↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Thymosin beta 4 ophthalmic solution for dry eye: a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase II clinical trial conducted using the controlled adverse environment (CAE™) model

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
patent
6 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Thymosin beta 4 ophthalmic solution for dry eye: a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase II clinical trial conducted using the controlled adverse environment (CAE™) model
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s80954
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Mclaughlin, Gabriel Sosne, George Ousler

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of thymosin beta 4 ophthalmic solution (RGN-259; Tβ4) in subjects with moderate to severe dry eye using the CAE™ model. This single-center, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled Phase II study randomized 72 qualifying subjects 1:1 to receive either 0.1% Tβ4 or placebo treatment for a total of 28 days. The study consisted of six visits over a 32-day period, including a screening visit (day -1), controlled adverse environment challenge (CAE) visits (day 1, day 28), and follow-up visits (days 14, 29, and 30). The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular discomfort scores and inferior corneal staining measured at visit 5 on day 29. Secondary endpoints included central and superior corneal staining, conjunctival staining, conjunctival redness, tear-film break-up time, and daily symptom scores recorded over the course of the study. Safety measures included visual acuity, slit-lamp evaluation, conjunctival redness, tear film break-up time, intraocular pressure, dilated funduscopy, and corneal sensitivity. Neither of the primary endpoints, ie, ocular discomfort or inferior corneal staining, showed a significant difference between treatment and control groups at visit 5. Despite this, significant differences between treatment groups were observed for a number of secondary endpoints. The discomfort scores in the CAE on day 28 were reduced by 27% in 0.1% Tβ4-treated subjects compared with the placebo group (P=0.0244). Subjects in the 0.1% Tβ4 treatment group also showed statistically significant improvements in central and superior corneal staining compared with staining scores in the control group (P=0.0075 and P=0.0210). No adverse events were observed. This study confirms the efficacy of 0.1% Tβ4 as a topical treatment for relief of signs and symptoms of dry eye. Significant improvements in both signs and symptoms of dry eye were observed, and the treatment exhibited a large safety window, with no adverse events reported by any subjects enrolled in the study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,759,103
of 22,053,897 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#180
of 3,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,191
of 249,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,053,897 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,047 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.