Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Varenicline Solution Nasal Spray 0.03 Mg for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease Following Photorefractive Keratectomy.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Efficacy of Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, and Neurostimulatory Nasal Sprays for Moderate-to-Severe Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the use of varenicline solution nasal spray 0.03 mg (VNS) as a treatment option for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Patients and methods: Subjects electing to undergo PRK were randomized to VNS (study group) or vehicle (control group) twice daily and started treatment with VNS 28 days prior to surgery with continued use of the treatment for 84 days after PRK. After starting treatment, subjects were seen on the day of the procedure and postoperatively at days 2, 3, 4, 7, 28 and 84. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in NEI-VFQ-25, a dry eye item questionnaire, from baseline to day 84. The second primary outcome measure was the rate of corneal epithelial healing following PRK. Secondary outcome measures included eye dryness score (EDS), tear break up time and visual outcomes. The use of rescue therapy was also evaluated. Results: Twenty-one subjects were enrolled in the study group, and twenty subjects were enrolled in the control group. Results from the NEI-VFQ-25 questionnaire revealed positive results in both groups and the between-group difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was a trend towards faster re-epithelialization in patients treated with VNS vs placebo, where 100% epithelial closure was observed by Day 3 in the VNS group versus Day 4 in the control group; however, the between-group difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Three subjects had rescue therapy in the control group while a single subject was rescued in the study group. A higher rate of eyes achieved vision of 20/16 or better in the study group (82.5%) versus the control group (72.5%) at 3 months. Conclusion: VNS is a favorable dry eye treatment option for patients following PRK, particularly in patients hoping to avoid additional topical medications or punctal occlusion. The higher percentage of eyes with UCDVA of 20/16 or better in the treatment group may suggest optimization of epithelial recovery after PRK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.