Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2007
Clinical and biological efficacy of preservative-free NAAGA eye-drops versus levocabastine eye-drops in vernal keratoconjunctivitis patients.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid versus fluorometholone for treating allergic conjunctivitis in an environmental exposure chamber.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Trial
- Clinical and Biological Evaluation of NAAGA Versus Azelastine Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis and Tear Film Dysfunction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Management of vernal keratoconjunctivitis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2013Article
- Management of vernal keratoconjunctivitis in children in Saudi Arabia.Oman journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis comparative and randomised pilot study assessed the clinical and biological efficacy of Naaxia Sine(R) eye-drops versus levocabastine eye-drops in the treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC).
methodsTwenty-three VKC patients were randomised and treated bilaterally for 28 days with N-acetyl-aspartyl-glutamate (NAAGA) or levocabastine (LEVO) eye-drops. The primary efficacy variable, overall evolution of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) tear concentrations, was assessed in a masked fashion on D0, D7 and D28. Clinical symptoms and signs were reported at the same time points. Biological parameters were analysed with a non-parametric rank-based approach. Global tolerance was assessed by the investigator and patient.
resultsAt all time points, ECP tear levels were significantly reduced in the NAAGA compared with the LEVO group (p = 0.023). Reduction of eosinophil leucocytes and tear lymphocytes was higher not significant in the NAAGA group. The same trend was observed for the evolution of total ocular symptom score. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the occurrence of adverse effects, except for burning which was more frequent in the LEVO group (p = 0.002).
conclusionThe anti-eosinophilic actions of NAAGA were shown by a significant reduction of ECP tear concentrations. A decreased lymphocyte count and an overall improvement of the symptomatology were also noted. Moreover, the tolerability of NAAGA appeared to be better.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.