Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38662193›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024

Understanding Perspectives on Presbyopia and Use of Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% Twice Daily from Participants of the Phase 3 VIRGO Study.

Brian M Shafer, Selina R McGee, Cristos Ifantides, Blake K Williamson, Shane Kannarr, Julie Whyte, Zuoyi Zhang, Travis Yanke, Scott Schachter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Pilocarpine 1% for Improved Near Vision in Pseudophakic Patients.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Brian M ShaferShafer Vision Institute, 633 W Germantown Pike, Suite 100, Plymouth Meeting, PA, 19462, USA. Brian.Shafer@ShaferVision.com.
Selina R McGeeBeSpoke Vision, Edmond, OK, USA.
Cristos IfantidesTyson Eye, Cape Coral, FL, USA.
Blake K WilliamsonWilliamson Eye Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Shane KannarrKannarr Eye Care, Pittsburg, KS, USA.
Julie WhyteEndpoint Outcomes, a Lumanity company, Boston, MA, USA.
Zuoyi ZhangAllergan, an AbbVie company, Irvine, CA, USA.
Travis YankeAllergan, an AbbVie company, Irvine, CA, USA.
Scott SchachterAllergan, an AbbVie company, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe phase 3, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 14-day VIRGO study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily dosing of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 1.25% (Pilo) in presbyopia. On VIRGO exit, a companion study was conducted to assess the patient experience with presbyopia and satisfaction with Pilo.

methodsRecruited individuals completed the Presbyopia Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PPSQ) plus a three-part exit survey, or a live interview. The PPSQ evaluated respondents' experience with Pilo. Survey parts 1 and 2 evaluated experience managing presbyopia before and during VIRGO, respectively; part 3 assessed future possibilities of using Pilo in real-world situations. The interview further informed the interviewees' experience with presbyopia and Pilo. The primary endpoint was responders (%) in each rating category of the PPSQ items 1-7; the secondary endpoints were summary of categorical (survey) and qualitative (interviews) responses.

resultsThe PPSQ and survey included 62 participants who received Pilo (N = 28) or vehicle (N = 34) in VIRGO; the interview included ten participants (Pilo, N = 4; vehicle, N = 6). Per the PPSQ, 64.3% of Pilo users reported vision improvement, including 17.9% with complete improvement; ≥ 46.4% were satisfied/very satisfied with their ability to perform daily activities, see up close unaided, and read in dim light. Among vehicle users, these percentages were 35.3%, 0%, and ≤ 23.5%, respectively. In both subgroups, ≥ 67.9% were interested in using Pilo or Pilo and eyeglasses/contact lenses in the future. Per the interview, vehicle users (n = 6/6) found the eyedrop easy to use but none experienced meaningful near-vision improvements, stopped using other correction method(s) part of the day, were satisfied with the eyedrop, preferred it over their previous correction method(s), or would continue using it if prescribed. Conversely, 75% (n = 3/4) of Pilo users responded positively to each of these six criteria.

conclusionsFindings validate the VIRGO results and improve our understanding of the patient experience, demonstrating improved vision and satisfaction with Pilo (vs. vehicle) when performing daily activities.

Indexed as

Patient-reported outcomesPilocarpinePresbyopiaQuestionnaireReadingRefractive correctionSurveyVision

Identifiers

PMID38662193
PMCPMC11109051

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.