Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Efficacy and Toxicity Evaluation of Bepotastine Besilate 1.5% Preservative-Free Eye Drops Vs Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.2% Bak-Preserved Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To study the efficacy and toxic effects of bepotastine besilate 1.5% preservative-free (BB-PF) and olopatadine 0.2% BAK-preserved (OL-BAK) drops on the ocular surface of patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Patients and Methods: Ninety-seven patients with allergic conjunctivitis diagnosis participated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients received either BB-PF (n=48) or OL-BAK (n=49), both administered once daily in the morning. The patients were followed for 60 days. Ocular itching was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included ocular symptoms, signs, and non-ocular symptoms associated with rhinoconjunctivitis. Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) was performed to evaluate histopathological changes related to the toxic effects of preservatives. Results: BB-PF treatment was associated with a 1.30 more probability of diminished ocular itching than OL-BAK (odds ratio (OR)=1.30; 95% CI=(0.96-1.7); p=0.086). No statistically significant differences were found between treatments in the resolution of other ocular symptoms or signs, except for tearing, which was superior in the BB-PF (OR=1.37; 95% (1.26-1.47); p<0.0001). BB-PF was superior in terms of the resolution of rhinorrhea (p=0.040) and nasal itching (p=0.037). After 60 days of treatment, the BB-PF group exhibited 2.0 times higher probability of having a lower Nelson scale score compared to the OL-BAK group (OR=2.00; 95% CI=(1.19-3.34); p=0.010). Conclusion: Both medications presented a similar efficacy in terms of the resolution of ocular signs and symptoms associated with ocular conjunctivitis. BB-PF is superior in the resolution of non-ocular symptoms and safer for the ocular surface than OL-BAK.
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.