Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phase II Randomized, Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled Trial of Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratitis

Open access
Bonini, Stefano, Lambiase, Alessandro, Rama, Paolo, Sinigaglia, Francesco, Allegretti, Marcello, Chao, Wendy, Mantelli, Flavio, Bonini, Stefano, Lambiase, Alessandro, Rama, Paolo, Messmer, Elisabeth, Aragona, Pasquale, Geerling, Gerd, Mastropasqua, Leonardo, Mencucci, Rita, Dart, John, Leonardi, Andrea, Montero, Jesus, Rolando, Maurizio, Reinhard, Thomas, Cursiefen, Claus, Etxebarria, Jaime, Gabison, Eric, Szaflik, Jacek P., Bouheraoua, Nacim, De La Paz, Maria, Sainz de la Maza, Maite, Wylegala, Edward, Figueiredo, Francisco, Fogagnolo, Paolo, Hossain, Parwez, Lorenz, Katrin, Robert, Pierre-Yves, Benitez del Castillo, José, Creuzot-Garcher, Catherine, Kruse, Friedrich, Malecaze, François, Merayo-Lloves, Jesús, Rauz, Saaeha, Alio, Jorge, Carley, Fiona, Kanna, Ramaesh, Koppen, Carina, Nemeth, Janos, Murta, Joaquim Neto, Torrao, Luis·2018·Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical recombinant human nerve growth factor (rhNGF) for treating moderate-to-severe neurotrophic keratitis (NK), a rare degenerative corneal disease resulting from impaired corneal innervation. DESIGN: Phase II multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stage 2 (moderate) or stage 3 (severe) NK in 1 eye. METHODS: The REPARO phase II study assessed safety and efficacy in 156 patients randomized 1:1:1 to rhNGF 10 μg/ml, 20 μg/ml, or vehicle. Treatment was administered 6 drops per day for 8 weeks. Patients then entered a 48- or 56-week follow-up period. Safety was assessed in all patients who received study treatment, whereas efficacy was by intention to treat. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Corneal healing (defined as <0.5-mm maximum diameter of fluorescein staining in the lesion area) was assessed by masked central readers at week 4 (primary efficacy end point) and week 8 (key secondary end point) of controlled treatment. Corneal healing was reassessed post hoc by masked central readers using a more conservative measure (0-mm staining in the lesion area and no other persistent staining). RESULTS: At week 4 (primary end point), 19.6% of vehicle-treated patients achieved corneal healing (<0.5-mm lesion staining) versus 54.9% receiving rhNGF 10 μg/ml (+35.3%; 97.06% confidence interval [CI], 15.88-54.71; P < 0.001) and 58.0% receiving rhNGF 20 μg/ml (+38.4%; 97.06% CI, 18.96-57.83; P < 0.001). At week 8 (key secondary end point), 43.1% of vehicle-treated patients achieved less than 0.5-mm lesion staining versus 74.5% receiving rhNGF 10 μg/ml (+31.4%; 97.06% CI, 11.25-51.49; P = 0.001) and 74.0% receiving rhNGF 20 μg/ml (+30.9%; 97.06% CI, 10.60-51.13; P = 0.002). Post hoc analysis of corneal healing by the more conservative measure (0-mm lesion staining and no other persistent staining) maintained statistically significant differences between rhNGF and vehicle at weeks 4 and 8. More than 96% of patients who healed after controlled rhNGF treatment remained recurrence free during follow-up. Treatment with rhNGF was well tolerated; adverse effects were mostly local, mild, and transient. CONCLUSIONS: Topical rhNGF is safe and more effective than vehicle in promoting healing of moderate-to-severe NK.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.022

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Bonini, S., Lambiase, A., Rama, P., Sinigaglia, F., Allegretti, M., Chao, W., Mantelli, F., Bonini, S., Lambiase, A., Rama, P., Messmer, E., Aragona, P., Geerling, G., Mastropasqua, L., Mencucci, R., Dart, J., Leonardi, A., Montero, J., Rolando, M., Reinhard, T., Cursiefen, C., Etxebarria, J., Gabison, E., Szaflik, J. P., Bouheraoua, N., De La Paz, M., Sainz de la Maza, M., Wylegala, E., Figueiredo, F., Fogagnolo, P., Hossain, P., Lorenz, K., Robert, P.-Y., Benitez del Castillo, J., Creuzot-Garcher, C., Kruse, F., Malecaze, F., Merayo-Lloves, J., Rauz, S., Alio, J., Carley, F., Kanna, R., Koppen, C., Nemeth, J., Murta, J. N., & Torrao, L.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
125
Issue
9
Pages
1332-1343
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2797357911
Cited by
274
References
1
FWCI
24.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phase II Randomized, Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled Trial of Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.022
The paper
Bonini, S., Lambiase, A., Rama, P., Sinigaglia, F., Allegretti, M., Chao, W., Mantelli, F., Bonini, S., Lambiase, A., Rama, P., Messmer, E., Aragona, P., Geerling, G., Mastropasqua, L., Mencucci, R., Dart, J., Leonardi, A., Montero, J., Rolando, M., . . . Torrao, L. (2018). Phase II Randomized, Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled Trial of Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratitis. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.