Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of Emustil drops for ocular discomfort and tear film osmolarity using different treatment management modes under dry environmental conditions

BMC Ophthalmology volume 24, Article number: 129 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

We aimed to check the efficacy of Emustil (oil in water emulsion) drops on tear film index and ocular surface dynamics in dry environments through protection and relief treatment modalities.

Methods

The subjects were exposed to a dry environment using a Controlled Environment Chamber (CEC) where the relative humidity (RH) was 5% and the temperature was 21 °C and screened for ocular symptoms, tear osmolarity, ocular surface temperature (OST) and tear production using ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire (OSDI), OcuSense TearLab Osmometer, FLIR System ThermaCAM P620 and Schirmer strips/phenol red test respectively. Tear production was calculated by the Tear Function Index test (TFI).

Results

The mean tear film osmolarity decreased significantly from 296.8 mOsm/l at 40% RH to 291 mOsm/l at 5%. (p = 0.01). Instillation of Emustil resulted in a significant increase in tear osmolarity in the relief method compared with osmolarity seen at 5% RH when no drop was used. The mean PRT value decreased from 26 ± 9 in normal conditions (40% RH) to 22 ± 4 mm in dry conditions (5% RH). Emustil drops did not induce any significant change in tear production in the PRT test. No significant change was found in OST following exposure to 5% RH. OST did not show a statistically significant change with the emulsion when used for relief (p > 0.05). The mean score of ocular discomfort observed was 70 at 5% RH. Still, the instillation of the oil-in-water emulsion (Emustil) resulted in a noticeable decrease in visual discomfort to 37 (p = 0.00) in protection and 59 in relief (p = 0.05). Emustil drops substantially improved tear film parameters under a desiccating environment, however, tear film parameters respond differently to the management modalities. In the protection method, tear film osmolarity was protected against a dry environment, while in the relief mode, tear production was improved.

Conclusion

CEC allows for a thorough evaluation of tear film parameters and dry eye treatment protocols in labs, providing greater confidence when applying them to patients. In addition, our study showed that Emustil not only provides protection and relief for dry eyes but also helps to maintain ocular homeostasis in desiccating environments. This indicates a promising potential for improving dry eye treatment protocols.

Key points

What is known

• Ocular surface discomfort experienced in dry environment conditions could result from the physical alteration of the tear film dynamics. Artificial tears and lubricants are commonly used to treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye, however, the main drawback of most of these formulations is the short retention time as the solution can easily drain via the lacrimal drainage system.

• To analyse the efficacy of eye drops various experimental methodologies have been developed. These methods have many limitations including a lack of accurate control of the relative humidity and exposing the eye to an airflow that may have induced an additional effect on reflex lacrimation.

What is new

• The effect of the environment on the tear film dynamics and efficacy of oil in water emulsion has been investigated by several studies, however, they were carried out under normal environmental conditions. As yet, no studies have been carried out to examine the effect of immediate acute effect of oil-in-water when used under adverse conditions in normal healthy subjects or dry eye patients.

• A new technique of inducing signs and symptoms of dry eye by exposing normal subjects to a desiccating environment [5% relative humidity (RH)] was utilized using a controlled environmental chamber (CEC). This method allowed full control of RH and to non-invasively expose and observe the tear film parameters.

• The efficiency of an oil-in-water formulation to protect and relieve the changes of tear film parameters that are caused by exposure to ultra-dry environmental conditions (5% RH) was examined. We assessed the ability of Emustil to maintain the homeostatic integrity of the ocular surface during exposure to dry condition. and assessed tear parameters including tear osmolarity, tear production and its relationship with ocular discomfort.

• Our goal was to avoid as many drawbacks as possible from previous works. Using a controlled environmental chamber allowed full control of RH without any direct contact with the eye or the skin around it or any airflow. This method allowed us to non-invasively expose and observe the tear film at different time points.

Peer Review reports

Background

The ocular surface necessitates a stable tear film to sustain its functions; adequate production, retention, and balanced elimination of tears are essential for this process. Any variation of these mechanisms can consequences in the complaint of dry eye [1]. Ocular discomfort that is experienced in dry environment conditions could result from the physical alteration of the tear film parameters such as increased evaporation rate [2, 3], poor tear film stability [4, 5] and decreased tear film production [6]. Dry eye disease (DED) is a recurring ocular surface ailment concomitant with amplified tear osmolarity and mild to serious ocular surface irritability and inflammation [7]. A distinct biophysical mechanism that captures the equilibrium of inputs and outputs from the tear film dynamics is tear osmolarity. Osmolarity is the end product of deviations in tear dynamics and is considered a crucial mechanism underlying ocular surface impairment in DED [8]. Normal homeostasis necessitates regulated tear flow, the primary driver of which is osmolarity [9]. It has been proposed that tear hyperosmolarity is the primary reason for discomfort, ocular surface impairment, and inflammation in dry eyes and may serve as the single best objective marker for DED assessment [10]. However, the benefits of measuring tear osmolarity in the diagnosis of DED have been undermined by the difficulties of its measurement [11]. Most often DED inspection and/or medication is not executed until a patient is symptomatic. Sullivan and colleagues highlighted that 43% of asymptomatic patients had clinical signs of dry eye (DE) and if left untreated, it can significantly impact a person’s vision and quality of life [12]. The ocular surface temperature has been found to correlate well with many ocular diseases such as dry eye, ophthalmic postherpetic neuralgia, carotid artery stenosis, unilateral exophthalmos, Graves ophthalmopathy, postsurgical intraocular inflammation, bulbar conjunctival hyperemia, diabetic retinopathy, central retinal vein occlusion, glaucoma and inflammation of the lacrimal drainage system [13].

Many formulations have been invented to manage the complications of DE. The initial oil-in-water emulsion was applied in a recipe with an anti-inflammatory mediator to make up a cyclosporine eye drop (Restasis). Cyclosporine in oil emulsion was reported to be effective in the management of dry eye signs and symptoms. Sall et al. reported that it took 4 months before the full formulation with cyclosporine significantly outperformed the vehicle [14]. This vehicle was then modified to an oil-in-water emulsion with no anti-inflammatory agents included and marked as an over-the-counter artificial tear (Refresh Endura, Allergan, Irvine, USA) [15]. Similarly, castor oil emulsion has been shown to decrease ocular symptoms significantly [16]. It has been suggested that castor oil emulsion could improve ocular comfort because of its ability to improve lipid layer spread and long relative residence time (up to 4 h) [16]. The same study has shown an increase in the level of fatty acid (x2) and triglycerides (x10) in tear samples four hours following instillation of the oil-in-water [16]. Several other lipid-based eye drops have been developed such as Soothe (Alimera, Alpharetta, USA) and Emustil (SIFI, Catania, Italy) [17]. Previously three over-the-counter tear supplements were tested and Emustil emulsion was found to be significantly effective in improving tear film evaporation, tear osmolarity and corneal staining in DE patients [18]. Frequently many people are exposed to adverse environments or artificial environments. The effect of the surroundings on the tear film dynamics and efficacy of oil in water emulsion has been examined previously, however, most of the investigations were conducted under normal environmental conditions. So far, no examinations have been carried out to analyse the immediate effect of the acute effect of oil-in-water when used under adverse conditions in normal healthy subjects or DE patients. Therefore, we intended to observe the efficiency of an oil-in-water formulation to protect and relieve the changes of tear film parameters that ensued upon exposure to excessive dry environmental conditions (5% RH). In the current work as many drawbacks as possible of previous works were avoided. Using a controlled environmental chamber allowed full control of RH without any direct contact with the eye or the skin around it or any airflow. This method allowed us to non-invasively expose and observe the tear film at different time points. Also, various tear film parameters were observed under a dry environment over many time points. This helped to investigate the interrelationship between each of the tear film parameters.

Methodology

Materials and methods

Participants

All subjects who participated in this study were male because the recruitment process was done by word of mouth to friends and colleagues. On the initial visit, all subjects were screened for tear production, stability and ocular symptoms. 12 males (mean age 34.0 ± 7.0 years) were enrolled in the current examination to further observe tear film parameters under varied environmental conditions.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The subjects enrolled in testing fulfilled the inclusion criteria stated below:

  1. a)

    < 12 score in Ocular surface disease index (OSDI) [19].

  2. b)

    Schirmer test > 10 mm in 5 min.

Participants with a history of ocular surgery, ocular infection or who wear contact lenses were excluded from the investigation. The basal measurements of tear film parameters at normal conditions (40%RH/21°C) were carried out during the screening visit.

Parameter analyzed

A Schirmer test was done to measure tear production [20]. Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire (OSDI) was utilized to assess ocular symptoms [19]. All study procedures were approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University Research Ethics Committee. Signed consent was obtained from all subjects before participating in this study. Relative humidity (RH) and temperature of laboratory surroundings were maintained using a Controlled Environmental Chamber (CEC). Detailed procedure is described in our previous report [21]. Two environmental conditions were maintained in the CEC:

  1. 1.

    Normal environment 40% RH at 21°C.

  2. 2.

    Desiccating environment 5% RH at 21°C.

Study design

The oil-in-water emulsion used in this study was Emustil Natural eye drop emulsion (Moorfield Pharmaceutical, London, UK). Preservative-free single-dose units of Emustil were used. The Emustil drops are developed using 7% Soyabean oil and 3% Natural phospholipids (derived from egg yolk), hence containing both polar and non-polar lipids [18]. We anticipated evaluating the efficacy of Emustil drops in protection (before exposure) or relief (post-exposure) treatment schedules under dry environmental conditions and, observed its outcome on human tear film parameters.

Scheme of treatment

The participants were allocated incoherently into two groups to study the influence of dry surroundings on the ocular surface using the protection and relief treatment plans. In the relief treatment strategy, Emustil drops were instilled after 15 min of exposure to 5% RH (dry environment) to determine if any relief was experienced by the subjects. Whereas in the protection method, the drop was instilled before exposure to dry conditions, and then the tear film parameters were assessed after exposure to 5% RH for 15 min. These two treatment protocols were described in detail in our previous reports [21, 22].

Parameter analysed

Specific tear physiology tests were performed to diagnose the ocular condition/symptoms. Tear film osmolarity was assessed using an OcueSense TearLab [23]. Due to a shortage of Tear Function Index (TFI) supply caused by the manufacturer, tear production was measured in this study using Phenol Red Thread (PRT) [24]. Ocular surface temperature (OST) was monitored in this study by using a FLIR System ThermaCAM P620 [25]. In addition to tear physiology examination, ocular comfort was assessed in this study using a visual analogue scale questionnaire [26]. Brief details of each procedure are described in the below sections.

Ocular surface disease index questionnaire (OSDI)

This questionnaire was designed by Allergan Inc. (Irvine, California, USA) to assess ocular surface symptoms [19]. OSDI take account of three major categories of symptoms. These include.

  1. (i)

    Ocular symptoms i.e. grittiness, sensitivity to light, soreness, blurred and poor vision.

  2. (ii)

    Vision function i.e. driving at night, reading, working with computers and watching TV.

  3. (iii)

    Environment-related symptoms i.e. itchy in windy conditions, in air-conditioned rooms or in dry places [19].

The OSDI has a total score of 100 points. A person with a score of fewer than 12 points has a healthy tear function index [5]. The OSDI also offers a classification of dry eye disease progression based on the overall OSDI score (Table 1) [11, 12].

Table 1 Classification of Dry Eye (DE) progression based on the complete OSDI score
Full size table

Infrared thermography of ocular surface

To monitor changes in ocular surface temperature without being invasive, a FLIR System ThermaCAM P620 (FLIR Systems, Surrey, UK) was operated in the current investigation [25]. The self-calibrating camera is equipped with a high-definition detector (focal plane array, 640 × 480 pixels) that is thermally sensitive to ± 0.06ºC and capable of sensing temperatures ranging between − 40 and + 500 ºC. A close-up lens with a spatial resolution of 50 μm was attached to the camera to provide a clear and focused image of the ocular surface. The emissivity of the camera was set at 0.98. The temperature of the entire eye surface, including the upper and lower eyelids, was noted uninterruptedly for one minute at a 30 Hz frequency rate (Fig. 1). To analyze the data, the real-time image was recalled and viewed with a colour scale employing ThemaCAM Researcher Professional version 2.9 software (FLIR Systems, Surrey, UK).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Figure shows a screenshot of ThemaCAM Researcher Professional showing the temporal change in OST with blinking (A) and the selected data for analysis (B). Data obtained during and immediately post-blink was excluded

Full size image

TearLab osmometer

In the current investigation, an Ocusense Tear Lab Osmometer (OcuSense, Inc, San Diego, CA) was used to assess tear film osmolarity using a technology of electrical impedance spectroscopy [23]. By using a single-use disposable chip, a nano tear sample (50 nanolitres) is collected and examined. The test chips are made of high-density injection moulded polycarbonate and are coated with a gold layer that is secure at the tip of a handheld collection pen. The inferior temporal tear meniscus is placed to collect a tiny tear sample. When the tear sample is taken, visual and audio signals are generated by the collection pen. The portable pen is then placed in the stationary scanner which analyses the tear sample by conducting an electrical signal through the tear sample and showing the osmolarity reading. Initially, we analyzed the statistical difference in tear osmolarity measurements obtained under normal (40%) and dry (5%) environmental conditions. Next, we compared the tear osmolarity measurements obtained after using Emustil at 5% (either before or after exposure to 5% relative humidity) with the osmolarity measurements obtained under 5% relative humidity. Our objective was to identify any statistical differences that may exist.

Schirmer test

The Schirmer test was employed to measure tear production [27]. Schirmer test strip (Clement Clarke International LTD, UK) was placed into the inferior fornix sac to assess the lacrimal gland secretory function. The filter paper is wetted from tears in the fornix. The tear production can be estimated by measuring the wetting length on the strip (in millimetres) [28]. In 5 min the wetting lengths between 5 and 10 mm have been recommended as a cut-off value [29, 30].

Phenol red thread (PRT)

This test first suggested by Hamano for measurement of tear production utilises cotton thread infused with phenol red [31]. Phenol is a pH-sensitive compound, that changes its colour from yellow to red when it is placed in the eye due to a change in the pH [32]. The thread is inserted into the lower fornix for 15 s and the tear production is estimated by measuring the length of the red (wetted) part of the thread. The main advantage of PRT over other invasive techniques like Schirmer is that it is less invasive, resulting in less reflex tearing. The endpoint reading between normal and dry eye patients is less than 10 mm in 15 s with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 83% [24]. PRT is more likely to measure residual tears in the lower conjunctiva rather than measure tear production [33].

The validity of tear production measurement by Schirmer test, TFI and PRT under 40 and 5% RH was assessed to see if the physical wetting properties of the Schirmer test, TFI and PRT are affected by RH. To achieve this, a pilot study was carried out to estimate the effect of room RH on these techniques. The tear production of 14 subjects (28 eyes) was measured at 40 and immediately on exposure to 5% RH using the Schirmer test, TFI and PRT. At 5% RH, the strip or thread was inserted immediately when the subject entered the dry environment to minimize ocular surface irritation by low RH or any physiological effect on production (Supplimentary file 1, Figures S1 to S3).

This pilot study showed a reduction in wetting length for all strip tests at 5% RH. The decline was statically substantial for TFI (p = 0.001) and PRT (p = 0.002) but not for the Schirmer test (p = 0.18). A linear regression test was applied to estimate how to convert the TFI and PRT values observed at 5% RH to the corresponding true value that would be seen at 40% RH. All data of tear production measured at 5% RH using PRT (Eq. 1) was corrected using the formula obtained from the slope of the line and intercept. The formula derived from the slope of the line was utilized to correct all tear production data measured at 5% RH using PRT. This correction aimed to mitigate the influence of dry conditions on the physical properties of the PRT and ensure that the observed changes in tear production measurements were attributable to alterations in the tear film, rather than variations in the wetting or absorption properties of the thread.

Formula to calculate PRT at 5% RH.

$$ {\rm{Corrected}}\,{\rm{PRT}}\,{\rm{ = }}\,{\rm{PRT}}\,\left( {{\rm{5\% }}} \right)\, * \,{\rm{0}}{\rm{.40}}\,{\rm{ + }}\,{\rm{14}}{\rm{.98}} $$
(1)

Statistical analysis

Data was statistically analysed by PASW Statistics version 19. To examine the normal distribution of the data Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied. Analysis of the normally distributed data was done using repeated ANOVA measurements and post-hoc Tukey tests. Friedman’s test and the post-hoc Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyze data that were not distributed normally. To study the correlation between parameters Pearson’s (normally distributed) and Spearman’s (not normally distributed) tests were used.

Results

Tear film osmolarity

Mean tear osmolarity dropped from 296.8 mOsm/l at 40% RH to 291 mOsm/l at 5%. RH (Fig. 2). However parametric tests showed no significant variation in tear osmolarity values at 40 and 5% RH (p = 0.084). A significant increase in tear osmolarity was observed in relief compared to 5% with a mean value of 298 mOsm/l (p = 0.03) but was not statistically different to 40%. No noteworthy dissimilarity in osmolarity was observed with the use of Emustil eye drops in protection mode (295 mOsm/l) compared with both 40% and 5%.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Control Tear osmolarity measurements at 40 and 5% RH (Gridded bar) and after instillation of Emustil for protection and relief. Instillation of Emustil resulted in a significant increase in tear osmolarity in the relief method compared with osmolarity seen at 5% RH when no drop was used. Pairwise significant differences are indicated by (*)

Full size image

Tear production

Fig. 3
figure 3

shows a large spread of PRT data obtained at 40% RH compared with 5% RH. The mean PRT value decreased from 26 ± 9 in normal conditions (40% RH) to 22 ± 4 mm in dry conditions (5% RH). However, this reduction in tear production did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.24). An increase in wetting length at protection and relief was seen compared with both normal and dry conditions. However, repeated measures ANOVA test showed no statistically significant differences in tear production (p > 0.05). The mean value of PRT was 25.7 (p = 0.059) in protection and 24.9 mm (p = 0.32) in relief

Full size image

Figure 3: A box graph presenting tear production values measured without the instillation of Emustil (control) at 40 and 5% RH and with the use of Emustil in protection and relief methods (n = 12). No significant differences were seen in tear production. Data was corrected for observations at 5% RH caused by thread wetting at low RH. The box illustrates the interquartile limits that encompass 50% of the values. The whiskers are lines that stretch from the box to the upper and lowest measures. The line across the box signifies the median value. Pairwise significant (Tukey’s post hoc test) differences are indicated by (*).

Ocular surface temperature (OST)

The mean ocular surface temperature was 33.90 ± 0.89 °C at the normal environmental condition (40% RH). No significant change was found in OST following exposure to 5% RH. OST did not show a statistically significant change with the emulsion when used for relief (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

A box plot showing the ocular surface temperature at 40% and 5% without the instillation of Emustil (Control) and when the drops were instilled at different times (protection and relief). There was no difference in ocular temperature after exposure to a dry environment. Installation of Emustil did not result in a significant change in ocular surface temperature

Full size image

Ocular discomfort

The total symptom score for ocular discomfort increased sharply when subjects were exposed to the dry environment (p = 0.004). The ocular discomfort score was found to be significantly higher (p = 0.004) at 5% RH compared with that observed at 40% RH even following the instillation of Emustil (Fig. 5).

However, both methods of treatment managed to improve ocular comfort in the desiccating environment. The mean score of ocular discomfort observed was 70 at 5% RH, but the instillation of the oil-in-water emulsion (Emustil) resulted in a noticeable decrease in ocular discomfort to 37 (p = 0.00) in protection and 59 in relief (p = 0.05). Although the total ocular discomfort score was lower during protection than that observed in the relief visit, this difference was insignificant (p = 0.67). Pairwise differences in ocular discomfort assessed at different relative humidity are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Box plot showing ocular comfort measured at 40% and 5% RH (Control) and following different treatment protocols. A significant increase was seen at 5% RH. The discomfort score was significantly improved following the instillation of emulsion for both protection and relief methods (n = 12). The box denotes the interquartile range that includes 50% of the values. The whiskers are lines that extend from the box to the highest and lowest values. The line across the box indicates the median value. Pairwise significant (Tukey’s post hoc test) differences are indicated by (*)

Full size image
Table 2 Shown in the table are Pairwise differences (Tukey’s post-hoc test) in ocular discomfort assessed 40 and 5% relative humidity before and after the use of Emustil eye drop
Full size table

Discussion

Tear film osmolarity has been considered the best single test to diagnose and classify dry eye disease [34]. Despite studies indicating that osmolarity is not effective in distinguishing between dry eye types [35], tear hyperosmolarity is still one of the operative diagnostic tools for DED [36]. The tear osmolarity value in the dry eye is higher when compared with normal eyes [37]. Investigations have been done to determine the cut-off value of normal tear osmolarity. Values between 293 and 320 mOsm are the overlapping areas between normal and dry eye osmolarity [35].

To manage the signs and symptoms of dry eye, many tear film supplements have been developed with a wide range of ingredients [38]. Despite not fully curing dry eye, tear film supplements can help to reduce the signs and symptoms, and restore the ocular surface to its normal homeostatic state. Additionally, these medications prevent inflammation, reduce tear osmolarity, and substitute for tear fluid [38, 39].

To observe tear film parameters under normal (40% RH) and dry (5% RH) environmental conditions, a panel of objective and subjective measures was conducted. The use of Castor oil emulsion has previously resulted in an improvement in DE signs and symptoms [14]. The optimal time to use the medication was determined by instilling the oil-in-water emulsion drop before (protection) and after (relief) exposure to desiccating environment.

The results of previous studies agree well with the improvement in tear stability observed when using the oil-in-water emulsion [40, 41]. The oil-water emulsion’s design aims to enhance the structure and function of the lipid layer, resulting in improved tear film stability. Exposure to a desiccating environment was observed to result in a reduction in tear film osmolarity. However, this reduction in tear osmolarity did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.084). To see the effect of Emustil on osmolarity it is first necessary to cause a significant change in osmolarity. The sample power calculation suggests that a study involving a total of 28 subjects found a statistically significant difference in the osmolarity of tears in the test population between 40% and 5% RH (at p = 0.05, two-sided, power 0.8). Confirming these results may require further studies on a larger sample size. The normal homeostasis of the ocular surface could be affected by changes in tear film parameters such as evaporation rate, production, and stability of tears in an adverse dry environment. To restore normal homeostasis, a compensatory mechanism is expected to occur [34]. Increased blinking and stimulation of reflex secretion from the lacrimal and meibomian glands are part of this process [34]. Therefore, any reduction in tear osmolarity could be due to the increase in tear production and the secretion of reflex tears that are characterised by lower osmolarity when compared with basal tears [42].

An elevation of tear osmolarity was observed in both protection (295 mOsm/l, p = 0.29) and relief (298 mOsm/l, p = 0.036) compared with no therapy used (291 mOsm/l). It is noted that the mean tear osmolarity in both protection and relief increased to a value that is similar to that seen at normal humidity (296.83 mOsm/l). This indicates that the Emustil eye drop was able to contribute to the normal homeostatic status of the ocular surface during exposure to an adverse climate condition and reduce the compensatory reflex response. A previous report by McCann et al. has shown that the instillation of oil-in-water emulsion significantly improved tear osmolarity, but this was in dry eye patients and with use over 90 days [18].

The production and turnover of tears are important to protect the ocular surface against environmentally induced changes [43]. The production and turnover of tears are important to protect the ocular surface against environmentally induced changes [44]. The effect of RH on tear production strip tests has been previously observed [21, 22]. In the present study, no significant change was seen in tear production when Emustil was used under both treatment techniques (p = 0.24). It should be noted that measurements of tear production depend on the absorption properties of the PRT cotton thread. The cotton thread is also exposed to 5% RH and a pilot study did show that this does affect the wetting dynamics observed. Emustil drop instillation increases lipid layer thickness and improves tear stability and therefore prevents irritation to the ocular surface and helps to stabilize lacrimal secretion levels during exposure [22]. This is in agreement with earlier findings by other investigators which showed that the use of oil-in-water emulsion for 30 days did not change tear production among dry eye patients [15].

Recently, a considerable number of studies have shown that ocular discomfort and sick building syndrome are associated with indoor workplaces characterised by low humidity [45]. In this study, an increase in ocular discomfort was seen when subjects were exposed to a desiccating environment. This is in agreement with previous work which has shown an increase in ocular symptoms among workers in dry places [46]. Furthermore, we noticed that the use of Emustil resulted in a significant enhancement in ocular comfort. Both treatment protocols managed to significantly decrease the ocular discomfort score under desiccating conditions (p = 0.00) and (p = 0.05) respectively). Previous reports have shown that an oil-in-water emulsion improved ocular comfort in dry eye patients [18, 47]. This improvement in ocular comfort in dry conditions is consistent with improvements in tear film stability and lipid layer thickness [22].

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the use of the CEC could provide researchers with a readily available method for quickly assessing the effectiveness of tear supplementation. In the laboratory environment, tear film symptoms that are typical for dry eye patients can be easily simulated using the CEC. This new method enables the further evaluation of tear film parameters and dry eye treatment protocols in labs before attempting them on patients with DE in clinics. Oil-in-water emulsion eye drops are effective in relieving and safeguarding tear film parameters in an adverse dry environment. A single instillation of Emustil was shown to improve tear production and ocular symptoms in ultra-dry conditions (5% RH). Furthermore, tear osmolarity and production data obtained from this study indicate that ocular homeostasis was better maintained during exposure to a desiccating environment when Emustil was used both in protection and relief.

Data availability

All the relevant data has been provided in the manuscript and supplementary files. Supplementary datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Kim YH, Graham AD, Li W, Dursch TJ, Peng C-C, Radke CJ, Lin MCJCL, Eye A. Tear-film evaporation flux and its relationship to tear properties in symptomatic and asymptomatic soft-contact-lens wearers. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2023;46(4):101850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu J-W, Zhu X-P, Pan S-Y, Yang H, Xiao X-HJIJO. Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in young and middle-aged office employee: a xi’an study. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(4):567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ito K, Takada SJI, Environment B. Effects of indoor low humidity on eye discomfort and associated physiological responses in soft contact lens and non-lens wearers. Indoor Built Environ. 2023;32(3):590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez-Garcia MJ, Gonzalez-Saiz A, de la Fuente B, Morilla-Grasa A, Mayo-Iscar A, San-Jose J, Feijo J, Stern ME, Calonge M. Exposure to a controlled adverse environment impairs the ocular surface of subjects with minimally symptomatic dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(9):4026–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smedbold HT, Ahlen C, Norback D, Hilt B. Sign of eye irritation in female hospital workers and the indoor environment. Indoor Air. 2001;11(4):223–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barabino S, Shen LL, Chen L, Rashid S, Rolando M, Dana MR. The controlled-environment chamber: a new mouse model of dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(8):2766–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Phadatare SP, Momin M, Nighojkar P, Askarkar S, Singh KKJAP. A comprehensive review on dry eye disease: diagnosis, medical management, recent developments, and future challenges. Advances in Pharmaceutics. 2015;2015.

  8. Zemanová MJCasocCosaSos. Dry eye disease. A review. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2021;77(3):107–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fogagnolo P, Torregrossa G, Tranchina L, Ferreras A, De Cillà S, Labbé A, Figus M, Ottobelli L, Rossetti LJCMC. Tear film osmolarity, ocular surface disease and glaucoma: a review. Curr Med Chem. 2019;26(22):4241–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park J, Choi Y, Han G, Shin E, Han J, Chung T-Y, Lim DHJSR. Evaluation of tear osmolarity measured by I-Pen osmolarity system in patients with dry eye. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Abdelfattah NS, Dastiridou A, Sadda SR, Lee OLJC. Noninvasive imaging of tear film dynamics in eyes with ocular surface disease. Cornea. 2015;34:S48–S52.

  12. Sullivan BD, Crews LA, Messmer EM, Foulks GN, Nichols KK, Baenninger P, Geerling G, Figueiredo F. Lemp MAJAo: correlations between commonly used objective signs and symptoms for the diagnosis of dry eye disease: clinical implications. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(2):161–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chandrasekar B, Rao AP, Murugesan M, Subramanian S, Sharath D, Manoharan U, Prodip B, Balasubramaniam VJEER. Ocular surface temperature measurement in diabetic retinopathy. Exp Eye Res. 2021;211:108749.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sall K, Stevenson OD, Mundorf TK, Reis BL, Cs APSG. Two multicenter, randomized studies of the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in moderate to severe dry eye disease. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(4):631–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Khanal S, Tomlinson A, Pearce EI, Simmons PA. Effect of an oil-in-water emulsion on the tear physiology of patients with mild to moderate dry eye. Cornea. 2007;26(2):175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maissa C, Guillon M, Simmons P, Vehige J. Effect of castor oil emulsion eyedrops on tear film composition and stability. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010;33(2):76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Craig JP, Purslow C, Murphy PJ, Wolffsohn JS. Effect of a liposomal spray on the pre-ocular tear film. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010;33(2):83–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McCann LC, Tomlinson A, Pearce EI, Papa V. Effectiveness of artificial tears in the management of evaporative dry eye. Cornea. 2012;31(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(5):615–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JH, Hyun PM. The reproducibility of the Schirmer test. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1988;2(1):5–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abusharha A, Pearce IE, Afsar T, Alsaqr A, Fagehi R, Razak, SJBo. Evaluation of different treatment modalities on the efficacy of hydroxypropyl guar (HP-Guar) formulation on tear film stability (TFS) in subjects exposed to adverse environmental conditions. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023;23(1):226.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Abusharha A, Pearce IE, Afsar T, Razak S. Evaluation of therapeutic capability of Emustil drops against tear film complications under dry environmental conditions in healthy individuals. Medicina. 2023;59(7):1298.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tomlinson A, McCann LC, Pearce EI. Comparison of human tear film osmolarity measured by electrical impedance and freezing point depression techniques. Cornea. 2010;29(9):1036–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patel S, Farrell J, Blades K, Grierson D. The value of a phenol red impregnated thread for differentiating between the aqueous and non-aqueous deficient dry eye. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998;18(6):471–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abusharha AA, Pearce EI. The effect of low humidity on the human tear film. Cornea. 2012;32(4):429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tomlinson A, Pearce EI, Simmons PA, Blades K. Effect of oral contraceptives on tear physiology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001;21(1):9–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Macri A, Pflugfelder S. Correlation of the Schirmer 1 and fluorescein clearance tests with the severity of corneal epithelial and eyelid disease. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(12):1632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gudmundsen KJ, O’Donnell BF, Powell FC. Schirmer testing for dry eyes in patients with rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;26(2):211–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lucca JA, Nunez JN, Farris RL. A comparison of diagnostic tests for keratoconjunctivitis sicca: lactoplate, Schirmer, and tear osmolarity. CLAO J. 1990;16(2):109–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Danjo Y. Diagnostic usefulness and cutoff value of Schirmer’s I test in the Japanese diagnostic criteria of dry eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997;235(12):761–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamano H, Hori M, Hamano T, Mitsunaga S, Maeshima J, Kojima S, Kawabe H. A new method for measuring tears. CLAO Journal: Official Publication Contact Lens Association Ophthalmologists Inc. 1983;9(3):281–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sakamoto R, Bennett ES, Henry VA, Paragina S, Narumi T, Izumi Y, Kamei Y, Nagatomi E, Miyanaga Y, Hamano H. The phenol red thread tear test: a cross-cultural study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34(13):3510–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tomlinson A, Blades KJ, Pearce EI. What does the phenol red thread test actually measure? Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78(3):142–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lemp MA, Bron AJ, Baudouin C, Del Castillo JMB, Geffen D, Tauber J, Foulks GN, Pepose JS, Sullivan BD. Tear osmolarity in the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(5):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tomlinson A, Khanal S, Ramaesh K, Diaper C, McFadyen A. Tear film osmolarity: determination of a referent for dry eye diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(10):4309–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, Caffery B, Dua HS, Joo C-K, Liu Z, Nelson JD, Nichols JJ. Tsubota KJTos: TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):276–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pena-Verdeal H, Garcia-Resua C, Garcia-Queiruga J, Sabucedo-Villamarin B, Yebra-Pimentel E, Giraldez MJJC, Optometry E. Diurnal variations of tear film osmolarity on the ocular surface. Clin Exp Optom. 2023;106(4):351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lemp MA. Advances in understanding and managing dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(3):350–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Asbell PA. Increasing importance of dry eye syndrome and the ideal artificial tear: consensus views from a roundtable discussion. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(11):2149–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rolando M, Merayo-Lloves JJCER. Management strategies for evaporative dry eye disease and future perspective. Curr Eye Res. 2022;47(6):813–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sandford EC, Muntz A, Craig JPJC, Optometry E. Therapeutic potential of castor oil in managing blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye. 2021;104(3):315–22.

  42. Nelson JD, Wright JC. Tear film osmolality determination: an evaluation of potential errors in measurement. Curr Eye Res. 1986;5(9):677–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kopacz D, Niezgoda Ł, Fudalej E, Nowak A, Maciejewicz PJOSDSCDTFP, Diagnosis K. Tear film–physiology and disturbances in various diseases and disorders. 2020:137–44.

  44. Rolando M, Zierhut M. The ocular surface and tear film and their dysfunction in dry eye disease. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45:S203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chlasta-Twardzik E, Górecka-Nitoń A, Nowińska A, Wylęgała EJD. The influence of work environment factors on the ocular surface in a one-year follow-up prospective clinical study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(3):392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wolkoff PJB. Environment: dry eye symptoms in offices and deteriorated work performance–A perspective. Build Environ. 2020;172:106704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Greiner J, Glonek T, Scaffidi R. Evaluation of the first metastable lipid emulsion on symptomatic dry eye patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(5):2035.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extended their appreciation to the Researchers Supporting project number (RSPD2024R653), as King Saud University, Riyadh Saudi Arabia, for funding this project.

Funding

The project was funded by the Researcher supporting project number (RSPD2024R653), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Ali Abusharha

  2. Glasgow Caledonian University, 70 Cowcaddence Road, G4 0BA, Glasgow, UK

    E. Ian Pearce

  3. Department of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Tayyaba Afsar & Suhail Razak

Authors
  1. Ali Abusharha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Ian Pearce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tayyaba Afsar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suhail Razak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, experimentation, investigation, resources and validation done by A.A and IEP. Visualization, writing—original draft preparation and writing—review and editing done by T.A, A.A and SR. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tayyaba Afsar or Suhail Razak.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Approval for the study was obtained from the Glasgow Caledonian University Ethics Committee, Scotland, UK. (GCU1321/34/A). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s). All methods were carried out following relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not relevant.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abusharha, A., Pearce, E.I., Afsar, T. et al. Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of Emustil drops for ocular discomfort and tear film osmolarity using different treatment management modes under dry environmental conditions. BMC Ophthalmol 24, 129 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03390-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03390-0

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us