Longitudinal trial evaluates HP-Guar nano-emulsion artificial tears' impact on symptoms and severity of MGD in dry eye, suggesting potential benefits.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether hydroxypropyl-guar (HP-Guar) nano-emulsion artificial tears improve symptoms, quality of life, severity of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and evaporative dry eye (EDE)-related parameters in mild-to-moderate EDE participants over 90 days. METHODS: Fifty-one mild-to-moderate EDE participants were recruited for a single-masked, longitudinal clinical trial without a control group or placebo. Inclusion criteria comprised: Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) between 13-32 points; at least one positive diagnostic sign (Non-Invasive Tear Break-Up Time [NIBUT] <10 s and/or corneal staining >1) and two classification signs (Tear Meniscus Height [TMH] ≥0.20 and ≤0.50 mm and MGD score ≥5 points). Participants applied 1-2 drops of HP-Guar nano-emulsion artificial tears per eye, four times daily for 90 days, with follow-up assessments at baseline, 30, 60 and 90 days. Three groups of tests were conducted each session: DED symptomatology and quality of life (OSDI, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level [EQ-5D-5L]), MGD severity (MGD score, meibomian gland loss area [MGLA]) and EDE-related parameters (meibomian gland expression [MGE], Meibometry, lipid layer pattern (LLP), NIBUT, ocular redness and corneal staining). RESULTS: Significant differences in OSDI score, EQ-5D-5L in the 'Healthy today' scale, MGD score, lower eyelid MGLA and LLP were observed across sessions (all p ≤ 0.03). However, no significant differences were found in EQ-5D-5L score, upper eyelid MGLA, MGE, Meibometry, NIBUT-first, NIBUT-average, limbal or bulbar redness in any area or corneal staining (all p ≥ 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: This 90‑day single‑masked study without a control group found that HP‑Guar nano‑emulsion eye drops were associated with improvements in symptoms, perceived health and MGD‑related signs. These findings are exploratory and require confirmation in controlled trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pena‐Verdeal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: