Bromfenac 900micrograms/ml eye drops

The aim of this Network Meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of the different topical Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when added or not to topical steroids in preventing the thickening of the macula and their impact on visual acuity and intraocular pressure after phacoemulsification. Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was one-month post-surgery visual outcome. We also considered change in Foveal thickness (FT) and Intraocular pressure (IOP) at one-month post-surgery. We summarized our analyses by calculating the mean differences (MD) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using restricted maximum likelihood in random effects models for continuous outcomes. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The network meta-analysis was conducted using frequentist approach considering Nepafenac 0.1% as a reference medication. Eleven Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2175 subjects were selected for quantitative analysis. At one-month post-surgery, Bromfenac had statistically significant better visual acuity compared to Nepafenac 0.1% (p < 0.001), regarding FT, Nepafenac 0.3% had the least increase in FT compared to Nepafenac 0.1% (p = 0.09), regarding IOP, Diclofenac had the lowest IOP. No significant results regarding FT and IOP. Interestingly Ketorolac had the worst results regarding BCVA and IOP, and came last but one for FT. Overall, our network meta-analysis demonstrated that Bromfenac was associated with a significant improvement in visual acuity compared to Nepafenac 0.1% at one-month following cataract surgery, while Nepafenac 0.3% was associated with the least increase in foveal thickness.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Presbyopia, an age-related condition characterized by the gradual loss of near vision accommodation, affects a substantial portion of the global population. While Pilocarpine has demonstrated effectiveness in managing presbyopia, there is increasing interest in exploring combination therapies to enhance treatment efficacy and tolerability. Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of 1% Pilocarpine monotherapy versus a combination of 1% Pilocarpine and 0.09% Bromfenac for the treatment of presbyopia over an 8-week period. Methods: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted involving presbyopic patients who were assigned to one of two treatment groups. Evaluations were performed to assess near visual acuity, accommodative function, patient satisfaction, safety, and compliance. Results: Both treatment groups showed significant improvements in near vision function. At the 8-week mark, 44.1% of patients in the Pilocarpine-only group and 78.6% of those in the combination therapy group achieved N6 near vision. The combination therapy group exhibited superior results in near point of accommodation (NPA) and accommodative amplitude ( P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction improved similarly in both groups. However, the combination therapy group reported fewer adverse events (1.8% vs. 11.9%, P < 0.05) and higher treatment compliance (96.4% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: While both treatment regimens effectively improved near vision in patients with presbyopia, the combination of Pilocarpine and Bromfenac demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of accommodative function, safety profile, patient compliance, and a reduced need for glasses. These results suggest that this combination therapy may offer a more effective pharmacological approach to the management of presbyopia.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0