Observational studyPloS one2025
Objective hyperemia and intraocular pressure changes following omidenepag isopropyl application.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conjunctival hyperemia was the most common adverse drug reaction to the ophthalmic solution omidenepag isopropyl in a post-marketing observational study. Here, we prospectively examined changes in hyperemia from before to 3 months after the initiation of the omidenepag isopropyl, a selective E-prostanoid receptor-2 receptor agonist, using hyperemia analysis software. Subjects were glaucoma patients who started omidenepag isopropyl use at Hiroshima University Hospital and Saneikai Tsukazaki Hospital. Hyperemia was compared by calculating the percentage coverage of vessels on the apex side using hyperemia analysis software based on anterior segment images. A total of 45 patients were enrolled, with 19 eyes in the new administration treatment group and 26 eyes in the group switched from F-prostanoid receptor agonists. Following switching from F-prostanoid receptor agonists to omidenepag isopropyl, there was no significant change in the hyperemia area from 7.4 (5.7-8.8) % to 7.4 (5.3-8.3)% (P = 0.53, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). In the new administration group, the hyperemia area increased significantly from7.0 (5.2-8.6) % to 8.2 (6.4-9.1) % (P = 0.02, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). There was no significant change in intraocular pressure (IOP) from 15.0 (12.0-17.0) mmHg to 14.0 (12.0-15.0) mmHg in the switching group (P = 0.37, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), whereas there was a significant IOP reduction from 15.0 (13.5-18.5) mmHg to 15.0 (11.0-16.5) mmHg (P = 0.03, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) in the new administration group. One eye in the new administration group that developed macular edema during the observation period resolved spontaneously upon discontinuing omidenepag isopropyl. Both hyperemia and IOP reduction with omidenepag isopropyl ophthalmic solution were comparable to those achieved with F-prostanoid receptor agonists.
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.