CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2957 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

Lutein, zeaxanthin, curcumin, and vitamin D3 combination capsule,
does it really help with Improved tear volume and dry-eye symptoms?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 50 · Safety acceptable
Tear volume and symptoms improved together at eight weeks, but evidence remains small and not independently replicated
Hematology, chemistry, vital signs, physical examination, and adverse events were assessed, with no safety signal or serious adverse event reported.
What the
research shows
Grade C. At day 56, OSDI changed from 30.10±4.88 to 17.09±4.85 with the supplement and from 32.54±5.06 to 31.00±7.18 with placebo, with between-group P=.0001. Schirmer tear volume also improved more with the supplement (P<.0001). Both coprimary endpoints were positive, but this was a small eight-week manufacturer trial.
What the
ads claim
This evidence concerns the fixed four-ingredient formulation. It cannot be decomposed into benefit from lutein, curcumin, or vitamin D alone or generalized to another blend.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The capsule contained lutein 20 mg, zeaxanthin 4 mg, curcuminoids 200 mg, and vitamin D3 600 IU.
  • The placebo was a visually matched soybean-oil capsule.
  • Follow-up lasted 56 days.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2957 · C 50
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The Indian single-center double-blind trial randomized 60 adults with mild-to-moderate dry eye, 30 per group, to the supplement or matched soybean-oil placebo for eight weeks; 59 completed. Coprimary outcomes were day-56 Schirmer tear volume and OSDI symptoms, and both were positive. The paper's tables did not report 95% confidence intervals for the between-group effects. No prespecified clinically important minimum Schirmer-mm or OSDI difference was identified.

02

Why this is classified as C (50)

Both coprimary endpoints succeeded, but short, small, complete-case evidence from one company lineage gives C with 50 points.

Counterpoint. Symptoms and tear volume improved together, but long-term durability and company-independent replication remain unestablished.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Positive coprimary endpoints in a 60-person, eight-week complete-case trial from one company development lineage

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointSSurrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI0Evidence comes only from manufacturer studies
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Improved day-56 tear volume and OSDICBoth coprimary endpoints were positive.
Reduced artificial-tear useDThe follow-up between-group P value was .562.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial59Supported by OmniActive Health Technologies, which manufactured and supplied product and placebo and participated in formulation development; four OmniActive employee authors (Priyanka Radkar, Abhijeet Morde, Deshanie Rai, and Muralidhara Padigaru)Coprimary day-56 Schirmer tear volume and OSDIBetween-group P=.0001 for OSDI and P<.0001 for Schirmer; 95% CIs not reportedPivotal manufacturer trial
Study 2Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial116Trial funded by OmniActive; publication costs and medical-writing and editorial support provided by Bausch + Lomb; three OmniActive employee authors (AM, DR, MP), two Bausch + Lomb employee authors (RR, KB), and four Bausch + Lomb advisory-board members (NG, JG, JP, LP)Day-56 Schirmer and OSDIBoth favored supplement (P<.001); artificial-tear use P=.562Same direction but not independent replication
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Radkar P, et al. A Novel Multi-Ingredient Supplement Reduces Inflammation of the Eye and Improves Production and Quality of Tears in Humans. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10:581-599. PMID: 34129210.
checked
A novel multi-ingredient supplement significantly improves ocular symptom severity and tear production in patients with dry eye disease. Front Ophthalmol. 2024. PMID: 38984118.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Lutein, Zeaxanthin, Curcumin, and Vitamin D3 for Tear Volume and Dry-Eye Symptoms Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Lutein, Zeaxanthin, Curcumin, and Vitamin D3 for Tear Volume and Dry-Eye Symptoms — Evidence Grade C·50. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/eye/lutein-zeaxanthin-curcumin-vitamin-d-dry-eye/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.