Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2021
Clinical Trial: Diurnal IOP Fluctuations in Glaucoma Using Latanoprost and Timolol with Self-Tonometry.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tong Janelle, Huang Jessie, Kalloniatis Michael, Coroneo Minas, Zangerl Barbara
Аннотация
SIGNIFICANCE: Assessment of treatment efficacy via comparison with a target IOP is fundamental in monitoring patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. This article highlights that diurnal IOP fluctuations obtained using self-tonometry may more accurately reflect IOP responses to therapy.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate fluctuations in diurnal IOP measurements in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension treated with latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.25%.
METHODS: In this crossover treatment trial, 14 participants performed self-tonometry with iCare HOME 4 times daily for (1) 1 week using latanoprost, (2) 4 weeks using no medications, and (3) 2 weeks using timolol. Daily peak IOPs, IOP fluctuations, and mean IOPs from different treatments were compared on an individual basis. Treatment efficacy between medications was assessed by comparing mean percentage IOP reductions with latanoprost and timolol across participants. In addition, effects of age, years since commencing latanoprost, sex, and diagnosis were investigated, and peak IOP times were compared with assess impacts on diurnal profiles.
RESULTS: Between individuals, IOP responses ranged from reductions in peak IOPs, IOP fluctuations, and mean IOPs on both medications to no change in any parameter and medication. IOP fluctuations showed greater mean percentage reductions than did peak and mean IOPs (χ2 = 16.51, P = .002). There were significant associations between years since commencing latanoprost and peak and mean IOP responses on timolol (r = 0.69, P = .007), and sex and relative reductions in IOP fluctuations on both medications (P = .03). There were no differences in peak IOP times between treatment conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in IOP responses to latanoprost and timolol, IOP fluctuation with self-tonometry was more consistent in evaluating target IOP, reflecting its importance in ascertaining true IOP response to topical therapies. These findings may impact clinical decision making based on target IOP criteria in patients on topical therapy.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate fluctuations in diurnal IOP measurements in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension treated with latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.25%.
METHODS: In this crossover treatment trial, 14 participants performed self-tonometry with iCare HOME 4 times daily for (1) 1 week using latanoprost, (2) 4 weeks using no medications, and (3) 2 weeks using timolol. Daily peak IOPs, IOP fluctuations, and mean IOPs from different treatments were compared on an individual basis. Treatment efficacy between medications was assessed by comparing mean percentage IOP reductions with latanoprost and timolol across participants. In addition, effects of age, years since commencing latanoprost, sex, and diagnosis were investigated, and peak IOP times were compared with assess impacts on diurnal profiles.
RESULTS: Between individuals, IOP responses ranged from reductions in peak IOPs, IOP fluctuations, and mean IOPs on both medications to no change in any parameter and medication. IOP fluctuations showed greater mean percentage reductions than did peak and mean IOPs (χ2 = 16.51, P = .002). There were significant associations between years since commencing latanoprost and peak and mean IOP responses on timolol (r = 0.69, P = .007), and sex and relative reductions in IOP fluctuations on both medications (P = .03). There were no differences in peak IOP times between treatment conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in IOP responses to latanoprost and timolol, IOP fluctuation with self-tonometry was more consistent in evaluating target IOP, reflecting its importance in ascertaining true IOP response to topical therapies. These findings may impact clinical decision making based on target IOP criteria in patients on topical therapy.