ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Omidenepag Isopropyl in Patients with Normal-Tension Glaucoma.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twelve-month efficacy and safety of omidenepag isopropyl, a selective EP2 agonist, in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: the RENGE study.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2021Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Omidenepag Isopropyl 0.002% Ophthalmic Solution: A Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data in Japan.Advances in therapy · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Omidenepag Isopropyl in the Treatment of Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Twenty-Four-Hour Intraocular Pressure Control with Omidenepag Isopropyl 0.002% in Patients with Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Topical Medication Therapy for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo retrospectively evaluate the short-term efficacy of omidenepag isopropyl (EYBELIS 0.002%) by assessing its intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering capability and safety in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG). PATIENTS AND
methodsFifty-four NTG patients (54 eyes) who were newly administrated with omidenepag isopropyl were enrolled in the study. The subjects comprised 22 men and 32 women, and the mean age of the subjects was 55.0 ± 14.1 years. The mean deviation value using the Humphrey visual field test program (30-2 SITA Standard) was -5.03 ± 3.38 dB. The following data were retrieved from the medical records and used for retrospective analyses: IOP at baseline 1-2 months and 3-4 months after administration. The frequency of non-responder patients who had less than 10% IOP reduction was evaluated. Patients were observed for adverse reactions and dropouts at each time point.
resultsIOP at baseline, after 1-2 months and after 3-4 months was 15.7 ± 2.6 mmHg, 13.5 ± 2.3 mmHg, and 13.6 ± 2.4 mmHg, respectively. There was a significant decrease in IOP after administration (p<0.0001). Eleven patients (22.4%) were non-responders. Adverse reactions occurred in 4 patients (7.4%), including conjunctival hyperemia in 3 patients (after 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month, respectively) and eye pain in 1 patient (after 1 month). Five patients (9.3%) dropped out of the study because of an adverse reaction in 3 patients, insufficient IOP reduction in 1 patient, and discontinuation of follow-up of 1 patient at our institution.
conclusionAfter administration of omidenepag isopropyl, IOP in patients with NTG was significantly decreased. However, adverse reactions occurred in 7.4% of patients.
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.