Use of the corneal bioreactor to evaluate the anti‐edema effect and the ulcer healing rate between two commercial hyperosmotic eye drops: ODM5 and Muro 128

Abstract

PurposeThe corneal bioreactor (BR) in our laboratory, with an intraocular pressure (IOP) of 21 mmHg and the renewal of the culture medium, allows to maintain the homeostasis of the 3 layers of the cornea. We showed that an IOP reduced to 10 mmHg allowed to simulate a corneal edema (760 ± 57 µm) with a healthy epithelium.AimTo compare 2 hyperosmolar eye drops in the evolution of corneal deturgescence and epithelial ulcer healing: ODM5 composed mainly of NaCl 5% and hyaluronic acid (Horus Pharma, Saint‐Laurent‐du‐Var, France) and Muro 128 composed mainly of NaCl 5% and various excipients (Bausch+Lomb, Bridgewater, NJ)MethodsBeforehand, 3 pairs of human corneas were preserved for 2 weeks in the BR filled with CorneaMax (Eurobio, France), with a pressure maintained at 10 mmHg. A central epithelial ulcer of 6.64 ± 0.04 mm in diameter was made (D0). Each cornea received a drop of Muro 128 or ODM5 four times a day. Corneal central volume measurement (Casia 1, Tomey) was performed daily at the beginning and end of the day. Ulcer healing was monitored daily by fluorescein labelling and quantified by image analysis (Fiji) taken with a macroscope. At D14, the corneas were removed and fixed for immunostaining of E‐Cad (cell architecture), Zo‐1 (tight junctions), MUC16 (mucins), K3K12 (cell maturity) and for histology (Saffron Eosin Hemathein).ResultsMean daily volume loss was comparable: 2.43 ± 1.55 mm3 with ODM5 vs. 2.18 ± 1.71 mm3 with Muro 128 (p = 0.698 3). Corneal ulcers in all 3 pairs healed at D4, D5, D5 with ODM5 vs. D5, D13, and 1 cornea never healed with Muro 128. In IHC and histology, the epithelium was of better quality with ODM5.ConclusionsThe efficacy of the 2 eye drops is comparable. Epithelial preservation is partly better with ODM5, possibly related to the presence of hyaluronic acid.