Randomization and masking are not described. Pooled table summaries contain inconsistencies; no pooled effect was calculated. Narrative percentages do not establish a significant between-group benefit; long-term harms remain unresolved.
No reliable pooled or between-group effect is extracted. Authenticate the currently unavailable PDF and resolve table-summary inconsistencies.
Kazakhstan Ophthalmological Journal. 2–3(43):78–81 · Original clinical journal publication
Mechanism of Biological Activity of Short Peptides: Cell Penetration and Epigenetic Regulation of Gene Expression
Study of multiple preparations
Mechanistic review with a table of 15 short peptides on page 453. Tissue labels in the research map are the authors’ proposed targets, not established clinical indications.
Study notes · methods, sources and limitations
Participants or model Review of earlier research
Important limitations
Source-linked does not mean a completed risk-of-bias review. A review is not an independent clinical replication; proposed mechanisms do not establish efficacy or safety.
Biology Bulletin Reviews 3(6):451–455 · Publication record
A short peptide containing two amino acids, listed in the 2013 bioregulator catalogue in connection with retinal function. This is a research target, not an established treatment benefit.
Named ocular peptide preparation with a 45-patient 2013 journal comparison and a separately labeled institute-report trail. Favorable narrative findings coexist with nonsignificant table labels; chemical identity and current-product equivalence require confirmation.
Compound class
Short peptide research
Research collection
Peptide bioregulation · editorial grouping
Research institutions
No institutional affiliation recorded
Source review
Review dates and the material assessed are listed with each publication below.
02 / HOW TO READ THE RESEARCH
Understanding the evidence
Human research
45-patient original journal comparison, 25/20 groups; separate reproduced report
Study methods
Adjunctive conventional care; randomization and masking not established
Independent replication
Cohort overlap and independent replication unresolved
Source access
Indexed institutional journal PDF text; current download and visual verification unavailable
Safety evidence
Small short-term reports; systematic harms and current-product safety not established
Open a topic for the evidence assessment.
More findings, background and history
What remains unclear
The 2013 paper describes 45 patients in groups of 25 and 20. Favorable percentages appear alongside p≥0.05 labels. The original tables, formulation identity and independent replication remain open questions.
Human reports are linked; their presence does not establish effectiveness. Several publications can describe the same participants.
Evidence belongs to the preparation actually studied. A tissue extract and a synthetic peptide can belong to the same research tradition without having equivalent effects or safety.
Shared tissue theme, not a verified product-to-sequence derivation in this collection.
Clinical evidence and limitations
Randomized glaucoma reports, a 2025 prospective cohort and an active-route comparison are indexed. Visual acuity and several between-group outcomes were unchanged.
Assess blinding, baseline imbalance, correlated eyes and study overlap. The negative rabbit photochemical-injury experiment is included alongside favorable reports.
PATENT RESEARCH / COLLECTION UPDATED 7 NOVEMBER 2026
Patents and claimed inventions
These 1 grouped records distinguish claimed molecules, uses, formulations and related chemistry. Patent disclosure does not establish clinical benefit or approval.
2002 · RU2177801C1 · Normophthal / Lys-Glu: ocular angiogenesis useUse · Faster reduction of photophobia, tearing and inflammation than conventional care reported
Reported findings
The patent describes faster improvement in corneal inflammation and reduced neovascular activity with adjunctive Lys-Glu.
Corneal comparison
Faster reduction of photophobia, tearing and inflammation than conventional care reported39 treated versus 16 comparison patients; numerical between-group estimate not extracted
Posterior-eye report
Scotoma number/size reportedly decreased in 87.3% of cases; perifocal edema disappeared in 52.4% and decreased in 43.2%The percentages’ patient-versus-eye denominators are not sufficiently explicit
Use. The claim explicitly identifies L-Lys-L-Glu in an ophthalmic angiogenesis-inhibition use. This is the same defined sequence discussed for Vilon, with a different proposed application.
A shared sequence does not make every branded formulation equivalent, and an ocular method claim does not establish human visual benefit.
2002 · Normophthal / Lys-Glu: ocular angiogenesis use — RU2177801C1Corneal comparison: Faster reduction of photophobia, tearing and inflammation than conventional care reported
2002Patent / reported experimentsFull text available
Patent-defined substance or composition · Patent publication
Format: Original patent text and indexed metadata · Reviewed: Claims, selected reported findings and limitations reviewed; supporting experiments not comprehensively appraised.
The patent describes faster improvement in corneal inflammation and reduced neovascular activity with adjunctive Lys-Glu.
Results and tables
Reported patent results
Reported findings
The patent describes faster improvement in corneal inflammation and reduced neovascular activity with adjunctive Lys-Glu.
Lys-Glu adjunctive ocular reports: corneal disease 39 patients/71 eyes versus 16/30; posterior-eye disease 34/67 versus 12/24.
Results · Description: Examples 6 and 7; group narrative and illustrative case. Image-only table values not inferred.
Measure
Result
Comparison, timing and statistics
Corneal comparison
Faster reduction of photophobia, tearing and inflammation than conventional care reported
39 treated versus 16 comparison patients; numerical between-group estimate not extracted
Posterior-eye report
Scotoma number/size reportedly decreased in 87.3% of cases; perifocal edema disappeared in 52.4% and decreased in 43.2%
The percentages’ patient-versus-eye denominators are not sufficiently explicit
Illustrative posterior-eye case
Visual acuity 0.4 → 0.6
Single patient receiving concurrent treatment · By the end of the course
Nonrandomized mixed-disease reports and ambiguity between patient and eye denominators limit interpretation. Group visual-acuity tables were not transcribed; these are patent reports, not proof of anti-VEGF-equivalent benefit.
Lys-Glu adjunctive ocular reports: corneal disease 39 patients/71 eyes versus 16/30; posterior-eye disease 34/67 versus 12/24.
Source reviewed
Original patent publication accessed through Google Patents. Claims, selected reported findings and source limitations checked. The results section identifies the examples, tables and any numerical extraction gaps. No complete experimental audit, prosecution review or legal claim construction was performed.
Study limitations
A shared sequence does not make every branded formulation equivalent, and an ocular method claim does not establish human visual benefit.
Nonrandomized mixed-disease reports and ambiguity between patient and eye denominators limit interpretation. Group visual-acuity tables were not transcribed; these are patent reports, not proof of anti-VEGF-equivalent benefit.
Patents record claimed inventions and supporting disclosures. Publication or grant does not establish clinical efficacy, safety or marketing approval. Members of one patent family and related journal reports can describe the same experiments.
Status labels are Google Patents index snapshots for the displayed publication or application; each record lists the review date. Official registers and every national family member have not been independently checked. These labels do not establish freedom to operate.
Named Normophthal preparation; isolated peptide identity not established · Original clinical journal publication
Format: Original institutional journal-issue PDF; indexed full text · Reviewed: Article text and selected table labels checked; visual verification unavailable
V. R. Abdullina · Kazakhstan Ophthalmological Journal. 2–3(43):78–81
Favorable visual-function narrative accompanies tables labeled p≥0.05 versus baseline.
Results and tables
Reported findings and study design
Results · Text of the original PDF, including Tables 1–2 and footnotes
V. Kh. Khavinson, A. Yu. Solovyev, S. I. Tarnovskaya, N. S. Linkova · Biology Bulletin Reviews 3(6):451–455
Mechanistic review with a table of 15 short peptides on page 453. Tissue labels in the research map are the authors’ proposed targets, not established clinical indications.
Population / setting
Review of earlier research
Source reviewed
Author-hosted English PDF and its peptide table checked. Each cited experiment remains a separate appraisal task.
Study limitations
Source-linked does not mean a completed risk-of-bias review.
A review is not an independent clinical replication; proposed mechanisms do not establish efficacy or safety.