Background/aimsThis study aimed to investigate treatment patterns and medication adherence of glaucoma. It also identified key factors associated with non-adherence.MethodsIt was a cross-sectional, observational study. Patients who use eye-drops for ≤2 years were recruited at 15 eye clinics from March to November 2013. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires and medical chart review. Medication adherence was evaluated using patients’ self-report on pill count and defined as patients’ administering drug for ≥80% of prescribed days. Medication adherence rate was calculated by dividing actual number of administration from total prescribed number of administration for 7 days. Patients whose self-reported prescription was different from total daily doses of physicians' prescription were considered as non-adherent.ResultsA total of 1050 patients included, and medication adherence rate was evaluated in 1046 patients whose verification of adherence was available. Of the total, 27.4% were non-adherent, and the medication adherence rates of the total, the adherent, and the non-adherent were 90.6±17.8%, 96.8±5.5% and 56.6±24.7%, respectively. The most commonly used medication was prostaglandin (PGA) alone and the second was combination of two-class (β-blocker and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI)) and three-class combination of PGA, β-blocker and CAI followed. In multivariate analysis, the risk of non-adherence was 1.466 times greater in males than in females (95% CI 1.106 to 1.943) and 1.328-fold greater as the daily number of administration was increased (95% CI 1.186 to 1.487).ConclusionApproximately, one-third of the patients were non-adherent, and males and increased daily number of administration were associated with non-adherence. It highlights that more systematic treatment strategies should be considered for better medication adherence, leading to effective glaucoma management.
Lamina cribrosa-type DH was significantly more common in myopic eyes than in nonmyopic eyes. This result suggests that the pathogenesis of DH may differ between myopic DH and nonmyopic DH.
.
Purpose: To evaluate the amount of intraocular pressure (IOP) change in the eye against the pillow in the lateral decubitus position (LDP).
Methods: Thirty eyes from 15 healthy volunteers (12 men and three women) aged 29 ± 3 (range 25–37) years participated in this study. Using the rebound tonometer (Icare PRO, Icare Finland Oy, Helsinki, Finland), the IOP of both eyes was checked in sitting, supine, right and left LDPs. In the LDP, the additional IOP measurements were taken with the lower eyeball against the latex pillow.
Results: Baseline IOP in the sitting position was 12.7 ± 1.9 mmHg in the right eye and 12.8 ± 2.2 mmHg in the left eye. Ten minutes after shifting from the sitting to the supine position, IOP increased significantly (right eye: +1.4 ± 1.4 mmHg, p = 0.006; left eye: +1.8 ± 1.5 mmHg, p = 0.001). Changing from the supine to the right and left LDP increased significantly the IOP of dependent eye (right eye: +2.3 ± 1.8 mmHg, p = 0.001; left eye: +1.5 ± 1.8 mmHg, p = 0.011). When the dependent eye was compressed against the pillow in the LDP, the IOP of the dependent eyes increased significantly after 10 min (right eye in the right LDP: +4.1 ± 4.9 mmHg, p = 0.011; left eye in the left LDP: +3.4 ± 3.7 mmHg, p = 0.006).
Conclusion: The IOP was significantly elevated when the eyeball was against the pillow in the LDP.
The diagnostic ability of GCIPL parameters was similar to that of the pRNFL parameters in superior hemifield defect glaucoma. However, the diagnostic performance of the GCIPL parameters was significantly inferior to those of the pRNFL parameters in eyes with inferior hemifield defect glaucoma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.