced significantly more by treatment with PAA than with PVA at both three and six weeks (p<0.0001). The daily frequency of instillation of PAA was significantly less than that PVA on 38 of the 41 (93%) study days. Both PAA and PVA were safe and equally well-tolerated except for blurred vision, usually mild and transient, on PAA. On global assessment of the improvement in their dry eye condition, significantly more PAA patients felt better on treatment at six (p=0.02) weeks compared with those on PVA. Conclusions Polyacrylic acid gel was as safe as and more effective than polyvinylalcohol in the treatment of patients with dry eyes.
Possible mechanisms for the enhancement of rectal absorption of hydrophilic drugs and polypeptides by aqueous polyacrylic acid gel.
