Sodium hyaluronate 0.05% / Ectoine 2% eye drops preservative free
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Sodium hyaluronate + Ectoine on the MHRA register
Hylo-Dual eye drops preservative free
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 12 · Randomised trials: 14 · 1980–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
B. Ang, J. Sng, Priscilla X. Wang, et al.
Scientific Reports, 2017
Qinglin Wu, Zuqing Wu, Zhifu Lu
2023
Background: The efficacy of acupotomy combined with hyaluronic sodium acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of acupotomy combined with hyaluronic sodium acid compared with hyaluronic sodium acid alone in the treatment of KOA. Methods: Studies from 8 Online databases were searched on KOA treatment using acupotomy combined with sodium hyaluronate until May 2022. The primary outcome indicator was clinical effectiveness, and the secondary outcome indicators included the visual analogue scale scores and Lysholm scores. We calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) or relative risk for all relevant outcomes. Results: Nine studies were identified, involving 644 cases. The results showed that acupotomy combined with intra-articular sodium hyaluronate injection for KOA was superior to sodium hyaluronate injection alone in terms of clinical effectiveness (relative risk = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09–1.25, P < .001) and visual analogue scale (WMD = −2.1, 95% CI: −2.25 to 1.95, P < .001), Lysholm score (WMD = 13.83, 95% CI: 3.47–24.19, P = .009). Conclusion: Acupotomy combined with intra-articular sodium hyaluronate injection for KOA is superior to sodium hyaluronate injection alone. Limited by the number and quality of included studies, this conclusion still needs to be verified by more high-quality Research. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202350029.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Y. Wen, Xiaocheng Zhang, Mao-sheng Chen, et al.
Annals of palliative medicine, 2020
L. Hangody, Róbert Sződy, P. Lukasik, et al.
Cartilage, 2017
Xiao Yang, Weimin Liang, Jiabing Li, et al.
Annals of palliative medicine, 2021
Elspeth Murray, D. Challoumas, A. Putti, et al.
The Journal of hand surgery, 2021
Xin-Yu Jia, Si-li Jing, Yang Sun, et al.
BMC Oral Health, 2024
X. Kong, Chengrui Yan, Wenbin Ma, et al.
Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2016
Foreign Language Science and Technology Journal Database Medicine and Health, 2021
Tugba Bulut, Nuray Ercan
2025
Abstract BACKGROUND This study evaluates the effect of polyvinylpyrrolidone sodium hyaluronate gel (Gelclair®) on palatal wound healing, pain, and bleeding following free gingival graft surgery (FGG). METHODS Thirty-two patients undergoing FGG were randomly assigned to two groups: the test group received Gelclair® and chlorhexidine mouthwash, while the control group received only chlorhexidine. Patients were called at first, third, seventh, fourteenth and twenty-eighth postoperative days and, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Wound Healing Index (WHI), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) bubbling scores and bleeding situations were recorded. The Friedman test was used for repeated measures, with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test as post-hoc, and the Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons. RESULTS H₂O₂ test values significantly decreased and WHI values significantly increased over time in both groups (p < 0.050). Test and control groups comparison at time points showed the test group showed significantly lower H₂O₂ test values on days 7, 14, and 28 (p < 0.050) and higher WHI values on days 3, 7, 14, and 28 compared to control group. VAS pain, chewing, and burning scores were also significantly lower in the test group on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 compared to control. While on day 1, the control group had a bleeding rate of 105 times higher than the test group (p < 0.001), no significant differences were observed on days 3 and 7. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that Gelclair® promotes wound healing and reduces discomfort and bleeding in the palatal donor area after FGG. Trial registration number: NCT06610331 ; Retrospectively registered on 23/09/2024
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.