ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2012
Corneal epithelial toxicity of antiglaucoma formulations: in vitro study of repeated applications.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6 % used three times daily for 7 days in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.Drugs in R&D · 2013Trial
- Eye Irritation Potential of Microglycine and Microglycine-Containing Ointments: An in vitro Study on Reconstructed Human Corneal Epithelium.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBy using a biologically relevant and sensitive three-dimensional model of human corneal epithelium and multiple endpoint analysis, assessment of the potential for eye irritation and long-term compatibility of four registered ophthalmological preparations, ie, Timolabak(®), Timoptol(®), Nyogel(®), and Timogel(®), was performed. This approach enables classification of the potential for irritation, discriminating between mildly irritant and non-irritant ocular substances.
methodsThe exposure protocol included two time periods, ie, 24 hours (acute application) and 72 hours (repeated applications twice daily). This approach allows assessment of not only the acute reaction but also possible recovery, as well as mimicking the potential cumulative effects associated with long-term application. Using benzalkonium chloride (BAK) 0.01% as a positive control, the following parameters were quantified: cellular viability by MTT test, histological analysis by hematoxylin and eosin staining, passive release of interleukin-1α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and OCLN gene expression by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
resultsCell viability was reduced to under the 50% cutoff value after acute exposure (24 hours) to BAK 0.01%, and after repeated application (72 hours) of Timoptol and Nyogel. Histological analysis after acute exposure showed signs of superficial damage with all formulations, and severe changes after repeated applications of Timoptol, BAK 0.01%, and Nyogel. Timolabak and Timogel did not significantly alter the morphology of the human corneal epithelial cells after the different exposure times. Interleukin-1α release was greater than that for the negative control (>20 pg/mL) and the positive control (BAK 0.01%), Nyogel, and Timoptol treatments and not different after treatment with Timolabak and Timogel. Expression of OCLN, a sign of epithelial barrier impairment, was only significantly upregulated at 24 hours by BAK 0.01%, suggesting a toxic reaction at the ocular surface. OCLN was also overexpressed after repeated application of Nyogel and Timogel.
conclusionOVERALL, THE MULTIPLE ENDPOINT ANALYSIS APPROACH ALLOWS CLASSIFICATION OF THESE PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO DECREASING ORDER OF IRRITATION POTENTIAL AS FOLLOWS: BAK 0.01%, Timoptol, Nyogel, Timogel, and Timolabak.
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.