MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392984821 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002371

Preservative-Free Bimatoprost 0.01% Ophthalmic Gel for Glaucoma Therapy: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4392984821 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco J. Muñoz‐Negrete, Fotis Topouzis, Francesco Oddone, Sylvie Nisslé, Dariusz Rokicki, Ingrida Janulevičienė, Paul Harasymowycz, Ingeborg Stalmans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBimatoprostIntraocular pressureGlaucomaOphthalmologyAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalOcular hypertensionAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRÉCIS: Noninferiority of efficacy was demonstrated for a preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% compared with BAK-containing bimatoprost 0.01% following a 12-week treatment period in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Improved tolerability, in particular conjunctival hyperemia, was also observed. PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of a preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic gel (PFB 0.01% gel) compared with preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (PB 0.01%). DESIGN: Phase III, international, multicenter, randomized, 2-parallel group, investigator-masked, 3-month treatment duration. METHODS: Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized after a 7-week run-in/washout period to receive once-daily PFB 0.01% gel (n=236) or PB 0.01% (n=249) for 3 months. The primary efficacy measure was changed from baseline in IOP at week 12. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs) and assessment of conjunctival hyperemia. RESULTS: The mean changes 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 mm Hg, respectively, at 8 am , -9.41±3.03 and -9.19±3.12 mm Hg at 10 am , and -8.99±3.36 and -8.54±3.44 mm Hg at 4 pm . Noninferiority of PFB 0.01% gel to PB 0.01% was demonstrated at week 12 based on predetermined criteria (upper 95% CI margin of 1.5 mmHg at all time points). The most frequently reported AE was conjunctival hyperemia; 13 (5.5%) patients with PFB 0.01% gel and 17 (6.8%) patients with PB 0.01%. The percentage of patients experiencing a worsening from baseline in conjunctival hyperemia score was lower with PFB 0.01% gel compared to PB 0.01% at week 6 (20.1% vs. 29.3%, respectively) and week 12 (18.3% vs. 30.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PFB 0.01% ophthalmic gel has the same efficacy in lowering IOP as PB 0.01% and demonstrated less aggravation of conjunctival hyperemia at weeks 6 and 12.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207