3.8 Article

Time course of conjunctival hyperemia induced by omidenepag isopropyl ophthalmic solution 0.002%: a pilot, comparative study versus ripasudil 0.4%

期刊

BMJ OPEN OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000538

关键词

glaucoma; drugs; conjunctiva; ocular surface; pharmacology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective We investigated the detailed time course of conjunctival hyperemia induced by omidenepag isopropyl ophthalmic solution 0.002% (omidenepag), a selective prostaglandin E2 receptor 2 agonist. Methods and analysis We recruited 34 healthy subjects and administered omidenepag in the right eye and ripasudil 0.4% in the left eye. We evaluated conjunctival hyperemia using slit-lamp photography at baseline and after 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 360 min. The conjunctival hyperemia score was graded by three independent observers using a scale from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). We also evaluated conjunctival hyperemia by the pixel coverage of conjunctival blood vessels (per cent coverage) determined using a conjunctival hyperemia-analysing software. Results In omidenepag, the conjunctival hyperemia score and per cent coverage peaked at both 30 min (mean score +/- SD: 1.57 +/- 0.67 and 11.90%+/- 3.66%, respectively) and then gradually decreased at 60 min (10.79%+/- 3.32%) and 120 min (1.10 +/- 0.52) when they reached a level that was not significantly different from the baseline values. For ripasudil 0.4%, the peak time of the conjunctival hyperemia score and per cent coverage were both at 15 min (score: 2.42 +/- 0.54 and 15.26%+/- 3.38%). The degree of conjunctival hyperemia was significantly higher for ripasudil 0.4% than that for omidenepag from 15 to 30 min in both the conjunctival hyperemia score and per cent coverage (p<0.007 by Bonferroni correction). Conclusion Conjunctival hyperemia induced by omidenepag gradually peaks to moderate severity, though weaker compared with that induced by ripasudil 0.4%, and subsides relatively quickly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据