Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rebamipide Versus Diquafosol in the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
8 affiliations
- 1Ophthalmology, Rochdale Infirmary, Rochdale, GBR.
- 2General Medicine, Avicenna Medical College, Lahore, PAK.
- 3Opthalmology, Rochdale Infirmary, Rochdale, GBR.
- 4Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, PAK.
- 5Ophthalmology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, ETH.
- 6Internal Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, MLT.
- 7Internal Medicine, Zydus Sitapur Hospital, Sitapur, IND.
- 8Cardiology, Baqai Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of rebamipide (REB) and diquafosol (DQS), two widely used mucin secretagogues, in the treatment of dry eye disease. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, identifying six comparative studies enrolling 277 patients across South Korea and Japan. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models, standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Tear break-up time showed no significant difference between REB and DQS (SMD = -0.21 seconds, 95% CI: -0.52 to 0.11, p=0.20). Subjective symptom scores were also comparable (SMD=0.11, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.38, p=0.40). Corneal staining scores were nearly identical (SMD=-0.002, 95% CI: -0.324 to 0.321, p=0.993), while conjunctival staining showed a nonsignificant trend favoring REB (SMD=-0.403, 95% CI: -1.508 to 0.702, p=0.475, I²=87.6%). These findings suggest comparable efficacy between both agents as first-line mucin secretagogues in the available studies, though formal equivalence cannot be established from this evidence base, and more large-scale trials are required to validate the findings.
Related
- Comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for pediatric empyema thoracis: a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses
- Comparative Effectiveness of Tricyclic Antidepressants, Serotonin–Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors, and Anticonvulsants for Diabetic Painful Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Comparative effectiveness of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation for post-stroke hemiplegia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Comparative effectiveness of exercise and self-management interventions delivered through different modes of digital support on pain and patient-reported physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Effectiveness, safety and therapeutic potential of medical cannabis across treatment-resistant neuropsychiatric disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{iqbal2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rebamipide Versus Diquafosol in the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.}},
author = {Mehreen Iqbal and Huzaifa Rehman and Allah Rakhio Bhurgri and Daniel Abera and Shramik Rawal and Sonalben Chaudhary and Shamsha Hirani},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.116835},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42927075},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rebamipide Versus Diquafosol in the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AU - Mehreen Iqbal
AU - Huzaifa Rehman
AU - Allah Rakhio Bhurgri
AU - Daniel Abera
AU - Shramik Rawal
AU - Sonalben Chaudhary
AU - Shamsha Hirani
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/24
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.116835
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42927075
AB - This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of rebamipide (REB) and diquafosol (DQS), two widely used mucin secretagogues, in the treatment of dry eye disease. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, identifying six comparative studies enrolling 277 patients across South Korea and Japan. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models, standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Tear break-up time showed no significant difference between REB and DQS (SMD = -0.21 seconds, 95% CI: -0.52 to 0.11, p=0.20). Subjective symptom scores were also comparable (SMD=0.11, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.38, p=0.40). Corneal staining scores were nearly identical (SMD=-0.002, 95% CI: -0.324 to 0.321, p=0.993), while conjunctival staining showed a nonsignificant trend favoring REB (SMD=-0.403, 95% CI: -1.508 to 0.702, p=0.475, I²=87.6%). These findings suggest comparable efficacy between both agents as first-line mucin secretagogues in the available studies, though formal equivalence cannot be established from this evidence base, and more large-scale trials are required to validate the findings.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -