The Ex Vivo Eye Irritation Test (EVEIT) in evaluation of artificial tears: Purite®-preserved versus unpreserved eye drops




Preservatives in artificial tears cause controversy. New developments such as the Purite® system have been introduced into the market, with the promise of little damage to the corneal surface. We wanted to give insight into the differences in the effect of preserved and unpreserved artifical tears on rabbit corneas cultured with the Ex Vivo Eye Irritation Test (EVEIT) system.


We compared the two artifical tears products Hylo Comod® and Optive® being dropped for 72 hours each hour one drop onto the corneal surface.


Each cornea was mechanically wounded with four epithelial defects on each cornea with a size of 3 to 4.5 mm2. With n = 4 corneas in the Hylo-Comod® and n = 4 corneas in the Optive® group, we exposed the corneal surfaces to repeated doses of these artificial tears for 3 days. We observed healing of corneal erosions and surface epithelial integrity with sodium-fluoresceine staining under cobalt blue light illumination.


We found nearly complete healing of epithelial defects with both artificial tears. The Hylo-Comod® group healed significantly faster. After 72 hours, the vast majority of epithelial defects were closed. All corneas exposed to Purite® showed superficial stippling, whereas the HyloComod® group did not show any stippling of the cornea; this difference was significant.


Epithelial healing and recovery in the EVEIT system is observed in both groups, confirming the concept of artificial tears as a supporting factor of corneal health and healing. The superficial stippling of the corneal epithelium was observed only in the Optive® group. This effect is considered as a marker of dry eye syndrome, and should be prevented by the application of artificial tears. Preservative-free eye drops such as HyloComod® improve healing, and prevent symptoms of dry eye syndrome in the EVEITsystem. Compared to EVEIT results of former experiments with benzalconium chloride-preserved eye drops, Optive® promoted healing of corneal erosions.


EVEIT Cornea Healing Preservative free medication Dry eye syndrome Purite® Hyaluronic acid 


  1. 1.
    Donahue DA, Avalos J, Kaufman LE, Simion FA, Cerven DR (2011) Ocular irritation reversibility assessment for personal care products using a porcine corneal culture assay. Toxicol In Vitro 25:708–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Enzenauer RW, Kao A, Williams T, Lambert RW (2003) Relative costs of various preserved artificial tear solutions for the treatment of dry eye conditions. Eye Contact Lens 29:238–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frentz M, Goss M, Reim M, Schrage NF (2008) Repeated exposure to benzalkonium chloride in the Ex Vivo Eye Irritation Test (EVEIT): observation of isolated corneal damage and healing. Altern Lab Anim 36:25–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Isnard N, Bourles-Dagonet F, Robert L, Renard G (2005) Studies on corneal wound healing. Effect of fucose on iodine vapor-burnt rabbit corneas. Ophthalmologica 219:324–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee JH, Ahn HS, Kim EK, Kim TI (2011) Efficacy of sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose in treating mild to moderate dry eye disease. Cornea 30:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lopez Bernal D, Ubels JL (1993) Artificial tear composition and promotion of recovery of the damaged corneal epithelium. Cornea 12:115–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mokhtarzadeh M, Casey R, Glasgow BJ (2011) Fluorescein punctate staining traced to superficial corneal epithelial cells by impression cytology and confocal microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:2127–2135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagai N, Murao T, Okamoto N, Ito Y (2010) Comparison of corneal wound healing rates after instillation of commercially available latanoprost and travoprost in rat debrided corneal epithelium. J Oleo Sci 59:135–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poon AC, Geerling G, Dart JK, Fraenkel GE, Daniels JT (2001) Autologous serum eyedrops for dry eyes and epithelial defects: clinical and in vitro toxicity studies. Br J Ophthalmol 85:1188–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ubels JL, Clousing DP, Van Haitsma TA, Hong BS, Stauffer P, Asgharian B, Meadows D (2004) Pre-clinical investigation of the efficacy of an artificial tear solution containing hydroxypropyl-guar as a gelling agent. Curr Eye Res 28:437–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vaede D, Baudouin C, Warnet JM, Brignole-Baudouin F (2010) Les conservateurs des collyres: vers une prise de conscience de leur toxicité. J Fr Ophtalmol 33:505–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson SL, Daniels JT, Geerling G, Dart JK (2010) Clinical trials of therapeutic ocular surface medium for moderate to severe dry eye. Cornea 29:1241–1246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schrage NF, Frentz M, Reim M (2010) Changing the composition of buffered eye-drops prevents undesired side effects. Br J Ophthalmol 94(11):1519–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spöler F, Frentz M, Schrage NF (2010) Towards a new in vitro model of dry eye: the ex vivo eye irritation test. Dev Ophthalmol 45:93–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crouch R, Ling Z, Hayden BJ (1988) Corneal oxygen scavenging systems: lysis of corneal epithelial cells by superoxide anions. Basic Life Sci 49:1043–1046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hull DS, Green K, Thomas L, Alderman N (1984) Hydrogen peroxide-mediated corneal endothelial damage. Induction by oxygen free radical. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25(11):1246–1253PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ACTO e.V. An-Institut der medizinischen Fakultät RWTH AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Augenklinik Köln MerheimCologneGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Halbleitertechnik an der RWTH Aachen Institut für Halbleitertechnik (IHT)RWTH AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations