A Randomised Phase I Study to Assess the Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of Palovarotene Ophthalmic Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Palovarotene, a selective retinoic acid receptor γ agonist, is under investigation for the treatment of dry eye disease. This study aimed to determine the ocular and systemic safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of palovarotene ophthalmic solution (PVO-OS) in healthy adults. METHODS: This was a randomised, vehicle-controlled phase I study (NCT04762355; retrospectively registered). Participants received either PVO-OS (at 0.025, 0.05 or 0.10 mg/mL) or a vehicle (placebo-to-match PVO-OS) once-daily or twice-daily for seven consecutive days. Safety was assessed by ocular and systemic assessments. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic assessments were collected before and after dose administration. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were randomised to PVO-OS and 12 to the vehicle. Overall, 89 treatment-emergent ocular adverse events (TEOAEs) were reported by 22 participants (61.1%) receiving PVO-OS and ten TEOAEs were reported by five participants (41.7%) receiving the vehicle. Erythema, irritation and skin dryness of the eyelid were the most common TEOAEs in participants receiving PVO-OS. The incidence of TEOAEs and eyelid-related findings in the PVO-OS groups increased with ascending dose and frequency compared with participants treated with the vehicle. All TEOAEs were mild (96.6%) or moderate (3.4%) and resolved without sequelae. Plasma palovarotene concentrations were generally measurable for up to 3-4 h for 0.025 mg/mL and 0.05 mg/mL and up to 12 h for 0.10 mg/mL dose regimens, independent of the frequency of administration. CONCLUSIONS: PVO-OS was generally well tolerated at doses up to and including 0.10 mg/mL twice daily. Similar pharmacokinetic profiles were observed for the once-daily and twice-daily regimens following multiple ascending doses of PVO-OS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".