FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2008448108> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2008448108 endingPage "2478" @default.
• W2008448108 startingPage "2471" @default.
• W2008448108 abstract "ObjectiveTo investigate the dose response for efficacy of 1% and 2% rebamipide ophthalmic suspension compared with placebo in patients with dry eye.DesignA randomized, double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-response phase II study.ParticipantsA total of 308 patients with dry eye.MethodsAfter a 2-week screening period, patients were randomized to receive placebo or 1% rebamipide or 2% rebamipide administered as 1 drop in each eye 4 times daily for 4 weeks.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary objective end point was change in fluorescein corneal staining (FCS) score from baseline to last observation carried forward (LOCF). Secondary objective end points were lissamine green conjunctival staining (LGCS) score, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and the Schirmer's test. Secondary subjective end points included dry eye–related ocular symptoms (foreign body sensation, dryness, photophobia, eye pain, and blurred vision) score and patients' overall treatment impression score.ResultsRebamipide dose response was observed in FCS, LGCS, and TBUT scores. Both 1% and 2% rebamipide were significantly more effective than the placebo in terms of the change from baseline to LOCF for FCS, LGCS, and TBUT scores. There was no significant difference between the rebamipide and placebo groups from baseline to LOCF in Schirmer's test values, and dose response was not observed. In the predefined dry eye subpopulation with a baseline FCS score of 10 to 15, the mean change from baseline in the 2% rebamipide group was larger than that in the 1% rebamipide group. Change from baseline to LOCF for all 5 dry eye–related ocular symptom scores and patients' overall treatment impression showed significant improvements in the 1% and 2% rebamipide groups compared with the placebo group, except for photophobia in the 1% rebamipide group. No deaths or drug-related serious adverse events occurred in any treatment group. The incidence of ocular abnormalities was similar across the rebamipide and placebo groups.ConclusionsRebamipide was effective in treating both objective signs and subjective symptoms of dry eye and were well tolerated in this 4-week study. Although 1% and 2% rebamipide were both efficacious, 2% rebamipide may be more effective than 1% rebamipide in some measures.Financial Disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. To investigate the dose response for efficacy of 1% and 2% rebamipide ophthalmic suspension compared with placebo in patients with dry eye. A randomized, double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-response phase II study. A total of 308 patients with dry eye. After a 2-week screening period, patients were randomized to receive placebo or 1% rebamipide or 2% rebamipide administered as 1 drop in each eye 4 times daily for 4 weeks. The primary objective end point was change in fluorescein corneal staining (FCS) score from baseline to last observation carried forward (LOCF). Secondary objective end points were lissamine green conjunctival staining (LGCS) score, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and the Schirmer's test. Secondary subjective end points included dry eye–related ocular symptoms (foreign body sensation, dryness, photophobia, eye pain, and blurred vision) score and patients' overall treatment impression score. Rebamipide dose response was observed in FCS, LGCS, and TBUT scores. Both 1% and 2% rebamipide were significantly more effective than the placebo in terms of the change from baseline to LOCF for FCS, LGCS, and TBUT scores. There was no significant difference between the rebamipide and placebo groups from baseline to LOCF in Schirmer's test values, and dose response was not observed. In the predefined dry eye subpopulation with a baseline FCS score of 10 to 15, the mean change from baseline in the 2% rebamipide group was larger than that in the 1% rebamipide group. Change from baseline to LOCF for all 5 dry eye–related ocular symptom scores and patients' overall treatment impression showed significant improvements in the 1% and 2% rebamipide groups compared with the placebo group, except for photophobia in the 1% rebamipide group. No deaths or drug-related serious adverse events occurred in any treatment group. The incidence of ocular abnormalities was similar across the rebamipide and placebo groups. Rebamipide was effective in treating both objective signs and subjective symptoms of dry eye and were well tolerated in this 4-week study. Although 1% and 2% rebamipide were both efficacious, 2% rebamipide may be more effective than 1% rebamipide in some measures." @default.
• W2008448108 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5029687156 @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5039727532 @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5047723522 @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5052611337 @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5060234898 @default.
• W2008448108 creator A5084093072 @default.
• W2008448108 date "2012-12-01" @default.
• W2008448108 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2008448108 title "Rebamipide (OPC-12759) in the Treatment of Dry Eye: A Randomized, Double-Masked, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study" @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1523354060 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1964631920 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1973101750 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1983624742 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1989078071 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W1996397549 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2000366267 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2001971768 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2006092048 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2010052599 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2010355814 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2021802670 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2028465131 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2034388692 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2037239844 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2038098261 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2054186928 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2070610048 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2072021875 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2072292428 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2074357311 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2077533423 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2078254484 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2090348260 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2115345791 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2146743491 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2162568046 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2168858366 @default.
• W2008448108 cites W2596391620 @default.
• W2008448108 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.06.052" @default.
• W2008448108 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23009892" @default.
• W2008448108 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2008448108 type Work @default.
• W2008448108 sameAs 2008448108 @default.
• W2008448108 citedByCount "101" @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082013 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082014 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082015 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082016 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082017 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082018 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082019 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082020 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082021 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082022 @default.
• W2008448108 countsByYear W20084481082023 @default.
• W2008448108 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5029687156 @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5039727532 @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5047723522 @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5052611337 @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5060234898 @default.
• W2008448108 hasAuthorship W2008448108A5084093072 @default.
• W2008448108 hasBestOaLocation W20084481081 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C203092338 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C27081682 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C2777367493 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C2778837293 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C118487528 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C126322002 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C141071460 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C142724271 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C168563851 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C203092338 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C204787440 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C27081682 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C2777367493 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C2778837293 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C42219234 @default.
• W2008448108 hasConceptScore W2008448108C71924100 @default.
• W2008448108 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2008448108 hasLocation W20084481081 @default.
• W2008448108 hasLocation W20084481082 @default.
• W2008448108 hasOpenAccess W2008448108 @default.
• W2008448108 hasPrimaryLocation W20084481081 @default.
• W2008448108 hasRelatedWork W17083376 @default.
• W2008448108 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W2008448108 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2008448108 hasRelatedWork W2008448108 @default.

• next