ReviewJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2025
Reproxalap in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Reproxalap Treatment on Dry Eye Disease Symptoms: Analysis of Pooled Data From Two Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled, 12-Week Clinical Trials.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety of Reproxalap in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of fluorometholone combined with azelastine eye drops for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is a hypersensitivity condition characterized by itching, tearing, and redness. It affects over 20% of the general population with limited therapeutic options. Reproxalap, a novel small-molecule aldehyde trap, has emerged as a potential treatment option for SAC by targeting reactive aldehydes involved in inflammation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of Reproxalap in treating SAC.
methodsMultiple databases were searched including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant studies. Clinical trials involving patients diagnosed with SAC and treated with Reproxalap (0.25% or 0.5%) were included. The primary outcomes were symptom relief (efficacy) and side effects (safety). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsFive RCTs involving 625 participants were included. Reproxalap significantly reduced ocular itching compared to control groups for both 0.25% (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.13, P = .001) and 0.5% concentrations (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.10, P = 0.004). No significant difference was observed between the two doses (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.19, P = 0.83). Side effects were more frequent in both Reproxalap groups compared to controls, with odds ratios of 35.31 (95% CI: 17.83 to 69.90, P < 0.00001) for 0.25% and 45.64 (95% CI: 18.49 to 112.66, P < 0.00001) for 0.5%. The 0.5% dose had significantly higher odds of side effects compared to the 0.25% dose (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.51, P = 0.02). Heterogeneity was low for all outcomes (I
conclusionReproxalap reduces ocular itching associated with SAC. While both 0.25% and 0.5% concentrations are effective, safe and tolerable. Further research should focus on the long-term benefits and applicability of Reproxalap on diverse populations.
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.