PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the influence of number and type of side effects as well as treatment period after the use of an-ti-glaucoma eye drops in patients with glaucoma.
Methods
A survey was conducted regarding the severity of ocular side effects after the use of anti-glaucoma eye drops in 528 patients with glaucoma. Side effects after using the eye drops included irritability, blurred vision, foreign body sensa-tion, hyperemia, pinpricking sensation, itching, discomfort, pain, tearing, dry eye, and pigmentation. We analyzed the re-sults to investigate the influence of number and type of side effects as well as treatment period.
Results
The side effects after the use of anti-glaucoma eye drops were more severe and frequent in the patient groups us-ing more than 1 eye drop ( p < 0.01) and in the patients with longer treatment period ( p < 0.01). Among patients using 1 eye drops, side effects developed frequently in patients using Ocucarpine®.
References
1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996; 80:389–93.
2. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1957; 134:221–42.
3. Shazly TA, Latina MA. Comparison of intraocular pressure-low-ering effect of every night versus every other night dosing of bima-toprost 0.03%. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 27:369–71.
4. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effec-tiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of nor-mal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 126:498–505.
5. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 130:429–40.
6. Katsanos A, Dastiridou AI, Fanariotis M, et al. Bimatoprost and bi-matoprost/timolol fixed combination in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 27:67–71.
7. Schuman JS. Antiglaucoma medications: a review of safety and tolerability issues related to their use. Clin Ther. 2000; 22:167–208.
8. Pfister RR, Burstein N. The effects of ophthalmic drugs, vehicles, and preservatives on corneal epithelium: a scanning electron mi-croscope study. Invest Ophthalmol. 1976; 15:246–59.
9. Burstein NL. Preservative cytotoxic threshold for benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine digluconate in cat and rabbit corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1980; 19:308–13.
10. Tripathi BJ, Tripathi RC, Kolli SP. Cytotoxicity of ophthalmic preservatives on human corneal epithelium. Lens Eye Toxic Res. 1992; 9:361–75.
11. Alm A, Stjernschantz J. Effects on intraocular pressure and side ef-fects of 0.005% latanoprost applied once daily, evening or morning. A comparison with timolol. Scandinavian Latanoprost Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1995; 102:1743–52.
12. Burtein NL. Corneal cytotoxicity of topically applied drugs, ve-hicles and preservatives. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980; 25:15–30.
13. Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symp-toms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:418–23.
14. Lavin MJ, Wormald RP, Migdal CS, Hitchings RA. The influence of prior therapy on the success of trabeculectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990; 108:1543–8.
15. Richter CU, Shingleton BJ, Bellows AR, et al. The development of encapsulated filtering blebs. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95:1163–8.
16. Broadway D, Grierson I, Hitchings R. Adverse effects of topical antiglaucomatous medications on the conjunctiva. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993; 77:590–6.
17. Broadway DC, Grierson I, O`Brien C, Hitchings RA. Adverse ef-fects of topical antiglaucoma medication. II. The outcome of filtra-tion surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112:1446–54.
18. Ashburn FS Jr, Goldberg I, Kass MA. Compliance with ocular therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980; 24:237–48.
19. Ahn DH, Lee YG, Hong YJ. Factors affecting compliance with prescribed eyedrops for glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 39:2145–51.
20. Beckers HJ, Schouten JS, Webers CA, et al. Side effects of com-monly used glaucoma medications: comparison of tolerability, chance of discontinuation, and patient satisfaction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008; 246:1485–90.
21. Dreer LE, Girkin C, Mansberger SL. Determinants of medication adherence to topical glaucoma therapy. J Glaucoma. 2012; 21:234–40.
22. Robin A, Grover DS. Compliance and adherence in glaucoma management. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011; 59 Suppl:S93–6.
23. Granström PA. Glaucoma patient not compliant with their drug therapy: clinical and behavioural aspects. Br J Ophthalmol. 1982; 66:464–70.
24. Berdy GJ, Abelson MB, Smith LM, George MA. Preservative-free artificial tear preparations. Assessment of corneal epithelial toxic effects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992; 110:528–32.
Figure 1.
A questionnaire about side effects that occurred after the use of anti-glaucoma eye drops.
Figure 2.
The influence of number of anti-glaucoma eye drops. * Statistically significant, p < 0.05.
Figure 3.
The influence of type of anti-glaucoma eye drops in the one eye drop group. * Statistically significant, p < 0.05.
Figure 4.
The influence of treatment periods in the one eye drop group in Alphagan® (A), Combigan® (B), Cosopt® (C), Duotrav®(D), Elazop® (E), Ocucarpine® (F), Taflotan® (G), Travatan® (H), and Xalatan® (I) group (M = month; Y = year). * Statistically significant, p < 0.05.
Table 1.
Demographics of patients use anti-glaucoma eye drops for glaucoma
Table 2.
Severity of side effects related with types and treatments periods in the one eye drop group
XML Download