Is Johnson and Johnson Baby Shampoo Optimologist Tested
1 Introduction
Meibomian glands are a special kind of sebaceous gland located in the tarsal plate of the upper and lower eyelids. Lipids are produced by the meibomian glands, which are the main components of the superficial lipid layer of the tear movie that protects against evaporation of the aqueous stage and stabilizes the tear film. Hence, meibomian lipids are essential for the maintenance of ocular surface wellness and integrity.[1] Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is an extremely important condition and is 1 of the most mutual causes of dry middle.[2–4] Previous studies reported that the prevalence of MGD amid Caucasians varied from 3.v% to nineteen.9%.[5,6] In the Asian population, the prevalence of MGD was college and varied between 46.2% and 69.3%.[vii–10] A Bangkok population-based study reported that 46.2% of Thais had MGD and 63.6% of people with dry centre had MGD.[7]
According to the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) grading organisation, the handling guideline depends on the severity of the MGD. These guidelines consider symptoms and clinical signs of gland expression, meibum quality, ocular surface staining, and lid margin. The management of MGD co-ordinate to the International Workshop on MGD reached a consensus that eyelid hygiene is the mainstay of clinical treatment of MGD, which consists of ii components: warm compresses and lid hygiene, including scrubs and mechanical expression.[11] A published study showed that the use of hypoallergenic bar soap, diluted baby shampoo, and commercial eyelid cleanser were useful in the treatment of MGD.[12] Still, the efficacy of baby shampoo in the management of MGD is controversial. The current literature shows a lack of standard handling of lid hygiene and no data are available on patient compliance with MGD. The efficacy of hypoallergenic bar lather was not investigated in our written report because it is bachelor only at drug stores, additionally; it is not a commercial product for eyelid scrub. Although, infant shampoo is not a special substance for eyelid scrub, information technology is widely available. The efficacy of baby shampoo is possibly equivalent to OCuSOFT Hat Scrub Original Foaming Eyelid Cleanser (OSO) in class 2 MGD treatment.
The principal objective of the investigation was to assess and compare the effects of eyelid cleaning using either a dedicated eyelid cleanser (OSO, Rosenberg, TX) or Johnson'due south infant shampoo top-to-toe (No More Tears formula, Johnson & Johnson, Thailand)[13] to decrease the symptomatology of dry heart sufferers with class 2 MGD (Tabular array 1).
Ingredients of Johnson'south infant shampoo top-to-toe (No More than TearsTM formula) and a commercial eyelid cleanser, OCuSOFT hat scrub original foaming eyelid cleanser (OSO).
ii Methods
ii.1 Report design
This prospective report was conducted at Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. The study adhered to the tenets of the Proclamation of Helsinki and was canonical past the Man Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. The Thai Clinical Trials Registry Number was TCTR20160726001. Informed consent was obtained from the subjects after explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the written report.
2.2 Subject eligibility
The study enrolled participants from 25 to lxx years of age from the out-patient eye clinic in Songklanagarind Infirmary from July 2016 to September 2017. All participants were diagnosed with grade 2 MGD co-ordinate to the TFOS guideline because we could eliminate the confounding factors (e.one thousand., oral tetracycline derivative and anti-inflammatory therapy) affecting the MGD handling outcome. The participants were able to follow a scheduled visit and use a microwave at home. Informed consent was taken from all participants before participation. The subjects were excluded if whatsoever of the post-obit presented in the report: cicatricial eyelid diseases or conjunctival diseases that affect ocular signs and symptoms (for example, pterygium), recent ocular trauma, any corneal lesions or other meibomian gland diseases (for instance, meibomian seborrhea or meibomian sicca), following eye or periocular surgery, current use of facial topical antibiotics, history of allergy to cosmetics, whatever composition of cosmetics or history of allergy to baby shampoo, or whatsoever limerick of shampoo.
2.3 Report protocol
After classification into the level of severity, all 60 participants with grade 2 MGD were randomized for eyelid scrub using baby shampoo or OSO by block-of-4 computer randomizations. The resource allotment ratio was ane:i, and the randomization was performed per subject and the sequence of randomization was concealed from all investigators by sealed envelopes. The participants in the babe shampoo group were instructed to utilise a i:i mixture of baby shampoo[12] and clean water to scrub into the eyelid for 30 to 60 seconds and then rinse. The participants in the OSO group were instructed to use OCuSOFT hat scrub original foaming eyelid cleanser to scrub the eyelid for 30 to 60 seconds and and so rinse. Production applications were demonstrated by the same investigator at the enrollment visit. All participants in both groups received written instructions and also a heated rice bag delivered 40 to 42°C oestrus to the eyelids for 5 minutes before performing the eyelid scrub (application 2 times/twenty-four hour period).
2.4 Issue measures and follow-upwards evaluations
The primary event measure was to compare the mean (±SD) differences of the comeback of Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score from baseline to weeks 4 and weeks 12 post-treatment, between baby shampoo and OSO. The secondary result measures were lid margin signs according to the TFOS guideline, times of compliance, and the per centum of complications.
At the initial visit, history and demographic information of all participants were collected that included age, sex, underlying affliction, medication profile, history of drug, or any cosmetic ingredient allergy. The participants were evaluated by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured by the early on treatment diabetic retinopathy study chart and later converted to LogMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), OSDI questionnaire developed by the Outcomes Research Grouping at Allergan (Irvine, CA), and MGD grading under slit lamp biomicroscopy. Other evaluations were meibum quality, expressibility of the glands, corneal staining with fluorescein, and hat margin according to the TFOS guideline at enrollment. One investigator (OA), who was masked to the treatment and randomization, performed the follow-up at 4 and 12 weeks afterwards starting the treatment. Compliance was measured at 4 and 12 weeks by filling out a self-reported form. The participants were instructed to sign the form every day in the morn and evening (two times/twenty-four hours) and return the form to the investigator at the follow-up visit.
2.five Sample size
Based on a previous report,[14] as an 80% power was used to show not-inferiority (δ = eleven) of baby shampoo confronting OSO every bit significant (for the 2-sided five% level) given an SD of 16 and no difference expected in hateful scores of the two treatments at two times, a sample size of 27 patients per group was required. Allowing for unexpected 10% dropout rate, we enrolled thirty patients per group in this report.
2.6 Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using Stata Statistic Software (STATA MP 14.1. StataCorp LP). Data assay was based on intention to treat basis. Descriptive statistics using hateful and standard departure were reported at each visit. The repeated measures of OSDI scores were evaluated. For the primary outcome, the total scores of the OSDI questionnaire were compared between the 2 groups using the independent samples test. The mean OSDI score in baby shampoo and OSO by calendar week was evaluated using mixed model linear regression. The times of compliance were compared between the 2 groups using the independent samples exam. The differences betwixt the 2 treatments in lid margin signs co-ordinate to the TFOS guideline were compared using the Pearson chi-square test. A P value <.025 was considered statistically significant.
3 Results
3.1 Written report option
A total of lx participants diagnosed with grade 2 MGD were enrolled and completed the analysis. Sixty-5 per centum of the participants had a Bachelor's degree or college and 75.0% was females. The mean (±SD) historic period was 48.0 ± 13.viii years (range 25–lxx years). The participants were randomized into either the baby shampoo group (l%) or the OSO group (l%) (Table 2). Figure ane illustrates the menses of participants through the study according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements.
Baseline clinical characteristics of 60 participants.
Menstruum diagram co-ordinate to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (Espoused) argument, showing recruitment, randomization, and patient menses in this report. OSO, OCuSOFT Lid Scrub Original Foaming Eyelid Cleanser.
3.ii OSDI and treatment outcome in 2 groups
The OSDI scores in the baby shampoo group and OSO group prior to treatment were 42.six ± 16.1 and 42.1 ± 14.0, respectively. The OSDI scores, BCVA, and compliance of all participants were recorded. Three participants per group were lost to follow-up, prior to week four, mail service-treatment follow-upwardly. According to the TFOS international workshop on MGD, 54 participants were examined under slit lamp biomicroscopy and the parameters at weeks 4 and weeks 12 postal service-treatment are presented in Tabular array 3.
OSDI score, visual acuity, and parameters according to the TFOS guideline at 4 wk, and at 12 wk post-treatment.
There was a significant improvement in the OSDI score at post-treatment week 4 (20.3 ± x.3 [95% confidence interval xvi.1, 24.v] in infant shampoo and 17.9 ± 9.eight [95% confidence interval thirteen.7, 22.1] in OSO) compared with baseline (both P < .001). This comeback was significant at mail-treatment week 12 in both the babe shampoo and OSO groups (12.0 ± 6.6 [95% confidence interval 7.8, 16.2] and ix.5 ± iv.seven [95% confidence interval 5.three, 13.7], respectively, both P < .001) (Fig. 2). However, no difference was constitute betwixt the 2 groups at either post-treatment week 4 (P = .57) or mail-treatment week 12 (P = .54) using mixed model linear regression. The mean (±SD) compliance results of eyelid scrub for the full of 12 weeks were 125.1 ± xx.8 and 124.half-dozen ± 16.8 times (from a total of 168 times at 2 times/day in 84 days) in the baby shampoo and OSO groups, respectively (P = .93). The baseline OSDI scores were not correlated with compliance at week iv in the baby shampoo and OSO groups (P = .68 and P = .29, respectively).
Hateful differences of OSDI scores at baseline, iv wk, and 12 wk. ∗ P < .001, decrease in the OSDI scores from baseline to 4-wk post-treatment. ∗∗ P < .001, decrease in the OSDI scores from 4-wk to 12-wk mail-treatment. OSO, OCuSOFT Lid Scrub Original Foaming Eyelid Cleanser.
3.iii Complications
Complications in both treatments are shown in Tabular array 4. There were no differences at four and 12 weeks betwixt the ii groups in complications that included center irritation, burning sensation, violent, photophobia, blurred vision, red eye, and pare or eyelid erythema (all P ≥ .05).
Complications of both treatments.
4 Discussion
Dry heart is a multifactorial disease of tears and the ocular surface which is associated with MGD that results in symptoms of discomfort, visual disturbance, and an unstable tear flick with potential damage to the ocular surface, which affects quality of life.[15–17] It is accompanied by increased osmolarity of the tear film and inflammation of the ocular surface.[xviii] Eyelid hygiene and warm compresses are the mainstay treatments for MGD; even so, clinicians utilize a wide range of handling regimens to manage MGD.[19,twenty]
In this randomized trial, pregnant improvement was observed in the OSDI scores after using either the infant shampoo or the OSO in form ii MGD patients at weeks 4 and weeks 12 postal service-treatment. Although this electric current study showed an comeback in the number of secondary outcomes including meibum quality, expressibility, and ocular staining in both groups, at that place were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. To our knowledge, eyelid scrub should statistically significantly ameliorate the symptom scores; however, no significant improvement in the lid margin signs was observed in either treatment because only grade 2 MGD was selected. Information technology was reported that in moderate to advanced MGD patients who were treated with intense pulsed calorie-free had pregnant improvement of eyelid signs.[21]
These findings are consequent with previous reports which described improvements in MGD or the signs and symptoms of blepharitis following eyelid hygiene regimens with dedicated eyelid scrub and diluted baby shampoo.[12,fourteen,22–24] Patients who used a phospholipid–liposome solution particularly designed for lid scrub demonstrated a significantly greater clinical improvement than those who used a mild infant shampoo.[23] Sung et al demonstrated the objective and subjective clinical improvements in blepharitis patients following a iv-week treatment with both a dedicated eyelid cleanser (TheraTears Sterilid) and a diluted infant shampoo at a ratio of 1:x.[25] The results revealed significant comeback in the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire and Symptom Cess in Dry Heart (SANDE) symptomology scores; however, the SANDE score in eyelid cleanser treatment had significantly greater improvement.[25] In a previous study, the SANDE questionnaire had a meaning correlation and negligible score differences in the OSDI scores.[26] Interestingly, in this report the infant shampoo group had a not-junior outcome compared with a previous study.[25] First, the concentration of baby shampoo and water at a ratio of i:1 was higher which was possibly more effective in eyelid scrub. Second, the formulation of infant shampoo in our study was without yellow 6 and yellow ten. Third, only participants who had grade 2 MGD without blepharitis were included, which is a low-form severity of MGD. Sung et al also reported a pregnant reduction in matrix metallopeptidase 9 expression in the dedicated eyelid cleanser group, in addition to, decreased goblet cells and MUC5AC expression in the baby shampoo group which was peradventure from the detergent effects.[25]
In addition, the comparing between the two groups plant no statistically significant differences in the improvements of the OSDI scores every bit well as the clinical signs that included hat margin, meibum quality, expressibility, and ocular staining. The participants in our written report understood and followed our instructions to perform the eyelid scrub properly with overall good compliance in both treatment groups. Nevertheless, the real state of affairs in the outpatient clinic of a self-applied therapy is express past patient compliance.
Encouraging long-term use of eyelid hygiene and warm compresses presents a challenge for the ophthalmologist. The introduction of eyelid scrubbing methods, such as OSO and diluted baby shampoo, may provide a more consequent solution for compliance. This study showed that the hateful (±SD) compliances were 125.1 ± xx.8 and 124.6 ± sixteen.viii times in the baby shampoo and OSO groups, respectively, which had no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .93). Additionally, the effectiveness of whatever cocky-practical treatment depends on patient preference, efficacy awareness, convenience, ease of buy, price, and any adverse effects. All participants used the baby shampoo for eyelid scrub, which was conducted with unsterile tap h2o and lathered the foam conception by on their own. The efficacy, compliance, and complications in the baby shampoo group were non significantly unlike from the OSO group.
The strong point of this current study is the unique participants who were form 2 MGD and therefore the confounding factors affecting the MGD handling event could be eliminated. The result revealed that the diluted baby shampoo is one of the options for treatment of eyelid scrub in grade two MGD patients. The infant shampoo is available in the convenience store and depression cost (1 $/bottle). In contrast, OSO is express to purchase in some rural expanse and high cost (11–17 $/bottle). The outcomes from our written report tin provide more than information on eyelid cleaning methods in Thai patients and perchance for the worldwide population to develop a standardized technique in eyelid cleaning for patients with MGD.
5 Limitations
Our study had some limitations as followings. Kickoff, nosotros could not blind the participants because the packages of the ii eyelid scrubbing methods were different. However, we could bullheaded the investigator who evaluated the clinical parameters of the participants. Second, we did not mensurate the conjunctival cytology, which might need a farther study to prove the results in patients with class 2 MGD.
6 Conclusions
In summary, this written report showed that either OSO or infant shampoo for eyelid scrub can meliorate the dry eye symptoms scores for patients with grade 2 MGD even though there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. The compliance and complication results were also non statistically significantly difference between the 2 groups and no serious adverse events were reported.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Alan Geater, Ms. Walailuk Jitphiboon, and Ms. Parichat Damthongsuk for her valuable assistance regarding the statistics used in this project.
Author contributions
Study concept and design: OA and YU; Acquisition of information: OA, YU, PS, and OH; Analysis and interpretation of data: OA, YU, PS, and OH; Drafting the manuscript: OA and YU; Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: OA, YU, PS, and OH; Study supervision: OA, PS, and OH. All authors had full access to all of the data in this report and accept responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors read and canonical the concluding manuscript.
References
[one]. Knop E, Knop Northward, Millar T, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on beefcake, physiology and pathophysiology of the meibomian gland. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1938–78.
- Cited Here |
- PubMed
[2]. Nichols KK, Foulks GN, Bron AJ, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1922–9.
[3]. Qiao J, Yan X. Emerging treatment options for meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol 2013;7:1797–803.
- Cited Here
[4]. Bron AJ, Tiffany JM. The contribution of meibomian disease to dry out eye. Ocul Surf 2004;2:149–65.
- Cited Hither |
- PubMed
[v]. Schein OD, Munoz B, Tielsch JM, et al. Prevalence of dry out center among the elderly. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;124:723–8.
[6]. McCarty CA, Bansal AK, Livingston PM, et al. The epidemiology of dry eye in Melbourne, Australia. Ophthalmology 1998;105:1114–nine.
[7]. Lekhanont Thousand, Rojanaporn D, Chuck RS, et al. Prevalence of dry out centre in Bangkok, Thailand. Cornea 2006;25:1162–7.
[8]. Lin PY, Tsai SY, Cheng CY, et al. Prevalence of dry out eye amongst an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: the Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1096–101.
[9]. Uchino Grand, Dogru M, Yagi Y, et al. The features of dry center disease in a Japanese elderly population. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:797–802.
[10]. Jie Y, Xu L, Wu YY, et al. Prevalence of dry out eye among developed Chinese in the Beijing Eye Study. Centre (Lond) 2009;23:688–93.
- Cited Here
[11]. Geerling G, Tauber J, Baudouin C, et al. The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on management and treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:2050–64.
[12]. Key JE. A comparative written report of eyelid cleaning regimens in chronic blepharitis. CLAO J 1996;22:209–12.
[13]. Johnsons & Johnsons. Johnsons-baby-top-to-toe-launder [Internet] [cited 2019 Aug ane]. Available from: https://world wide web.johnsonsbaby.co.th/babe-products/johnsons-infant-peak-to-toe-wash.
- Cited Here
[14]. Guillon 1000, Maissa C, Wong S. Symptomatic relief associated with eyelid hygiene in inductive blepharitis and MGD. Eye Contact Lens 2012;38:306–12.
[15]. Duncan K, Jeng BH. Medical direction of blepharitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2015;26:289–94.
[16]. Buchholz P, Steeds CS, Stern LS, et al. Utility assessment to measure out the impact of dry out eye disease. Ocul Surf 2006;4:155–61.
- Cited Hither |
- PubMed
[17]. Koh Due south, Ikeda C, Fujimoto H, et al. Regional differences in tear pic stability and meibomian glands in patients with aqueous-deficient dry eye. Eye Contact Lens 2016;42:250–v.
[18]. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and Nomenclature Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop. Ocul Surf 2007;5:75–92.
- Cited Here |
- PubMed
[19]. Lee L, Garrett Q, Flanagan JL, et al. Handling practices and outcomes of meibomian gland dysfunction at a tertiary center in Southern India. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44:S138–43.
[20]. Lee H, Kim M, Park SY, et al. Mechanical meibomian gland squeezing combined with eyelid scrubs and warm compresses for the handling of meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Exp Optom 2017;100:598–602.
[21]. Albietz JM, Schmid KL. Intense pulsed calorie-free treatment and meibomian gland expression for moderate to advanced meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Exp Optom 2018;101:23–33.
[22]. Lindsley K, Matsumura S, Hatef E, et al. Interventions for chronic blepharitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;CD005556DOI 101002/14651858.CD005556.pub2.
- Cited Here |
- PubMed
[23]. Khaireddin R, Hueber A. Eyelid hygiene for contact lens wearers with blepharitis. Comparative investigation of handling with baby shampoo versus phospholipid solution. Ophthalmologe 2013;110:146–53.
[24]. Arrua One thousand, Samudio K, Farina N, et al. Comparative written report of the efficacy of different treatment options in patients with chronic blepharitis. Curvation Soc Esp Oftalmol 2015;xc:112–8.
[25]. Sung J, Wang MTM, Lee SH, et al. Randomized double-masked trial of eyelid cleansing treatments for blepharitis. Ocul Surf 2018;16:77–83.
- Cited Hither |
- PubMed
[26]. Amparo F, Schaumberg DA, Dana R. Comparison of ii questionnaires for dry centre symptom assessment: the ocular surface disease index and the symptom cess in dry heart. Ophthalmology 2015;122:1498–503.
Keywords:
baby shampoo; dry out eye; meibomian gland dysfunction; OCuSOFT lid scrub original
Source: https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2020/05080/efficacy_of_baby_shampoo_and_commercial_eyelid.81.aspx
ارسال یک نظر for "Is Johnson and Johnson Baby Shampoo Optimologist Tested"