Comparison of a preservative‐free bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic gel with a preserved bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic solution: A phase III, randomized, multicentre, 3‐month study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)‐lowering efficacy and safety of a novel preservative‐free bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic gel (PFB 0.01% gel) compared with preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (PB 0.01%) in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) or glaucoma. Methods: This was a randomized, multicentre (90 centres), investigator‐masked, 3‐month treatment duration, phase III trial. Following a 7‐week run‐in/washout period, patients were randomized to receive once‐daily PFB 0.01% gel (n = 236) or PB 0.01% (n = 249) for 3 months. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline IOP at Week 12 at 3 timepoints. Noninferiority was based on a predetermined criteria (upper 95% confidence interval margin of 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints). Safety evaluations included conjunctival hyperaemia, ocular symptoms and occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Mean change from baseline in IOP at Week 12 in the PFB 0.01% gel and PB 0.01% were − 9.72 ± 2.97 and − 9.47 ± 3.06 mmHg, respectively at 8 am, −9.41 ± 3.03 and − 9.19 ± 3.12 mmHg at 10 am, and − 8.99 ± 3.36 and − 8.54 ± 3.44 mmHg at 4 pm. Noninferiority of PFB 0.01% gel to PB 0.01% was demonstrated at Week 12 at all timepoints. The percentage of patients experiencing a worsening from baseline in conjunctival hyperaemia score was lower with PFB 0.01% gel compared to PB 0.01% at Week 12 (18.3% vs 30.4%, respectively). Ocular symptoms upon instillation were less frequent in the PFB 0.01% gel group compared to the PB 0.01% group at Week 12 for irritation/burning (12.7% vs 21.2%, respectively), itching (5.4% vs 10.4%) and eye dryness feeling (7.3% vs 14.3%). The most frequent treatment‐related AE was hyperaemia, reported in 15 (6.4%) patients in the PFB 0.01% gel group and 26 (10.4%) patients in the PB 0.01% group. Conclusions: PFB 0.01% ophthalmic gel had the same efficacy in lowering IOP as PB 0.01%, demonstrated less aggravation of conjunctival hyperaemia at Week 12 and less ocular symptoms upon instillation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".