Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Lyra, Adriana Falcão Veloso; Bastos, Lílian Correia; Lima, Raquel Coelho de Souza; Maranhão, Lúcio de Vieira Leite; Arantes, Tiago Eugênio Faria e

doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20140025

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In final analysis the therapeutic response did show an improvement on incomes in group treated with ketorolac (0.5%) 28 . On the other hand, in a study from Recife, Brazil, the authors, evaluating fifty patients with symptoms of acute viral conjunctivitis, a group of twenty-four patients treated with ketorolac (0.45%) plus carboximetilcelulose and the other group with twenty-six patients received artificial tears, demonstrated no statistical difference between the two types of treatment 29 .…”

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Comparative study on the efficacy of non-steroidal, steroid and non-use of anti-inflammatory in the treatment of acute epidemic conjunctivitis

Santiago¹,

Silva

Azevedo³

et al. 2019

Acta Cir. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Comparative study on the efficacy of non-steroidal, steroid and non-use of anti-inflammatory in the treatment of acute epidemic conjunctivitis

Santiago¹,

Silva

Azevedo³

et al. 2019

Acta Cir. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of the references and citations did not yield any additional articles. Thirty-two studies were included in the analysis; of these, 11 had a methodological quality level of 1 or 2 (details of the included studies appear in eTable 1 in the Supplement). These studies included 24 case series, 5 randomized clinical trials, 1 nonrandomized comparative trial, and 2 cohort studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does This Patient With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis Have a Bacterial Infection?

Johnson

Liu

Simel

2022

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Acute infectious conjunctivitis is characterized by ocular redness and discharge, and is a common clinical entity. Evidence-based tools to aid the clinical diagnosis of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis are lacking and may contribute to overprescribing of topical antibiotics.OBJECTIVE To determine the relative prevalence of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis in adults and children, and to determine which symptoms or signs are suggestive of a viral vs bacterial etiology.DATA SOURCES A MEDLINE search (January 1946-March 2022) yielded 1891 articles. Included articles were rated using a quality score based on a modified Rational Clinical Examination grading system. Methodological quality levels 1 through 4 required a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis, whereas quality level 5 (the lowest quality) used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis.STUDY SELECTION Consecutive series of patients presenting with acute infectious conjunctivitis and case series of viral or bacterial conjunctivitis alone. Thirty-two studies were included in a meta-analysis to determine prevalence and diagnostic accuracy measures; 27 used a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis and 5 used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis. RESULTSIn studies involving children (5 studies; 881 patients; mean age, 4.7 years [age range, 1 month-18 years]), the prevalence of bacterial conjunctivitis was higher than viral conjunctivitis (71% vs 16%, respectively, P = .01). In the only study of adults (n = 207 patients; mean age, 25.7 years), the prevalence of viral conjunctivitis was higher than bacterial conjunctivitis (78% vs 16%, respectively, P < .001). For the primary analysis of level 1 (n = 6) and level 2 (n = 5) studies (1725 patients total), the clinical findings that best distinguished a viral etiology for conjunctivitis from a bacterial etiology included pharyngitis (sensitivity range, 0.55-0.58; specificity range, 0.89-0.94; positive likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.4-9.9), preauricular lymphadenopathy (sensitivity range, 0.17-0.31; specificity range, 0.93-0.94; positive LR range, 2.5-5.6), and contact with another person with red eye (

show abstract

“…Follicles on the palpebral conjunctiva and punctate epithelial lesions on the cornea may also be observed. It has been shown that 0.5% topical ketorolac, 94 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine, 95 and 1% prednisolone acetate 96 are no better in relieving signs or symptoms of viral conjunctivitis compared to artificial tears.…”

Section: Other Therapeutic Functions Of Artificial Tearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review

Semp¹,

Beeson²,

Sheppard³

et al. 2023

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Comparative study on the efficacy of non-steroidal, steroid and non-use of anti-inflammatory in the treatment of acute epidemic conjunctivitis

Comparative study on the efficacy of non-steroidal, steroid and non-use of anti-inflammatory in the treatment of acute epidemic conjunctivitis

Does This Patient With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis Have a Bacterial Infection?

Artificial Tears: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About