Study design
A randomized, double-blind, placebo–controlled study was conducted on 60 consecutive patients with dry eye disease in Farabi Eye Hospital (Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran). Before any study –specific investigation, each participant provided a written informed consent form.
The Ethics Committee of Shahed University approved the protocol (approval number: 4/1196) before the study was initiated. Also, the trial was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with the registration number of IRCT 2015032621540N1.
Study population
Eligible patients were age 30-60 years with a history of dry eye disease for at least 6 months. In addition, they were required to meet the following inclusion criteria presenting at least one symptom of dryness, grittiness or foreign body sensation and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire score ≥12. In addition, patients with a history of other eye diseases or ocular interventions (including pterygium, chemical eye burning, refractive surgery, punctual plug and punctual occlusion), chronic systemic disease (including thyroid eye disease, diabetes, and graft –versus- host disease), active eye infection, allergy to any ingredients of the study medicine, and those receiving any chronic systemic medications (antihistamines, antidepressants, diuretics and corticosteroids) or dose alterations during the study were excluded from the study.
Study intervention
Patients were randomly allocated to receive either herbal eye drop or placebo (distilled water) four times a day.
Herbal eye drop was administered in 20 mL white drop bottles (containing 15 mL of solution) with white caps. Placebo was also supplied in identical drop bottles.
The patients were instructed to use their study medication (or placebo) in both eyes, four times a day. They were also allowed to use a preservative-free lubricant eye drop, four times daily, during the study period. The preservative-free lubricant eye drops (Artelac, Dr. Gerhard Mann, Chem.-pharm. Fabrik GmbH, Berlin, Germany) were supplied in unit dose containers. To avoid washing out the study medication, the patients were instructed to apply 10 min interval between instillation of the medication.
CONSORT flow chart of the study
| Variable | P. ovata | Placebo | P |
|---|
| Age (years) (Mean ± SD) | 48.5 ± 9.8 | 46.07 ± 12.04 | 0.39 |
| Female/Male, n | 24/6 | 23/7 | 0.75 |
| Educational level | | | |
| ≤ High school, n | 26 | 23 | 0.67 |
| ≥ Bachelor’s degree | 4 | 7 | |
| OSDI score baseline (Mean ± SD) | 47.5 ± 17.85 | 43.06 ± 15.89 | 0.31 |
| Breakup time score baseline, s (Mean ± SD) | 9.59 ± 5.56 | 9.77 ± 6.78 | 0.09 |
| Schirmer score baseline, s (Mean ± SD) | 9.91 ± 9.05 | 13.07 ± 9.7 | 0.74 |
| Osmolarity score baseline (Mean ± SD) | 300.52 ± 5.56 | 305.61 ± 18.77 | 0.71 |
| Test | | P. ovata | Placebo | P (between groups) |
|---|
| Baseline (Mean ± SD) | 47.5 ± 17.85 | 43.06 ± 15.89 | <0.0001 |
| OSDI total | 6 week after treatment (Mean ± SD) | 18.39 ± 8.95 | 36.5 ± 16.58 |
| P (within group) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Sensitive to light | Baseline (Mean ± SD)6 week after treatment(Mean ± SD) | 3.33 ± 0.841.33 ± 0.95 | 2.46 ± 1.400.000 | 1.96 ± 1.29 |
| P (within group) | <0.0001 | 0.005 |
| Grittiness | Baseline (Mean ± SD) 6 week after treatment (Mean ± SD) | 2.63 ± 1.320.80 ± 0.80 | 2.63 ± 1.350.000 | 2.06 ± 1.28 |
| P (within group) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Burning | Baseline (Mean ± SD) 6 week after treatment (Mean ± SD) | 1.80 ± 1.420.43 ± 0.62 | 1.83 ± 1.170.000 | 1.33 ± 0.99 |
| P (within group) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Baseline (Mean ± SD) | 1.03 ± 1.09 | 0.99 ± 1.02 |
| Test | | P. ovata | Placebo | P (between groups) |
|---|
| Baseline (Mean ± SD) | 9.59 ± 5.56 | 9.77 ± 6.78 | |
| NI-BUT 6 week after treatment(Mean ± SD) | 12.75 ± 6.25 | 9.42 ± | 6.52 0.09 |
| P (within group) | 0.004 | 0.856 |
| Baseline (Mean ± SD)Schirmer test 6 week after treatment (Mean ± SD) | 9.91 ± 9.0512.1 ± 10.81 | 13.07 ± 9.7311.65 ± 9.03 | 0.74 |
| P (within group) | 0.15 | 0.46 |
| Baseline (Mean ± SD) | 300.52 ± 5.56 | 305.61 ± 18.77 |
Formulation and standardization of herbal eye drop
Seeds of the Plantago ovata (family Plantaginaceae) were identified by an expert staff botanist, and are kept at the herbarium of the School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, under the voucher number PMP-751. Eight grams of Plantago ovata husk was soaked in 100 mL distilled water for 12 h. Then, the material was squeezed through muslin cloth for filtering and extracting out the mucilage content.
The separated mucilage was dried in oven at temperature less than 60 °C, and then was powdered and stored in a desiccator. For preparation of the eye drop solution, 1 g of mucilage powder was dissolved in 100 mL distilled water and then filled in 20 mL drop containers. Autoclaving at 121 °C for 15 min was used for sterilization of the final product (
49). For standardization of herbal drop, total polysaccharide content of the solution was determined according to the procedure of Dubois
et al. (
50). The total polysaccharide content of
P. ovata eye drop was found to be 0.35 µg/mL (mean of three determinations).
Randomization
Eligible patients were randomly assigned corresponding to allocation code for drug and placebo groups by using a block –randomization list (non–stratified with equal–length blocks) obtained by Microsoft Excel 2010 program.
Study outcomes
Selected patients enrolled in the study and underwent one baseline and 2 follow up evaluations. At follow up1 (baseline), patients signed an informed consent and their symptoms were assessed according to OSDI questionnaire. The OSDI questionnaire is a 12-item questionnaire with score ranging from 0 to 100 and contains three subscales: ocular discomfort symptoms (OSDI- symptoms), vision-related function (OSDI- function) and environmental triggers (OSDI –triggers) (
4). At this stage, the objective symptoms were also examined with this order: Osmolarity test with Tear Lab Osmolarity System (TearLab Corp), Noninvasive tear film break-up time (NI-BUT) with keratograph, measured by OCULUS Keratograph 5M), and Schirmer test without anesthesia. The same procedure and outcome determination were carried out at the follow up3, in the week 6 of intervention (end of study).
At follow up2, which was a call visit at week 4 of the treatment period, the patients were asked to report any symptoms after the initiation of treatment, as well as duration and the severity of the symptoms. The severity of symptoms were evaluated as mild (no action taken), moderate (limiting daily activities such as reading, driving at night, watching TV and working on the computer), or severe (limiting personal activities).
Safety evaluation included caring about any possible adverse events, and examining visual acuity and ophthalmologic examinations using slit-lamp.
Sample size estimation and Statistical analyses
A sample size of 34 in each group was estimated with α = 0.05 and the study power of 80%. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between groups, when their distributions were not normal.
Similarly, within-group treatment effects (before and after intervention) were compared using the Wilcoxon test. P-values < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. All of the statistical analyses were performed using statistical package for the social sciences, version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).