Downie Laura E, Ng Sueko M, Lindsley Kristina B, Akpek Esen K
The University of Melbourne, Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Level 4, Alice Hoy Building, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3010.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 615 N. Wolfe Street, W5010, c/o Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21205.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 18;12(12):CD011016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011016.pub2.
Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements, involving omega-3 and/or omega-6 components, have been proposed as a therapy for dry eye. Omega-3 PUFAs exist in both short- (alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]) and long-chain (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) forms, which largely derive from certain plant- and marine-based foods respectively. Omega-6 PUFAs are present in some vegetable oils, meats, and other animal products.
To assess the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements on dry eye signs and symptoms.
CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, two other databases and three trial registries were searched in February 2018, together with reference checking. A top-up search was conducted in October 2019, but the results have not yet been incorporated.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving dry eye participants, in which omega-3 and/or omega-6 supplements were compared with a placebo/control supplement, artificial tears, or no treatment. We included head-to-head trials comparing different forms or doses of PUFAs.
We followed standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
We included 34 RCTs, involving 4314 adult participants from 13 countries with dry eye of variable severity and etiology. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Nine (26.5%) studies had published protocols and/or were registered. Over half of studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus placebo or no treatment (10 RCTs) We found low certainty evidence that there may be little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with long-chain omega-3 versus placebo (four studies, 677 participants; mean difference [MD] -2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.14 to 0.19 units). We found moderate certainty evidence for a probable benefit of long-chain omega-3 supplements in increasing aqueous tear production relative to placebo (six studies, 1704 participants; MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.09 mm/5 min using the Schirmer test), although we did not judge this difference to be clinically meaningful. We found low certainty evidence for a possible reduction in tear osmolarity (one study, 54 participants; MD -17.71, 95% CI -28.07 to -7.35 mOsmol/L). Heterogeneity was too substantial to pool data on tear break-up time (TBUT) and adverse effects. Combined omega-3 and omega-6 versus placebo (four RCTs) For symptoms (low certainty) and ocular surface staining (moderate certainty), data from the four included trials could not be meta-analyzed, and thus effects on these outcomes were unclear. For the Schirmer test, we found moderate certainty evidence that there was no intergroup difference (four studies, 455 participants; MD: 0.66, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.77 mm/5 min). There was moderate certainty for a probable improvement in TBUT with the PUFA intervention relative to placebo (four studies, 455 participants; MD 0.55, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.07 seconds). Effects on tear osmolarity and adverse events were unclear, with data only available from a single small study for each outcome. Omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (two RCTs) For omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, we found low certainty evidence suggesting an intergroup difference in symptoms favoring the omega-3 group (two studies, 70 participants; MD -7.16, 95% CI -13.97 to -0.34 OSDI units). Data could not be combined for all other outcomes. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus omega-6 (five RCTs) For long-chain omega-3 versus omega-6 supplementation, we found moderate certainty evidence for a probable improvement in dry eye symptoms (two studies, 130 participants; MD -11.88, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.92 OSDI units). Meta-analysis was not possible for outcomes relating to ocular surface staining, Schirmer test or TBUT. We found low certainty evidence for a potential improvement in tear osmolarity (one study, 105 participants; MD -11.10, 95% CI -12.15 to -10.05 mOsmol/L). There was low level certainty regarding any potential effect on gastrointestinal side effects (two studies, 91 participants; RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.35 to 15.54).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings in this review suggest a possible role for long-chain omega-3 supplementation in managing dry eye disease, although the evidence is uncertain and inconsistent. A core outcome set would work toward improving the consistency of reporting and the capacity to synthesize evidence.
多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA)补充剂,包括ω-3和/或ω-6成分,已被提议作为治疗干眼症的一种方法。ω-3多不饱和脂肪酸以短链(α-亚麻酸[ALA])和长链(二十碳五烯酸[EPA]和二十二碳六烯酸[DHA])两种形式存在,它们分别主要来源于某些植物性和海洋性食物。ω-6多不饱和脂肪酸存在于一些植物油、肉类和其他动物产品中。
评估ω-3和ω-6多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA)补充剂对干眼体征和症状的影响。
2018年2月检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)以及其他两个数据库和三个试验注册库,并进行了参考文献核对。2019年10月进行了补充检索,但结果尚未纳入。
我们纳入了涉及干眼症患者的随机对照试验(RCT),其中将ω-3和/或ω-6补充剂与安慰剂/对照补充剂、人工泪液或不治疗进行比较。我们纳入了比较不同形式或剂量的多不饱和脂肪酸的直接对比试验。
我们遵循Cochrane标准方法,并使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了34项随机对照试验,涉及来自13个国家的4314名成年干眼症患者,病情严重程度和病因各不相同。随访时间为1至12个月。9项(26.5%)研究已发表方案和/或进行了注册。超过一半的研究在一个或多个领域存在高偏倚风险。长链ω-3(EPA和DHA)与安慰剂或不治疗(10项随机对照试验)我们发现低确定性证据表明长链ω-3与安慰剂相比可能对干眼症状几乎没有或没有减轻作用(4项研究,677名参与者;平均差[MD]-2.47,95%置信区间[CI]-5.14至0.19单位)。我们发现中等确定性证据表明相对于安慰剂,长链ω-3补充剂可能有助于增加泪液分泌(6项研究,1704名参与者;使用Schirmer试验,MD 0.68,95% CI 0.26至1.09 mm/5分钟),尽管我们认为这种差异在临床上没有意义。我们发现低确定性证据表明泪液渗透压可能降低(1项研究,54名参与者;MD -17.71,95% CI -28.07至-7.35 mOsmol/L)。泪膜破裂时间(TBUT)和不良反应的数据异质性太大,无法合并。联合ω-3和ω-6与安慰剂(4项随机对照试验)对于症状(低确定性)和眼表染色(中等确定性),纳入的4项试验的数据无法进行荟萃分析,因此对这些结果的影响尚不清楚。对于Schirmer试验,我们发现中等确定性证据表明组间无差异(4项研究,455名参与者;MD:0.66,95% CI -0.45至1.77 mm/5分钟)。相对于安慰剂,PUFA干预可能使TBUT有中等确定性的改善(4项研究,455名参与者;MD 0.55,95% CI 0.04至1.07秒)。对泪液渗透压和不良事件的影响尚不清楚,每个结果仅有一项小型研究的数据。ω-3加传统疗法与单纯传统疗法(2项随机对照试验)对于ω-3加传统疗法与单纯传统疗法,我们发现低确定性证据表明组间在症状方面存在差异,ω-3组更优(2项研究,70名参与者;MD -7.16,95% CI -13.97至-0.34眼表疾病指数[OSDI]单位)。所有其他结果的数据无法合并。长链ω-3(EPA和DHA)与ω-6(5项随机对照试验)对于长链ω-3与ω-6补充剂,我们发现中等确定性证据表明干眼症状可能有改善(2项研究,130名参与者;MD -11.88,95% CI -18.85至-4.92 OSDI单位)。与眼表染色、Schirmer试验或TBUT相关的结果无法进行荟萃分析。我们发现低确定性证据表明泪液渗透压可能有潜在改善(1项研究,105名参与者;MD -11.10,95% CI -12.15至-10.05 mOsmol/L)。关于对胃肠道副作用的任何潜在影响,确定性较低(2项研究,91名参与者;相对危险度[RR] 2.34,95% CI 0.35至15.54)。
总体而言,本综述的结果表明长链ω-3补充剂在治疗干眼病中可能有一定作用,尽管证据不确定且不一致。一个核心结局集将有助于提高报告的一致性和证据综合的能力。