ArticleEye (London, England)2020
Trends in licence approvals for ophthalmic medicines in the United Kingdom.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe grant of marketing authorisation (MA) for new medicines requires comprehensive assessment by regulatory authorities. This study sought to identify ophthalmic medicines granted United Kingdom MA and consider trends in licence approvals.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed published lists of products granted MA by the UK Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency between January 2001 and December 2018, inclusive. Eye drops and medicinal products intended for ophthalmic use were identified. All regulatory data sources consulted are in the public domain. Data analyses were descriptive.
resultsA total of 295 MAs were issued for ophthalmic products between 2001 and 2018, inclusive. Of these 229 (78%) were for single-active substances and 66 (22%) fixed-dose combination (FDC). Approvals for products with single-active substance included ocular hypotensives (115; 50%), antibiotics (48; 22%), allergy medicines (30; 13%), lubricants (18; 8%) and anti-inflammatories (11; 5%). Approvals for FDCs were predominantly ocular hypotensives (56; 85%), with timolol combined with carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (27; 48%) and prostaglandin analogues (26; 46%) accounting for the majority of glaucoma FDCs. Other FDCs were approved for antibiotic/inflammatory (5; 7.5%), pupillary mydriasis (2; 3%), allergy (2; 3%) and ocular surface lubrication (1; 1.5%) products. A median of 16 licences were approved per year (range 7 [2005] to 35 [2011]).
conclusionsThe majority of MAs granted were for single-agent products, particularly ocular hypotensives and antibiotic preparations. Most products were generic versions of well-established active substances. A trend for increased approvals for FDCs is evident, particularly for the treatment of raised IOP.
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.