The switch from the concomitant use of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5% eye drops to latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% combination eye drops improved adherence and helped maintain IOP.

BackgroundLatanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% combined eyedrops were recently made available in Japan. We prospectively investigated the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect, visual preservation effect, and adverse reactions of a one-year administration of this fixed combination.MethodsThe subjects included 162 eyes from 162 patients diagnosed with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and using an unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5%. The unfixed combination was discontinued and replaced with the latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination with no washout period. IOP was measured before (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the change. The mean deviation value of Humphrey field analysis was compared. Adverse reactions were examined at every follow-up.ResultsNo significant differences were found between mean IOP values obtained at baseline (mean ± standard deviation, 15.2 ± 3.3 mmHg) 3 months (15.1 ± 3.2 mmHg), 6 months (15.3 ± 3.1 mmHg), 9 months (15.3 ± 3.1 mmHg), and 12 months (15.1 ± 3.2 mmHg) after the change from the unfixed to the fixed combination of eyedrops (P = 0.212). In addition, no significant differences were observed between mean deviation values obtained at baseline (−9.11 ± 6.94 dB) and 12 months (−10.08 ± 7.24 dB) after the change (P = 0.114). Thirty-one patients discontinued the fixed combination within 12 months of replacement, due to an insufficient IOP decrease (20 patients, 12.3%) and adverse reactions (11 patients, 6.8%).ConclusionFollowing replacement of two eyedrop medications (latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5%) by one fixed combination (latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5%), IOP and visual field were preserved. However, 20% of the patients discontinued the new treatment because of an insufficient IOP decrease and complaints of adverse reactions.

Adding ripasudil to existing glaucoma treatment regimens is effective and safe in reducing IOP, regardless of the number of medications in use.

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of tafluprost/timolol fixed combination (TTFC).Study designA prospective clinical study.MethodsTwenty-eight patients (28 eyes) with primary open-angle glaucoma, who had used tafluprost and timolol gel for at least 3 months with good adherence, were enrolled. Concomitant administration of tafluprost and timolol was switched to TTFC without a washout period. The intraocular pressure (IOP), blood pressure, pulse rate, and ocular signs were compared between before switching (baseline), and 4 and 8 weeks after switching. A questionnaire survey was also performed 4 weeks after switching to investigate ocular comfort and patient preferences.ResultsThe IOP showed no significant change after switching to TTFC (14.8 ± 2.8, 14.6 ± 3.4, and 14.8 ± 3.7 mmHg at baseline, Week 4, and Week 8, respectively). The pulse rate and systolic blood pressure showed no changes, but diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower at Week 8. At baseline, fluorescein staining revealed corneal abnormalities in 3 patients, which resolved by Week 8 in 1 patient. Hyperemia was noted in 2 patients at baseline, and this also resolved by Week 8 in 1 patient. Three patients discontinued study treatment for the following reasons (1 patient each): blurred vision; ocular irritation, eyelid erythema, and asthenopia; and loss to follow-up from Week 8. The questionnaire survey revealed no significant differences between the 2 treatments, although more patients preferred TTFC.ConclusionAmong 28 patients enrolled, only 2 patients discontinued the study treatment due to adverse reactions. In patients whose adherence was considered relatively good to concomitant therapy, switching to TTFC achieved similar IOP control with good safety and a high level of patient acceptance.

Introduction: Topical antihistamines are often instilled symptomatically to control patients' eye allergy symptoms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive and as-needed use of antihistamine eye drops in controlling symptoms and to examine whether proactive use may improve quality of life (QOL). Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in Japan. We classified 418 patients who had developed certain symptoms and used antihistamine eye drops for 2 weeks into two groups: those who used the drops at the required frequency at a fixed time (proactive use) and those who used them as-needed. The Japanese Allergic and Conjunctival Diseases Quality of Life Questionnaire (JACQLQ) and Ten-Item Personality Inventory were used to evaluate QOL and personality. Participants' QOL was evaluated using JACQLQ scores after matching of baseline characteristics using propensity score analysis. Results: After propensity score matching, 115 ''proactive'' and 115 ''as-needed'' patients were analyzed. After treatment, in ''as-needed'' patients, the overall QOL scale was 1.66 (95% CI 1.55-1.78); in ''proactive'' patients, the overall QOL scale was 1.34 (95% CI 1.23-1.46) and was significantly improved compared with the ''asneeded'' patients (analysis of covariance, P = 0.002). Furthermore, proactive use significantly alleviated depression (P = 0.03). This improvement of QOL was independent of improvement of the clinical sign scores. Conclusion: Proactive use of topical antihistamine may serve as an effective means for Atsuki Fukushima and Dai Miyazaki contributed equally to this study.