Artificial tears, preservatives, so what?

Umalbaninn Alnoor,Simone Ahrensberg,Josefine Freiberg,Miriam Kolko,Anne Nagstrup,Steffen Heegaard
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16012
2024-01-01
Acta Ophthalmologica
Abstract:Aims/Purpose: To investigate the cell survival of human conjunctival goblet cells (CGs) when incubated with preserved and preservative‐free (PF) artificial tears (AT) used against dry eye disease (DED). The following ATs were tested: 0.011% benzalkonium chloride (BAK)‐preserved Viskøse® Øjendråber, 0.006% BAK‐preserved Oftagel®, 0.005% BAK‐preserved Oculac®, 0.001% PolyQuadTM‐preserved Systane® Ultra, 0.01% Cetrimide‐preserved Artelac®, and PF ATs: Systane® Ultra, Oculac®, Oftagel®, and Thealoz® Duo. Methods: Primary cultures of human conjunctival CGs were cultivated from donor conjunctiva. After incubation with the above‐mentioned ATs for 2 h, CG survival was analysed using a lactate dehydrogenase assay and calculated to a negative control. Results: AT preserved with 0.011% BAK reduced GC survival by 28% compared to negative control ( p = 0.001). The remaining ATs did not significantly alter the cell survival. Conclusions: BAK‐preserved ATs cause GC death in a concentration‐dependent manner. Reduction of the GC density may contribute to development of DED. PF‐ATs and PolyQuad‐ and Cetrimide‐preserved ATs may thus be a better choice for treating DED than BAK preserved ATs, as the latter may add to the ocular surface disease.
ophthalmology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?