Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35235173›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022

In Vitro and In-Eye Comparison of Commercial Pilocarpine Ophthalmic Solution and an Optimized, Reformulated Pilocarpine for Presbyopia Treatment.

Mitchell A Jackson, Jaya Giyanani, Yumna Shabaik, Jeff Penzner, Anuradha V Gore, Michael R Robinson, George O Waring

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mitchell A Jackson, Jacksoneye, Lake Villa, IL, USA.
Jaya GiyananiAllergan, an AbbVie company, 2525 Dupont Drive, RD3-2251, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA. jaya.giyanani@abbvie.com.
Yumna ShabaikAllergan, an AbbVie company, 2525 Dupont Drive, RD3-2251, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA.
Jeff PenznerAllergan, an AbbVie company, 2525 Dupont Drive, RD3-2251, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA.
Anuradha V GoreAllergan, an AbbVie company, 2525 Dupont Drive, RD3-2251, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA.
Michael R RobinsonAllergan, an AbbVie company, 2525 Dupont Drive, RD3-2251, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA.
George O WaringWaring Vision Institute, Mt. Pleasant, SC, USA.
Allergan (United States) · USAbbVie (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPilocarpine hydrochloride (pilo) ophthalmic solution has traditionally been used for the treatment of glaucoma, with opportunities to improve the tolerability profile experienced by patients. Pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 1.25% (Vuity™, Allergan, an AbbVie company) was approved in late 2021 for the treatment of adults with presbyopia. This publication describes the properties of the optimized, proprietary vehicle of this new ophthalmic solution developed with the aim of improving tolerability upon instillation.

methodsAn in vitro method determined the time required for the pH of pilo 1.25% in the proprietary vehicle (Optimized Formulation) and a commercially available 1% pilo ophthalmic solution (Generic Formulation) to equilibrate with the pH of simulated tear fluid (STF). In a pilot study, five of the six screened participants received one drop of the Optimized Formulation in one eye and Generic Formulation in the other. Ocular discomfort and vision blur were evaluated for each eye just prior to and at multiple times after drop instillation using visual analog scales (VAS), and adverse events were assessed.

resultsThe in vitro method showed that the Optimized Formulation achieved faster pH equilibration than the Generic Formulation. The pilot study revealed that the Optimized Formulation demonstrated less ocular discomfort, vision blur, and adverse events compared to the Generic.

conclusionThe in vitro and pilot study of the Optimized Formulation indicated that it rapidly equilibrates to the physiologic pH of the tear film, providing greater comfort and tolerability while also minimizing vision blur. Overall, the proprietary vehicle is expected to improve comfort, result in less vision blur, and provide a well-tolerated alternative method to deliver pilo for the treatment of presbyopia when compared to what is commercially available.

Indexed as

Ocular topical therapyOptimized vehiclePilocarpinePresbyopia

Identifiers

PMID35235173
PMCPMC8927535
OpenAlexW4214807852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.