Topical brinzolamide (Azopt) versus placebo in the treatment of infantile nystagmus syndrome (INS)

Hertle, Richard W.; Yang, Dongsheng; Adkinson, Tonia; Reed, Michael D.

doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305915

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These medicinal products produce less side effects compared to the first-generation drugs 74,75. Brinzolamide is reabsorbed from the blood to a small extent, which results in low systemic blood concentrations and only few side effects could be expected 72,75. Nevertheless, nausea and interference in taste may occur.…”

Section: Drug Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic side effects of eye drops: a pharmacokinetic perspective

Farkouh¹,

Frigo²,

Czejka

2016

OPTH

184

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When administering eye drops, even when completely correctly applied, several routes of absorption are possible and excess amounts can sometimes cause an unwanted systemic bioavailability of the drops when not completely absorbed into the eye. Furthermore, the concentration of active ingredients in such medicinal preparations is usually very high, so that despite the correct application of the recommended dose, considerable amounts may be absorbed in an unwanted manner through various routes. Children are subject to a much higher risk of systemic side effects because ocular dosing is not weight adjusted and physiological development (eg, liver status) differs from that of adults. There is a lack of information about pediatric dosing in the current literature. This review summarizes the most important clinically relevant systemic side effects that may occur during ophthalmic eye treatments. In this review, we discuss general pharmacokinetic considerations as well as the advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of administering drugs from some important drug groups to the eye.

show abstract

Section: Drug Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic side effects of eye drops: a pharmacokinetic perspective

Farkouh¹,

Frigo²,

Czejka

2016

OPTH

184

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only 22% of the included studies reported visual acuity and these were mostly for nystagmus or orbital abnormalities. “Binocular visual acuity” was specifically additionally indicated in two of nystagmus studies [85, 126].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a core outcome set for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders: a review to identify outcome measures

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCore Outcome Sets (COS) are defined as the minimum sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all randomised controlled trials to facilitate combination and comparability of research. The aim of this review is to produce an item bank of previously reported outcome measures from published studies in amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders to initiate the development of COS.MethodsA review was conducted to identify articles reporting outcome measures for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders. Using systematic methods according to the COMET handbook we searched key electronic bibliographic databases from 1st January 2011 to 27th September 2016 using MESH terms and alternatives indicating the different subtypes of amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders in relation to treatment outcomes and all synonyms. We included Cochrane reviews, other systematic reviews, controlled trials, non-systematic reviews and retrospective studies. Data was extracted to tabulate demographics of included studies, primary and secondary outcomes, methods of measurement and their time points.ResultsA total of 142 studies were included; 42 in amblyopia, 33 in strabismus, and 68 in ocular motility disorders (one study overlap between amblyopia and strabismus). We identified ten main outcome measure domains for amblyopia, 14 for strabismus, and ten common “visual or motility” outcome measure domains for ocular motility disorders. Within the domains, we found variable nomenclature being used and diversity in methods and timings of measurements.ConclusionThis review highlights discrepancies in outcome measure reporting within published literature for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility and it generated an item bank of the most commonly used and reported outcome measures for each of the three conditions from recent literature to start the process of COS development. Consensus among all stakeholders including patients and professionals is recommended to establish a useful COS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-019-1055-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…To date, RCT evidence for treatment of INS is scarce; only four RCTs have been undertaken in this field. These have explored auditory biofeedback (Evans et al, 1998), pharmacological treatments (McLean et al, 2007;Hertle et al, 2015) and contact lenses (Jayaramachandran et al, 2014). Supplementary table 6 lists the main similarities and differences between the randomized CL trial (Jayaramachandran et al, 2014) and our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%