Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
Efficacy and Safety of Reproxalap 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khazali Mustafa H, Alghzawi Hamzah M, Ainer Mohammed W, Abdelghaffar Menna R, Elghareab Ali M, Ghaly Mayer H, Noureldin Noora, Mohamed Abdelrhman W, Elshafie Mohamed Ahmed
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Dry eye disease (DED) is an ocular surface disorder characterized by tear-film instability, inflammation, and symptoms that can impair visual function and quality of life. Reproxalap is a topical reactive aldehyde species (RASP) inhibitor. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of reproxalap 0.25% ophthalmic solution vs vehicle in adults with DED.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL/Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through June 20, 2026. The PROSPERO-registered review (CRD420261425460) included randomized trials and public trial-registry results records with extractable 0.25% reproxalap-versus-vehicle data. Outcomes included Schirmer test change and response (at least 10 mm improvement), instillation-site irritation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and discontinuation. Risk of bias and certainty were assessed using RoB 2 and GRADE.
RESULTS: Six eligible sources involving 2230 randomized participants were included. Reproxalap improved Schirmer test score (mean difference [MD], 2.34 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 3.22; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and Schirmer response (risk ratio [RR], 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68 to 2.46; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Instillation-site irritation was more frequent (RR, 27.27; 95% CI, 12.20 to 60.99; P < 0.0001) but was generally mild and transient in published reports. Any TEAE was uncertain (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.44; P = 0.082). Adverse event-related discontinuation was more frequent (RR, 4.88; 95% CI, 2.36 to 10.10), whereas all-cause discontinuation did not differ (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Reproxalap 0.25% demonstrated rapid objective tear-production improvements vs vehicle, though routine clinical recommendation must be weighed against frequent, transient instillation-site irritation. No treatment-related serious ocular adverse events were reported. Certainty ranged from low to very low due to reliance on registry-only data, trial program endpoint restructuring, eye-level denominators, and small study numbers.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL/Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through June 20, 2026. The PROSPERO-registered review (CRD420261425460) included randomized trials and public trial-registry results records with extractable 0.25% reproxalap-versus-vehicle data. Outcomes included Schirmer test change and response (at least 10 mm improvement), instillation-site irritation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and discontinuation. Risk of bias and certainty were assessed using RoB 2 and GRADE.
RESULTS: Six eligible sources involving 2230 randomized participants were included. Reproxalap improved Schirmer test score (mean difference [MD], 2.34 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 3.22; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and Schirmer response (risk ratio [RR], 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68 to 2.46; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Instillation-site irritation was more frequent (RR, 27.27; 95% CI, 12.20 to 60.99; P < 0.0001) but was generally mild and transient in published reports. Any TEAE was uncertain (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.44; P = 0.082). Adverse event-related discontinuation was more frequent (RR, 4.88; 95% CI, 2.36 to 10.10), whereas all-cause discontinuation did not differ (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Reproxalap 0.25% demonstrated rapid objective tear-production improvements vs vehicle, though routine clinical recommendation must be weighed against frequent, transient instillation-site irritation. No treatment-related serious ocular adverse events were reported. Certainty ranged from low to very low due to reliance on registry-only data, trial program endpoint restructuring, eye-level denominators, and small study numbers.