This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Nepafenac does in the body
Pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery
From the FDA-approved label: After topical ocular dosing, nepafenac penetrates the cornea and is converted by ocular tissue hydrolases to amfenac, a NSAID. Nepafenac and amfenac are thought to inhibit the action of prostaglandin H synthase (cyclooxygenase), an enzyme required for prostaglandin production.
What happened in people
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
No reviewed claim names a result for any goal on this record.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Not recorded.
Where it acts
Not recorded.
Kind of result
No result is published, so no kind of result applies yet
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · 0J9L7J6V8C · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C15H14N2O2, weighing 254.28 g/mol.
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
No statement of the main limit is recorded.
The four opening statements run to 63 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 22 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Pain
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer2 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Blood sugar
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Pain
pain after instilation; pain
Blood sugar
early treatment diabetic retinopathy study visual acuities
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
2 registered symptom measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Percentage of Patients Cured at Day 14
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01109173
How many people
2120
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Percentage of Patients Cured at Day 14, Nepafenac 0.3% vs. Nepafenac Vehicle 0.3%
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01318499
How many people
1342
Study design
Phase 2
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Percentage of Participants With Best-corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) Improvement of ≥ 15 Letters From Preoperative Baseline to Day 14 and Maintained Through Day 90
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01853072
How many people
881
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Percentage of Participants With Best-corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) Improvement of ≥ 15 Letters From Preoperative Baseline to Day 14 and Maintained Through Day 90
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01872611
How many people
819
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Post-operative Clinical Findings of Cystoid Macular Edema
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT03025945
How many people
662
Study design
Not applicable
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Central macular thickness after 6 weeks
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT05331690
How many people
500
Study design
Phase 4
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ophthalmic
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 6 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
■Symptoms and quality of lifeEvidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.2 registered measures of this kind.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.3 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
□AnimalsNo evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
pain after instilation
pain
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
summed ocular inflammation
treatment of inflammation associated cataract surgery
outcome change measured by summed ocular inflammation
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (17)
best corrected visual acuity at all study visits
degree of corneal haze at all study visits
time to epithelial closure in each eye after prk
central macular thickness
macular volume
visual acuity
optical coherence tomography
tolerability of study medication
peak aqueous penetration
aqueous pge2 inhibition
early treatment diabetic retinopathy study visual acuities
oct retinal thickness
central subfield thickness
intraocular pressure
s comfort
symptoms
vitreous nsaids and pge2 levels
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
ILEVRO ® 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery. ILEVRO ® 0.3% is a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory prodrug indicated for the treatment of pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery ( 1 ).
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of ILEVRO ® 0.3% in pediatric patients below the age of 10 years have not been established.”
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “No overall differences in safety and effectiveness have been observed between elderly and younger patients.”
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “At this dose, the animal plasma exposure to nepafenac and amfenac was approximately 70 and 630 times human plasma exposure at the recommended human topical ophthalmic dose for rats and 20 and 180 times human plasma exposure for rabbits, respectively.”
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Nepafenac is excreted in the milk of lactating rats.”
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Prescription only
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Ophthalmic
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as suspension/drops, suspension/ drops, given by the ophthalmic route.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take∅Nothing found in the sources checked
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
∅Nothing found in the sources checked
No harm is recorded against this substance in the sources RNAWiki checked. Finding nothing is not the same as showing there is nothing.
The sources listed were searched and held nothing. That is not the same as nothing existing.
Reports sent to a regulator
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Nepafenac appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 345 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Ophthalmic
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
Nothing further is recorded about which forms are sold.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
12 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 12 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 82667-500 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder and suspension/ drops, taken ophthalmic.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 82667-500 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is anti-inflammatory agents, cyclooxygenase inhibitors [moa] and non-steroidal [cs].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 82667-500 · read 2026-08-29
3 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 3 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-29
ILEVRO is ophthalmic at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Sterile ophthalmic suspension 0.3%: 1.7 mL in a 4 mL bottle and 3 mL in a 4 mL bottle., recorded as fda label in effect 2026-04-01 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 10f411d3-a81e-074a-e063-6294a90ab547 · read 2026-08-30
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Nepafenac studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Nepafenac are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
0J9L7J6V8C
RxNorm concept
1362132
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✗ Not passed
Safety mode resolved
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
What the approval register records
2 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA021862, approved 20050819 to HARROW EYE.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
6 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
The path through the body — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
Claims that go past the evidence — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q1
What did Nepafenac's largest trial (2120 people) and its longest (6.9 years) measure?
2120 people in Nepafenac's largest registered study, 6.9 years in its longest registered window, measuring Prevention of postoperative discomfort on postoperative days 1 to 5 after PRK. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
15 phase4, 5 na, 5 phase2, 5 phase3; NCT00900887; 2015-03; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2026, NCT07749027.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Nepafenac was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase4
15
na
5
phase2
5
phase3
5
Last recorded human testNCT07749027
2026-06-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
Nepafenac was tested only in human — what did it show?
Could one person measure Nepafenac's effect on best corrected visual acuity at all study visits?
Best corrected visual acuity at all study visits: measured in Nepafenac's trials.
Interpretation best corrected visual acuity at all study visits is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
best corrected visual acuity at all study visits; 2026-09-01
degree of corneal haze at all study visits; 2026-09-01
time to epithelial closure in each eye after prk; 2026-09-01
central macular thickness; 2026-09-01
macular volume; 2026-09-01
visual acuity; 2026-09-01
14 more recorded rows
biomarkers
optical coherence tomography; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
tolerability of study medication; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
pain after instilation; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
peak aqueous penetration; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
aqueous pge2 inhibition; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
early treatment diabetic retinopathy study visual acuities; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
summed ocular inflammation; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
oct retinal thickness; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
treatment of inflammation associated cataract surgery; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
central subfield thickness; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
intraocular pressure; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
s comfort; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
pain; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
symptoms; 2026-09-01
human trials at or under30
4
Not recorded for this substance
a recorded half-life
smallest human trial
9; NCT01939691; PHASE4; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; TERMINATED
Q6
Which of aqueous pge2 inhibition, best corrected visual acuity at all study visits and central macular thickness did Nepafenac's trials measure?
aqueous pge2 inhibition, best corrected visual acuity at all study visits and central macular thickness lead 22 outcome terms across Nepafenac's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
Interpretation central macular thickness, macular volume, visual acuity, optical coherence tomography, tolerability of study medication and pain after instilation follow.
Show the evidence
best corrected visual acuity at all study visits
1
degree of corneal haze at all study visits
1
time to epithelial closure in each eye after prk
1
central macular thickness
1
macular volume
1
visual acuity
1
14 more recorded rows
optical coherence tomography
1
tolerability of study medication
1
pain after instilation
1
peak aqueous penetration
1
aqueous pge2 inhibition
1
early treatment diabetic retinopathy study visual acuities
1
summed ocular inflammation
1
oct retinal thickness
1
treatment of inflammation associated cataract surgery
1
central subfield thickness
1
intraocular pressure
1
s comfort
1
pain
1
symptoms
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which 10 trials of Nepafenac posted no result?
Posted no result
10 of 10 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00347204, NCT00828477, NCT00780780, NCT01995890, NCT02084576 and NCT02443012, and 4 more
Completion dates
oldest 2006-06; newest 2019-03
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00347204
2006-06
NCT00828477
2009-06
NCT00780780
2012-10
NCT01995890
2013-04
NCT02084576
2014-02
NCT02443012
2014-08
4 further recorded trials
NCT00900887
2015-03
NCT02752646
2017-03-01
NCT03597867
2018-07-09
NCT03886779
2019-03
Q8
At the median, Nepafenac's trials enrolled 83 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
83
Largest enrolment
2120
Registered trials counted
28
Q9
What do 345 spontaneous reports say about Nepafenac — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Nepafenac appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 345 reaction mentions were counted: ulcerative keratitis 49; treatment failure 44; eye pain 37; vision blurred 35. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1021 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
ulcerative keratitis
49
treatment failure
44
eye pain
37
vision blurred
35
visual acuity reduced
33
corneal opacity
32
4 more recorded rows
toxic anterior segment syndrome
31
ocular hyperaemia
30
impaired healing
28
cystoid macular oedema
26
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q10
Nepafenac and CYP1A2, CYP2C19 and CYP2C9: shared by which compounds?
CYP1A2, CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 appear in Nepafenac's recorded interaction sentences, 6 in all. openfda-label+europepmc · 2026-08-30
Interpretation pharmacokinetics
Show the evidence
CYP1A2pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
CYP2C19pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
CYP2C9pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
CYP2D6pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
CYP2E1pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
CYP3A4pharmacokinetics
Nepafenac at concentrations up to 3000 ng/mL and amfenac at concentrations up to 1000 ng/mL did not inhibit the in vitro metabolism of six specific marker substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, and CYP3A4).
recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 9 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.