MedElevator
Войти в исследования Seminars in ophthalmology · 2026
Efficacy and Safety of Aceclidine in Presbyopia, a Systematic Review and Meta -Analysis.
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.
Ibrahim Taha, Burhan Muhammad, Bin Shafiq Shaheer, Razzak Muhammad Junaid, Khan Ayesha Ahmed, Shahid Zain Ul Abideen, Shahnawaz Mudassir, Rehman Saud Ur, Ibrahim Jawaria, Abu Serhan Hashem
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Presbyopia is a prevalent age-related visual disorder affecting approximately 1.8 billion individuals worldwide, with many lacking access to effective correction. Topical pharmacologic therapies such as aceclidine have emerged as potential noninvasive treatments, though their efficacy and safety remain incompletely established.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420261353653). Databases were searched till March 2026. Adults with presbyopia treated with topical aceclidine, alone or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was ≥ 3-line improvement in distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA). Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Five trials involving 883 randomized participants were included. In the primary analysis of parallel-group trials, aceclidine significantly increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 3-line improvement in distance-corrected near visual acuity compared with placebo (RR 6.28, 95% CI 4.22-9.35; I2 = 2.4%) and compared with aceclidine plus brimonidine (RR 5.05, 95% CI 3.04-8.38; I2 = 28.2%). Secondary analyses of crossover trials demonstrated similar superiority over placebo (RR 14.92, 95% CI 6.77-32.86; I2 = 0%), whereas no significant difference was observed versus combination therapy (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.38; I2 = 24.6%). Aceclidine was associated with a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events than placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.61-3.09). No significant differences were observed in serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Aceclidine provides significant short-term improvement in near vision with an acceptable safety profile. Monotherapy may offer slight efficacy benefits over combination regimens. However, limited study numbers and short follow-up necessitate further large-scale, long-term trials.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420261353653). Databases were searched till March 2026. Adults with presbyopia treated with topical aceclidine, alone or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was ≥ 3-line improvement in distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA). Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Five trials involving 883 randomized participants were included. In the primary analysis of parallel-group trials, aceclidine significantly increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 3-line improvement in distance-corrected near visual acuity compared with placebo (RR 6.28, 95% CI 4.22-9.35; I2 = 2.4%) and compared with aceclidine plus brimonidine (RR 5.05, 95% CI 3.04-8.38; I2 = 28.2%). Secondary analyses of crossover trials demonstrated similar superiority over placebo (RR 14.92, 95% CI 6.77-32.86; I2 = 0%), whereas no significant difference was observed versus combination therapy (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.38; I2 = 24.6%). Aceclidine was associated with a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events than placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.61-3.09). No significant differences were observed in serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Aceclidine provides significant short-term improvement in near vision with an acceptable safety profile. Monotherapy may offer slight efficacy benefits over combination regimens. However, limited study numbers and short follow-up necessitate further large-scale, long-term trials.