Abstract
Topical glaucoma medications are effective and safe, but they have numerous well-documented limitations that diminish their long-term utility and sustainability. These limitations can include high rates of nonadherence (with associated glaucoma progression), concerning side effects, inconsistent circadian intraocular pressure (IOP) control, complex dosing regimens, difficulty with self-administration, costs, and decreased quality of life. Despite these limitations, topical medications traditionally have been first-line in the glaucoma treatment algorithm, as no other minimally invasive treatment alternatives existed. In recent years, however, novel interventional therapies—including sustained-release drug-delivery platforms, selective laser trabeculoplasty, and micro-invasive glaucoma surgery procedures—have made it possible to intervene earlier without relying on topical medications. As a result, the topical medication-first treatment approach is being reevaluated in an overall shift toward earlier more proactive interventions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Topical medications traditionally have been first-line in the glaucoma treatment paradigm. However, their usage is limited by a host of widespread and impactful downsides, including nonadherence (with associated glaucoma progression), side effects, inconsistent circadian intraocular pressure (IOP) control, complex dosing regimens, difficulty with self-administration, costs, and decreased quality of life. |
In the past, the limitations of topical medications were accepted due to the lack of viable alternatives, but this may now no longer be the case. |
Novel minimally invasive interventions, including sustained-release drug-delivery platforms, selective laser trabeculoplasty, and micro-invasive glaucoma surgery, are being used earlier in the treatment cascade, including as the first-line therapy. |
This shift toward earlier intervention has led to an overall reevaluation of the glaucoma treatment paradigm. |
In the coming years, it may be possible and desirable for the topical medication-first approach to be replaced by earlier more interventional therapies that are more effective and less adversely impactful on patients, doctors, and society. |
Medications First: Reexamining an Aging Glaucoma Treatment Paradigm
For more than 150 years—since the discovery of physostigmine isolated from the Calabar bean [1]—topical medical therapy has been the preferred first-line treatment for primary open-angle glaucoma. Other drugs followed, including pilocarpine and epinephrine, and the era of modern glaucoma pharmacology commenced with the development of timolol in the 1970s [2]. The 1990s saw a rapid expansion of medical options for glaucoma, including the first prostaglandin analogue (latanoprost), the first topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (dorzolamide), and the first alpha adrenergic agonist (brimonidine) [2]. The first-line utilization of medications has been validated in numerous multicentered clinical trials designed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in the primary treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) [3,4,5,6,7]. As recently as 2020, the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommended topical medications as the preferred first-line therapy for newly diagnosed POAG or OHT over other treatment modalities for most patients [8].
Topical medical therapy for the treatment of glaucoma is generally considered safe and effective as commonly utilized medications are required to undergo a series of clinical trials to achieve regulatory approval around the world. There is no question that the approved compounds considered foundational therapy are highly effective in reducing intraocular pressure to control glaucoma progression when appropriately instilled. However, topical medication use has critical limitations, among them high rates of therapeutic nonadherence that increase the risk of disease progression, side effects that can be sight-threatening, suboptimal circadian efficacy effects, the need for complex regimens of multiple drugs administered multiple times per day, difficulty with self-administration of topical medications, and others. Despite these significant and well-documented limitations, topical medical therapy remains the established first-line treatment for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) because no meaningful safe and effective alternative therapies existed.
Given the well-documented limitations of topical therapy, coupled with significant advances in alternate approaches to glaucoma management, reliance on a medication-first approach may no longer be necessary. The 21st century has seen significant development of innovative interventional glaucoma therapies that do not require topical self-dosing one or more times daily and that obviate patient adherence. These include sustained-release drug-delivery platforms, selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT), and minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS), all of which lower IOP and reduce or eliminate the need for chronic medical therapy. The widespread availability of these therapies, coupled with high-quality evidence supporting their efficacy and safety, prompt a reexamination of the traditional topical medication-first approach and consideration of a more proactive, targeted, and earlier patient-centric interventional approach to glaucoma management.
Limitations of Topical Medical Therapy
Nonadherence
Rates of nonadherence to glaucoma therapy range from 30% to 80% in published studies [9,10,11,12,13] and adherence worsens over time [14]. In turn, topical medication nonadherence increases the risk of glaucoma progression [9, 10, 14, 15], which in turn leads to more invasive interventions at increased risk and cost. Underlying causes and contributors to nonadherence are multiple and complex and have been extensively reviewed [16,17,18]. Unfortunately, intentional nonadherence—purposefully not taking medications as prescribed—can be difficult to detect in the clinical setting since patients may take their medications only in the days leading up to a scheduled office visit. Unintentional nonadherence can often be more easily detected and remedied.
Common causes of unintentional nonadherence include cognitive factors, physical factors, regimen complexity, and difficulty with drop administration [19]. Cognitive factors contributing to glaucoma medication nonadherence can range from forgetfulness [20, 21] to dementia [22, 23], which are particularly relevant given the demographics of the glaucoma population. For example, Alzheimer’s disease is a leading cause of dementia in older individuals and is more common in glaucoma patients than in the general population [24,25,26]. Physical factors may include hand pain and/or weakness attributable to arthritis [23] or tremor [27], both of which make self-dosing with topical ophthalmic therapy difficult [28,29,30]. The complexity of the medical regimen also affects adherence, with nonadherence being more likely as regimen complexity increases [31]; this can affect a substantial proportion of patients (40–50%) who require a multi-medication regimen for disease control [3, 32,33,34,35,36].
Difficulty with self-dosing can also adversely affect adherence. Correctly administering eye drops is a complex, multistep process involving hygiene, dexterity, proprioception, coordination, and visual acuity. Most patients never receive any training in proper instillation techniques and instead are left to learn on their own [37, 38]. Perhaps not surprisingly, most patients make one or more mistakes when self-dosing [37, 39,40,41], which consequently increase the risk of glaucoma progression [42] as well as dosing-related adverse events [43, 44]. Examples of common mistakes during eye drop instillation include difficulty aiming the bottle over the eye [30], difficulty squeezing the bottle [30], contaminating the dropper bottle through contact with the lid or ocular surface [37, 38, 40, 41, 45,46,47,48], and either dispensing more than one drop [40, 47,48,49,50] or missing the eye entirely [38, 40, 45, 47].
Engaging newly diagnosed glaucoma patients to accept responsibility for self-administering topical medical treatment can be challenging. In its mild and moderate stages, glaucoma is typically asymptomatic. There are no bothersome symptoms that therapy relieves to motivate adherence. Often, the only symptoms that medically well-controlled glaucoma patients are likely to experience in their lifetimes are the side effects of topical medical therapy. Even if glaucoma therapy did provide the incentive of symptomatic relief or some other immediate tangible benefit, it is uncertain that adherence would improve: for example, only 33% of patients with cluster headache (also called suicide headache due to their intensity) adhere to preventive therapy [51], and nearly 30% of patients who have received a kidney transplant fail to adhere to their anti-rejection drug regimen even while knowing that such behavior increases the risk of organ rejection [52]. In fact, rather than providing motivation to adhere, topical medical therapy for glaucoma is associated with numerous safety and tolerability issues that provide substantial deterrence to adherence, as discussed below.
Therapeutic nonadherence in glaucoma increases the risk of disease progression [9, 10, 14, 15] and can lead to a vicious cycle. Nonadherence can lead to disease progression, prompting the addition of more medications, which can further worsen adherence, leading to more progression and the need for more invasive therapies such as incisional surgery. Glaucoma progression is not uncommon among treated patients but can be prevented with effective therapy. In the era before topical beta-blockers, the 20-year cumulative risk of progression from glaucoma diagnosis to blindness in at least one eye was 27% among treated glaucoma patients [53]. After the development of beta-blockers but before prostaglandin analogues, the 20-year risk of blindness in the same population dropped by half to 13.5% [54]. In another study, the 15-year risk of blindness in at least one eye was 14.6% and nonadherence with therapy was a significant risk factor [55]. In a Swedish study, the 10- and 20-year risks of blindness from treated glaucoma in at least one eye were 26.5 and 38.1%, respectively [56]; these higher estimates may be related to the high prevalence of exfoliation glaucoma in Sweden [57], which generally has a more severe course than POAG. These and other studies of progression to blindness in eyes with treated glaucoma [58] underscore the need for a new approach to glaucoma therapy.
Side Effects
Perhaps the most obvious contributor to nonadherence with topical medical therapy is that all medications have side effects, and these side effects are common. For example, while latanoprost is widely considered to be among the safest of topical glaucoma medications, the rate of non-serious ocular adverse events with latanoprost in its US phase 3 registry trial was 10% and the rate of ocular events not graded as adverse events (examples include burning/stinging, tearing, foreign body sensation, etc.) was 48% [59]. Thus, more than 50% of patients receiving latanoprost exhibited one or more unwanted ocular symptoms while on therapy. Additionally, in the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS), latanoprost only slowed visual field progression by 58% more than placebo, indicating that even first-line standard of care therapy has limitations [60].
In general, the side effects associated with topical glaucoma medications fall into one of three categories: those related to mild or transient discomfort or disturbance, those associated with cosmetic alterations, and those that are safety-related. Numerous topical medications are associated with transient bothersome side effects that may not represent true safety issues. For instance, dorzolamide and the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination often sting upon instillation because they are formulated as acidic solutions (pH ~ 5.6 to 5.7) to solubilize the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI) component [61, 62]. The insoluble CAI brinzolamide, in contrast, is formulated as a suspension, avoiding the low-pH stinging but instead causing transient formulation-related blurring of vision that is severe enough to impair driving [63]. Both CAI options are known to cause taste perturbations. Other drugs have other characteristics that are similarly undesirable. For example, 18% of patients using brimonidine tartrate 0.2% will develop a type IV hypersensitivity allergy within 12 months that will cause significant irritation and require cessation of the medication [64]. While these events pose no health-related safety concerns, they can incentivize adverse behaviors such as skipping doses or immediate post-dose use of artificial tears (thereby washing out the active drug before optimal absorption) that reduce therapeutic efficacy.
Side effects that alter patients’ appearance can be more problematic. The prostaglandin analogues—the most commonly used class of topical glaucoma medications—are well known to cause numerous cosmetic alterations. These include common side effects such as conjunctival hyperemia as well as lengthening, thickening, and darkening of eye lashes; and less common effects such as growth of vellus hairs and hyperpigmentation of periorbital skin as well as permanent iris hyperpigmentation [65]. These undesirable cosmetic issues can be more obvious and more unacceptable to patients with unilateral use, rendering the drug class relatively contraindicated for just one eye. As these drugs became available, patients had to tolerate these cosmetic side effects to reap their therapeutic efficacy. New and emerging therapies offer freedom from these adverse cosmetic events. Glaucoma patients today do not have to choose between how they look and how they see.
Some side effects can represent true safety issues. In the first 7 years after the commercialization of topical timolol, before its systemic safety issues were fully recognized, the topical glaucoma drug was suspected as the cause of 32 deaths reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [66], and topical beta-blockers have a substantial list of contraindications related to their systemic side effects [67]. Topical medical therapy was also associated with a higher risk of cataract surgery in both the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS, versus no treatment) [68] and the Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Trial (LiGHT, versus SLT) [69]. Topical prostaglandin analogues have been associated with several safety issues, including intraocular inflammation [70, 71], cystoid macular edema [71], and periorbital fat atrophy [72,73,74]. The latter is part of a syndrome called prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy (PAP) characterized by dermatochalasia, blepharoptosis, deepening of orbital sulci, and flattening of lower eyelid fat pads [75]. PAP has also been associated with topical prostaglandin analogues commercialized for over-the-counter use as lash lengtheners [76]. Initially considered a cosmetic side effect, PAP has come to be considered a safety issue: its presence compromises outcomes of trabeculectomy [77] and affects surgical planning for oculoplastics procedures [78].
Perhaps the most impactful adverse effect of topical glaucoma therapy is its association with ocular surface toxicity. Multiple prospective studies have found that the prevalence of ocular surface disease (OSD) in patients using topical glaucoma medications ranges from 30% to 70% [79,80,81,82,83,84,85] and is much higher than in the general population (5–30% [86]). Commercial formulations of topical glaucoma medications contain both active and inactive ingredients, and while the active ingredients can have adverse effects on ocular surface health, most of the damage to the ocular surface is attributable to inactive ingredients, specifically preservatives, most commonly the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK).
BAK is present in about 70% of all ophthalmic formulations [87, 88] and its cytotoxic effects on ocular surface cells have been well characterized [89,90,91]. In laboratory and animal studies, BAK has been demonstrated to injure and/or reduce survival of corneal [92,93,94,95], conjunctival [93, 96], trabecular meshwork (TM) [97, 98], and ciliary epithelial [97] cells, to promote ocular tissue inflammation [95, 99], to delay corneal wound healing [100], to induce corneal epithelial cell apoptosis [101], and to alter gene expression in TM cells through DNA fragmentation and oxidative stress [98]. The clinical manifestations of BAK-induced ocular surface toxicity are numerous and include symptoms such as pain/discomfort [102, 103] and tearing [103] as well as signs including increased ocular surface staining [104,105,106], worsened Schirmer test scores [103, 105], and decreased tear break-up time [104, 107, 108]. Together these result in a higher prevalence of punctate keratitis [107, 109] and overall worsening of Ocular Surface Disease Index scores [104, 110]. These adverse events are dose-dependent, worsening with increasing exposure to BAK via multiple medications, multiple drops per day, and duration of therapy [79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. BAK-related ocular toxicity is associated with diminished quality of life [111, 112]. Perhaps most insidiously of all, the ocular surface damage caused by long-term use of BAK-preserved medications reduces the success of subsequent glaucoma filtration surgery [88, 113, 114]. Negative effects of first-line therapy on the outcomes of subsequent interventions alone warrant a reevaluation of the current medications-first approach, as this could be a set-up for long-term treatment failure in some patients.
Efficacy
Topical medical therapy has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing or preventing progression in multiple landmark clinical trials [3, 5, 6]. However, topical medical therapy—even when increased to multiple medications to achieve target pressures—does not always prevent progression. In OHTS, 4.4% of topical medication-treated patients developed POAG within 5 years [3]. In the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), 25% of topical medication-treated patients progressed within 8 years [6]. In the LiGHT trial, 27% of topical medication-treated patients progressed within 6 years [69]. Coupled with the population data on blindness risks among treated glaucoma patients described above, it is clear that a substantial proportion of glaucoma patients will require more than topical medical therapy for disease control in their lifetime.
As discussed above, nonadherence is one of the factors contributing to the failure of medical therapy to control glaucoma. As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD, once said, “Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.” [115]. However, even topical medications that are taken as directed have shortcomings in terms of the IOP control they deliver. Many topical medications exhibit peak and trough efficacy related to their pharmacokinetics and dosing schedules. For example, topical timolol dosed twice daily exhibits a roughly 33% loss of effect between 1-h peak and 12-h trough [116]. In its phase 3 registry trials, brimonidine demonstrated an approximately 50% loss of effect from peak to trough with three-times-daily dosing [117]. Also, both timolol and brimonidine have been shown to lower IOP poorly or not at all in the nocturnal period [118, 119]. This is problematic given that IOP tends to be highest at night when blood pressure is at its lowest [120, 121], and the nocturnal period has been identified as a time when glaucoma progression is most likely to occur. These shortcomings of topical medical therapy may partially explain the blindness rates among treated patients described above.
An additional limitation of topical medication efficacy is that many patients require IOP reduction beyond the capacity of single-agent therapy. In OHTS, for example, only 60% of patients achieved target IOP (20% reduction from baseline) using a single medication at 5 years [3]. In CIGTS, only 56% of patients were still at target IOP (determined using a study-specific formula) using one medication only 3 months into the study [34]. In LiGHT, only 43% of medication-first eyes were still at target IOP (20–30% depending on diagnosis and stage of disease) using a single medication at 6 years [69]. Unfortunately, the need for multiple medications for IOP control exposes patients to additive side effect profiles and reduces adherence [31]. Furthermore, as the number of medications required for IOP control increases, the law of diminishing returns comes into play: the medication selected as fourth-line therapy is utilized late in the treatment cascade because its efficacy and/or safety is inferior to the three drugs used before it, and thus it is unlikely to deliver IOP control when better medications have failed to do so. In fact, multiple studies have shown that the addition of a second, third, or fourth medication typically results in only a 10–15% incremental IOP reduction [35, 122, 123], and the addition of a 3rd or 4th medication carries only a 14% chance of successfully controlling IOP after 12 months [35].
Cost
Topical glaucoma medications are expensive. In 2017, Medicare spent USD $1.09 billion on prostaglandin analogues alone [124]. This does not include medications from other drug classes, drugs covered by non-Medicare insurers, nor uncovered medications purchased out-of-pocket by patients. The overall cost to the US healthcare system attributable directly to glaucoma care exceeds USD $9 billion annually [125]. There are also indirect costs to medical therapy borne by physician, the patient, and the patient’s caregiver(s). Physician costs include the time spent educating patients about side effects, teaching proper drop instillation, and prescribing/refilling medications, none of which are billable services. Patient costs include the time spent instilling drops (which can be 5–10 min several times per day for patients on multiple medications), driving to/from the pharmacy to get the medications, and coordinating complex dosing regimens and medication availability. These time costs often also extend to caregivers who may invest time in assisting with daily topical medication dosing, retrieving medications from the pharmacy, and accompanying patients with transportation to doctor visits. The combined nonmedical out-of-pocket costs to patients and caregivers for expenses such as travel and lost wages has been estimated at approximately $100 per patient per year [126]. If insurers decline to cover a prescribed medication (a common occurrence with new medications not yet added to insurers’ formularies), there are additional time costs to both patients and physicians when patients call the office seeking prior authorizations or alternate medications. In addition, cost can affect adherence. For example, before the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug benefit, 8.2% of beneficiaries reported skipping doses of glaucoma medications due to cost; after implementation, this dropped to 2.8% [127]. All treatment options have associated costs. Emerging evidence suggests that more interventional approaches to glaucoma—such as SLT or MIGS—may be more cost-effective strategies for long-term glaucoma care [69, 128,129,130,131].
Quality of Life
Quality of life is a complex construct defined by the World Health Organization as “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns.” [132]. Health-related quality of life is informed by perceived physical and mental health over time. The glaucoma disease itself affects quality of life both physically and psychologically. At the time of diagnosis, the fear of blindness has a significant detrimental effect on quality of life that dissipates over time as patients become acclimated to and educated about the disease and its prognosis [133]. As glaucoma progresses, deterioration of the visual field decreases quality of life by imposing a series of daily life challenges, including difficulty driving, reading, and recognizing faces [134]. Recent evidence suggests early impairment of vision-related quality of life may manifest even before measurable visual field loss has occurred [135].
The side effects of topical medical treatment for glaucoma can also impact quality of life, including both physical and psychological well-being. Tearing, redness, and burning/stinging associated with topical glaucoma therapy have been shown to decrease quality of life [136]. The development of ocular surface disease from topical glaucoma medications—occurring in 30–70% of patients [79,80,81,82,83,84,85]—has also been demonstrated to reduce quality of life [111, 112]. Difficulty self-administering drops also decreases quality of life [137]. Additionally, the treatment burden includes the time to instill drops—which can take 5–10 min multiple times per day if spaced correctly for patients on multiple medications—and the need for dosing away from the privacy of home (at work, at social events, etc.), all of which can affect treatment satisfaction and quality of life.
It is therefore surprising that well-designed studies evaluating quality of life have shown mixed outcomes. For example, in the pivotal trial of the trabecular micro-bypass iStent inject, greater reduction of medication dependence in the iStent inject group versus cataract surgery alone resulted in greater improvement in quality of life using several validated instruments [138]. In another study, improvement in quality of life after cataract surgery combined with various MIGS procedures was related to medication reductions [139, 140]. In another, combined cataract surgery with a trabecular micro-bypass significantly reduced topical medication use and improved ocular surface health, a key determinant of quality of life in glaucoma patients [111, 112]. In contrast, several of the landmark glaucoma trials—including OHTS [141], the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT) [142], the UKGTS [143], and the LiGHT study [69]—have not consistently shown significant adverse effects of topical medical therapy on quality of life.
It is unlikely that topical medical therapy for glaucoma has no adverse effect on quality of life. Rather, it is likely that the instruments used in these studies are not sensitive or specific enough to detect these differences. Most of the instruments used in these studies were designed to assess the effect of general health, or vision function, or the presence of glaucoma, on quality of life. In each of these studies, patients in all treatment arms were balanced by randomization in terms of diagnosis, visual function status, and general health status, so it is unsurprising that instruments designed to measure effects of these variables found no differences between the balanced treatment groups in these studies. Most instruments are not designed to measure the effects of glaucoma treatment on quality of life [144]. Given the interest in early use of sustained-release drug-delivery platforms, SLT, and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery to reduce or eliminate the need for topical medical therapy, there remains significant unmet need for an instrument that assesses the effect of glaucoma treatment on quality of life, as such data will inform clinicians and payors regarding the relative utility of these treatments in improving patient well-being, which will be essential for effecting paradigm change.
Discussion: Beyond Medications: A Modern Interventional Glaucoma Treatment Paradigm
There are considerable limitations of topical medical therapy outlined above, many of which can directly or indirectly increase the risk of disease progression and vision loss, and reduce patient quality of life. Given these limitations, now may be the appropriate time to reexamine the current conventional step-wise treatment approach, in which topical medications are often automatically and universally used as first-line therapy. By broadening the glaucoma treatment algorithm to include various less-invasive surgical interventions in addition to topical medications, doctors and patients are better equipped to design patient-centric treatment plans that span all disease severities and individual needs.
Indeed, the glaucoma treatment landscape has modernized and evolved, providing an opportunity to be more interventional in our approach–utilizing advanced therapies such as SLT, MIGS, and sustained-release drug-delivery systems—all with the common goal of preserving vision and improving patient quality of life. Although change can often be incremental and difficult to detect, there is growing evidence that the glaucoma treatment paradigm is evolving away from topical medications as first-line therapy. Following years of increasing rates of topical medication prescriptions for glaucoma in Australia [145], new data show prescription-writing on the decline in favor of SLT and MIGS procedures [146]. Likewise, based on data emerging from the LiGHT trial of first-line SLT versus topical medications for newly diagnosed glaucoma, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Care and Health Excellence has recommended that SLT be the preferred first-line treatment for patients in the National Health Service [147]. Similarly, the European Glaucoma Society and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have recently updated their glaucoma management guidelines to recommend SLT as first-line therapy [8, 148]. Furthermore, a multicenter trial funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute—the Clarifying the Optimal Application of SLT Therapy (COAST) trial—is currently investigating the role of annual low-energy SLT compared to standard-energy SLT performed as needed in keeping newly diagnosed OAG and OHTN patients off medications for as long as possible [149]. From an economic perspective, compared to topical medical therapy, SLT has been shown to be more cost-effective [69, 130, 150,151,152].
Similar to laser procedures, the advent of the MIGS family of glaucoma procedures has opened the door for earlier surgical intervention. Designed as safer and more physiologic alternatives to traditional trabeculectomy and tube-shunt procedures, these procedures collectively offer more modest IOP reductions for patients who would benefit from surgery but whose treatment goals may not justify the risk of traditional surgery [153,154,155]. Accordingly, the notion of employing surgery earlier in the treatment cascade, rather than saving it as a last resort, has been raised [156, 157]. Given that the trabecular meshwork is the primary site of histopathological changes related to elevated IOP [158], targeting the meshwork early in the disease process is a logical approach, and several studies have suggested a beneficial disease-modifying effect of early intervention that may not be fully explained by IOP reduction alone [159, 160]. Various MIGS procedures combined with cataract surgery have been shown to be cost-effective compared to cataract surgery alone [128, 129, 161], and also compared to topical medication therapy. Relatedly, there have been calls to unbundle some glaucoma procedures from the often-required concomitant cataract surgery and allow them as standalone procedures so patients who might benefit have more than a one-moment-in-time opportunity to receive them at the time of cataract surgery [156].
Following upon SLT and MIGS, SRDD’s are the newest entry into the glaucoma treatment space. As a class they aim to provide the benefits of medication without the drawbacks of topical administration or reliance on patient adherence. SRDD’s include FDA-approved bimatoprost sustained-release (Durysta, Allergan), as well as several implants in various stages of development and with different routes of administration. These SRDD’s include, for example: ocular surface devices (e.g., gel-forming eyedrops, drug-delivery devices, medicated contact lenses, ocular ring inserts, collagen shields); punctal plug depots (e.g., travoprost ophthalmic insert, latanoprost punctal plug delivery system); subconjunctival injections (e.g., of latanoprost or dorzolamide-loaded polymer microparticles); and intracameral implants (providing sustained release of a medication such as travoprost, latanoprost, or omidenepag isopropyl [OMDI]). Although SRDD’s are the newest addition to the glaucoma treatment algorithm and many are still in development, they ultimately may offer additional topical-medication-free alternatives within the glaucoma treatment paradigm.
In summary, topical medications for glaucoma have a long history of effectiveness and safety, but newer treatment options may offer meaningful clinical benefits over topical medical therapy. The glaucoma treatment paradigm is in evolution, and novel interventional treatments—including sustained-release drug-delivery platforms, SLT, and MIGS procedures—are increasingly being considered earlier in the treatment cascade, including as first-line therapy. As data continue to emerge from clinical trials and clinical practice, the default topical medication-first approach to glaucoma care may be replaced by a more individualized, patient-centric approach that leverages the wider variety of interventional therapies now available—interventions that may be more effective, safer, and less adversely impactful on patients, doctors, and society at large.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Fraser TR. On the physiological action of the Calabar bean. J Anat Physiol. 1867;1(2):323–32.
Realini T. A history of glaucoma pharmacology. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(1):36–8.
Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):701–13.
Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Cunha-Vaz J, Torri V, Adamsons I. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(3):366–75.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1268–79.
Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE, Janz NK, Wren PA, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):1943–53.
Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group. The glaucoma laser trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study: 7. Results. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120(6):718–31.
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Primary open-angle glaucoma: preferred practice pattern. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2020.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, Radaelli R, Bianchi PE. Do adherence rates and glaucomatous visual field progression correlate? Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21(4):410–4.
Sleath B, Blalock S, Covert D, Stone JL, Skinner AC, Muir K, et al. The relationship between glaucoma medication adherence, eye drop technique, and visual field defect severity. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2398–402.
Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, Webers CA. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):953–61.
Stewart WC, Chorak RP, Hunt HH, Sethuraman G. Factors associated with visual loss in patients with advanced glaucomatous changes in the optic nerve head. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116(2):176–81.
Kass MA, Gordon M, Morley RE Jr, Meltzer DW, Goldberg JJ. Compliance with topical timolol treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103(2):188–93.
Newman-Casey PA, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Janz NK, Lichter PR, Musch DC. The association between medication adherence and visual field progression in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(4):477–83.
Rajurkar K, Dubey S, Gupta PP, John D, Chauhan L. Compliance to topical anti-glaucoma medications among patients at a tertiary hospital in North India. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018;30(2):125–9.
Tsai JC. A comprehensive perspective on patient adherence to topical glaucoma therapy. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11 Suppl):S30–6.
Tsai JC. Medication adherence in glaucoma: approaches for optimizing patient compliance. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):190–5.
Budenz DL. A clinician’s guide to the assessment and management of nonadherence in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11 Suppl):S43–7.
Hovanesian J, Singh IP, Bauskar A, Vantipalli S, Ozden RG, Goldstein MH. Identifying and addressing common contributors to nonadherence with ophthalmic medical therapy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2023;34(Suppl 1):S1–13.
Poleon S, Racette L, Fifolt M, Schoenberger-Godwin YM, Abu SL, Twa MD. Patient and provider perspectives on glaucoma treatment adherence: a Delphi study in urban Alabama. Optom Vis Sci. 2021;98(9):1085–93.
Newman-Casey PA, Robin AL, Blachley T, Farris K, Heisler M, Resnicow K, et al. The most common barriers to glaucoma medication adherence: a cross-sectional survey. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(7):1308–16.
Yochim BP, Mueller AE, Kane KD, Kahook MY. Prevalence of cognitive impairment, depression, and anxiety symptoms among older adults with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(4):250–4.
Asefzadeh B, Rett D, Pogoda TK, Selvin G, Cavallerano A. Glaucoma medication adherence in veterans and influence of coexisting chronic disease. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(4):240–5.
Rajan KB, Weuve J, Barnes LL, McAninch EA, Wilson RS, Evans DA. Population estimate of people with clinical Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment in the United States (2020–2060). Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17:1966.
Su CW, Lin CC, Kao CH, Chen HY. Association between glaucoma and the risk of dementia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(7): e2833.
Moon JY, Kim HJ, Park YH, Park TK, Park EC, Kim CY, et al. Association between open-angle glaucoma and the risks of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases in South Korea: a 10-year nationwide cohort study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):11161.
Handforth A, Parker GA. Conditions associated with essential tremor in veterans: a potential role for chronic stress. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (N Y). 2018;8:517.
Davis SA, Sleath B, Carpenter DM, Blalock SJ, Muir KW, Budenz DL. Drop instillation and glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(2):171–7.
Sayner R, Carpenter DM, Robin AL, Blalock SJ, Muir KW, Vitko M, et al. How glaucoma patient characteristics, self-efficacy and patient-provider communication are associated with eye drop technique. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;24(2):78–85.
Winfield AJ, Jessiman D, Williams A, Esakowitz L. A study of the causes of non-compliance by patients prescribed eyedrops. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74(8):477–80.
Robin AL, Covert D. Does adjunctive glaucoma therapy affect adherence to the initial primary therapy? Ophthalmology. 2005;112(5):863–8.
Gazzard G, Konstantakopoulou E, Garway-Heath D, Garg A, Vickerstaff V, Hunter R, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops for first-line treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma (LiGHT): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10180):1505–16.
Katz LJ, Steinmann WC, Kabir A, Molineaux J, Wizov SS, Marcellino G. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus medical therapy as initial treatment of glaucoma: a prospective, randomized trial. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(7):460–8.
Musch DC, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR. Stepped medication use, associated symptoms, and treatment failure among participants in the medication arm of the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. ARVO; April 28–May 3, 2018; Honolulu, HA2018.
Neelakantan A, Vaishnav HD, Iyer SA, Sherwood MB. Is addition of a third or fourth antiglaucoma medication effective? J Glaucoma. 2004;13(2):130–6.
Saini SD, Schoenfeld P, Kaulback K, Dubinsky MC. Effect of medication dosing frequency on adherence in chronic diseases. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(6):e22-33.
Usgaonkar U, Zambaulicar V, Shetty A. Subjective and objective assessment of the eye drop instillation technique: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(10):2638–42.
Tatham AJ, Sarodia U, Gatrad F, Awan A. Eye drop instillation technique in patients with glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(11):1293–8.
Stone JL, Robin AL, Novack GD, Covert DW, Cagle GD. An objective evaluation of eyedrop instillation in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):732–6.
Gomes BF, Paredes AF, Madeira N, Moraes HV Jr, Santhiago MR. Assessment of eye drop instillation technique in glaucoma patients. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2017;80(4):238–41.
Gupta R, Patil B, Shah BM, Bali SJ, Mishra SK, Dada T. Evaluating eye drop instillation technique in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(3):189–92.
Rajanala AP, Prager AJ, Park MS, Tanna AP. Association of the effectiveness of eye drop self-instillation and glaucoma progression. J Glaucoma. 2022;31:156.
Dietlein TS, Jordan JF, Luke C, Schild A, Dinslage S, Krieglstein GK. Self-application of single-use eyedrop containers in an elderly population: comparisons with standard eyedrop bottle and with younger patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(8):856–9.
Taban M, Sarayba MA, Ignacio TS, Behrens A, McDonnell PJ. Ingress of India ink into the anterior chamber through sutureless clear corneal cataract wounds. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):643–8.
Schwartz GF, Hollander DA, Williams JM. Evaluation of eye drop administration technique in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(11):1515–22.
Naito T, Yoshikawa K, Namiguchi K, Mizoue S, Shiraishi A, Ichikawa Y, et al. Comparison of success rates in eye drop instillation between sitting position and supine position. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9): e0204363.
Kashiwagi K, Matsuda Y, Ito Y, Kawate H, Sakamoto M, Obi S, et al. Investigation of visual and physical factors associated with inadequate instillation of eyedrops among patients with glaucoma. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5): e0251699.
Lazcano-Gomez G, Castillejos A, Kahook M, Jimenez-Roman J, Gonzalez-Salinas R. Videographic assessment of glaucoma drop instillation. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2015;9(2):47–50.
Liu Y, Murdoch A, Bassett K, Dharamsi S. Proficiency of eye drop instillation in postoperative cataract patients in Ghana. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2013;7:2099–105.
An JA, Kasner O, Samek DA, Levesque V. Evaluation of eyedrop administration by inexperienced patients after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(11):1857–61.
Rimmele F, Muller B, Becker-Hingst N, Wegener S, Rimmele S, Kropp P, et al. Medication adherence in patients with cluster headache and migraine: an online survey. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):4546.
Denhaerynck K, Dobbels F, Cleemput I, Desmyttere A, Schafer-Keller P, Schaub S, et al. Prevalence, consequences, and determinants of nonadherence in adult renal transplant patients: a literature review. Transpl Int. 2005;18(10):1121–33.
Hattenhauer MG, Johnson DH, Ing HH, Herman DC, Hodge DO, Yawn BP, et al. The probability of blindness from open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(11):2099–104.
Malihi M, Moura Filho ER, Hodge DO, Sit AJ. Long-term trends in glaucoma-related blindness in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):134–41.
Chen PP. Blindness in patients with treated open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(4):726–33.
Peters D, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Lifetime risk of blindness in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):724–30.
Ekstrom C. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma in central Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(7):747–54.
Mokhles P, Schouten JS, Beckers HJ, Azuara-Blanco A, Tuulonen A, Webers CA. A systematic review of end-of-life visual impairment in open-angle glaucoma: an epidemiological autopsy. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(7):623–8.
Camras CB. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: a six-month masked, multicenter trial in the United States. The United States Latanoprost Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(1):138–47.
Founti P, Bunce C, Khawaja AP, Dore CJ, Mohamed-Noriega J, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Risk factors for visual field deterioration in the United Kingdom glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(12):1642–51.
Merck & Co., Inc. TRUSOPT® (dorzolamide hydrochloride ophthalmic solution) 2%. Prescribing Information. Whitehouse Station: Merck & Co., Inc. ; 2014.
Merck & Co Inc. Cosopt (dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination) prescribing information. 2006.
Alcon Laboratories, Inc. AZOPT® (brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension) 1%. Prescribing Information. Fort Worth: Alcon Laboratories, Inc. ; 2015.
Motolko MA. Comparison of allergy rates in glaucoma patients receiving brimonidine 0.2% monotherapy versus fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%-timolol 0.5% therapy. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(9):2663–7.
Hollo G. The side effects of the prostaglandin analogues. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2007;6(1):45–52.
Nelson WL, Fraunfelder FT, Sills JM, Arrowsmith JB, Kuritsky JN. Adverse respiratory and cardiovascular events attributed to timolol ophthalmic solution, 1978–1985. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;102(5):606–11.
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Timoptic 0.25% and 5% (timolol maleate ophthalmic solution). Prescribing Information. Bridgewater: Bausch & Lomb, Inc.; 2016.
Herman DC, Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Chylack LT Jr, Lamping KA, Schein OD, et al. Topical ocular hypotensive medication and lens opacification: evidence from the ocular hypertension treatment study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142(5):800–10.
Gazzard G, Konstantakopoulou E, Garway-Heath D, Adeleke M, Vickerstaff V, Ambler G, et al. Laser in glaucoma and ocular hypertension (LiGHT) trial: six-year results of primary selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology. 2023;130(2):139–51.
Fechtner RD, Khouri AS, Zimmerman TJ, Bullock J, Feldman R, Kulkarni P, et al. Anterior uveitis associated with latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(1):37–41.
Warwar RE, Bullock JD, Ballal D. Cystoid macular edema and anterior uveitis associated with latanoprost use. Experience and incidence in a retrospective review of 94 patients. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(2):263–8.
Peplinski LS, Albiani SK. Deepening of lid sulcus from topical bimatoprost therapy. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(8):574–7.
Tappeiner C, Perren B, Iliev ME, Frueh BE, Goldblum D. Orbital fat atrophy in glaucoma patients treated with topical bimatoprost—can bimatoprost cause enophthalmos? Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008;225(5):443–5.
Filippopoulos T, Paula JS, Torun N, Hatton MP, Pasquale LR, Grosskreutz CL. Periorbital changes associated with topical bimatoprost. Ophthalm Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(4):302–7.
Tan J, Berke S. Latanoprost-induced prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(9):e245–7 (discussion 1029).
Jamison A, Okafor L, Ullrich K, Schiedler V, Malhotra R. Do prostaglandin analogue lash lengtheners cause eyelid fat and volume loss? Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(11):1241–9.
Ishida A, Miki T, Naito T, Ichioka S, Takayanagi Y, Tanito M. Surgical results of trabeculectomy among groups stratified by prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy severity. Ophthalmology. 2023;130(3):297–303.
Tan P, Malhotra R. Oculoplastic considerations in patients with glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2016;61(6):718–25.
Labbe A, Terry O, Brasnu E, Van Went C, Baudouin C. Tear film osmolarity in patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Cornea. 2012;31(9):994–9.
O’Hare F, Ghosh S, Lamoureux E, Vajpayee RB, Crowston JG. Prevalence of signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease in individuals treated and not treated with glaucoma medication. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40(7):675–81.
Valente C, Iester M, Corsi E, Rolando M. Symptoms and signs of tear film dysfunction in glaucomatous patients. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011;27(3):281–5.
Leung EW, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Prevalence of ocular surface disease in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(5):350–5.
Fechtner RD, Godfrey DG, Budenz D, Stewart JA, Stewart WC, Jasek MC. Prevalence of ocular surface complaints in patients with glaucoma using topical intraocular pressure-lowering medications. Cornea. 2010;29(6):618–21.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, Raimondi M, Lanteri S, Bianchi PE. Risk factors to develop ocular surface disease in treated glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23(3):296–302.
Skalicky SE, Goldberg I, McCluskey P. Ocular surface disease and quality of life in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011.
Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, Jalbert I, Lekhanont K, Malet F, et al. TFOS DEWS II epidemiology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334–65.
Freeman PD, Kahook MY. Preservatives in topical ophthalmic medications: historical and clinical perspectives. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2009;4:59–64.
Broadway DC, Grierson I, O’Brien C, Hitchings RA. Adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication. II. The outcome of filtration surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(11):1446–54.
Goldstein MH, Silva FQ, Blender N, Tran T, Vantipalli S. Ocular benzalkonium chloride exposure: problems and solutions. Eye (Lond). 2022;36(2):361–8.
Baudouin C. Side effects of antiglaucomatous drugs on the ocular surface. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1996;7(2):80–6.
Baudouin C, Labbe A, Liang H, Pauly A, Brignole-Baudouin F. Preservatives in eyedrops: the good, the bad and the ugly. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2010;29(4):312–34.
Kim JH, Kim EJ, Kim YH, Kim YI, Lee SH, Jung JC, et al. In vivo effects of preservative-free and preserved prostaglandin analogs: mouse ocular surface study. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015;29(4):270–9.
Ayaki M, Iwasawa A. Cytotoxicity of prostaglandin analog eye drops preserved with benzalkonium chloride in multiple corneoconjunctival cell lines. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2010;4:919–24.
Guzman-Aranguez A, Calvo P, Ropero I, Pintor J. In vitro effects of preserved and unpreserved anti-allergic drugs on human corneal epithelial cells. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;30(9):790–8.
Kahook MY, Noecker RJ. Comparison of corneal and conjunctival changes after dosing of travoprost preserved with sofZia, latanoprost with 0.02% benzalkonium chloride, and preservative-free artificial tears. Cornea. 2008;27(3):339–43.
Ammar DA, Noecker RJ, Kahook MY. Effects of benzalkonium chloride-preserved, polyquad-preserved, and sofZia-preserved topical glaucoma medications on human ocular epithelial cells. Adv Ther. 2010;27(11):837–45.
Ammar DA, Kahook MY. Effects of glaucoma medications and preservatives on cultured human trabecular meshwork and non-pigmented ciliary epithelial cell lines. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(10):1466–9.
Izzotti A, La Maestra S, Micale RT, Longobardi MG, Sacca SC. Genomic and post-genomic effects of anti-glaucoma drugs preservatives in trabecular meshwork. Mutat Res. 2015;772:1–9.
Liang H, Brignole-Baudouin F, Riancho L, Baudouin C. Reduced in vivo ocular surface toxicity with polyquad-preserved travoprost versus benzalkonium-preserved travoprost or latanoprost ophthalmic solutions. Ophthalm Res. 2012;48(2):89–101.
Nagai N, Murao T, Okamoto N, Ito Y. Comparison of corneal wound healing rates after instillation of commercially available latanoprost and travoprost in rat debrided corneal epithelium. J Oleo Sci. 2010;59(3):135–41.
Pauly A, Brasnu E, Riancho L, Brignole-Baudouin F, Baudouin C. Multiple endpoint analysis of BAC-preserved and unpreserved antiallergic eye drops on a 3D-reconstituted corneal epithelial model. Mol Vis. 2011;17:745–55.
Jaenen N, Baudouin C, Pouliquen P, Manni G, Figueiredo A, Zeyen T. Ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative-free glaucoma medications. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17(3):341–9.
Uusitalo H, Egorov E, Kaarniranta K, Astakhov Y, Ropo A. Benefits of switching from latanoprost to preservative-free tafluprost eye drops: a meta-analysis of two Phase IIIb clinical trials. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2016;10:445–54.
Horsley MB, Kahook MY. Effects of prostaglandin analog therapy on the ocular surface of glaucoma patients. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2009;3:291–5.
Hommer A, Kimmich F. Switching patients from preserved prostaglandin-analog monotherapy to preservative-free tafluprost. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2011;5:623–31.
Lopes NLV, Gracitelli CPB, Chalita MR, de Faria NVL. Ocular surface evaluation after the substitution of benzalkonium chloride preserved prostaglandin eye drops by a preservative-free prostaglandin analogue. Med Hypoth Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2019;8(1):52–6.
Rossi GC, Scudeller L, Rolle T, Pasinetti GM, Bianchi PE. From benzalkonium chloride-preserved Latanoprost to Polyquad-preserved Travoprost: a 6-month study on ocular surface safety and tolerability. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14(5):619–23.
Tomic M, Kastelan S, Soldo KM, Salopek-Rabatic J. Influence of BAK-preserved prostaglandin analog treatment on the ocular surface health in patients with newly diagnosed primary open-angle glaucoma. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013: 603782.
Aihara M, Ikeda Y, Mizoue S, Arakaki Y, Kita N, Kobayashi S, et al. Effect of switching to travoprost preserved with SofZia in glaucoma patients with chronic superficial punctate keratitis while receiving BAK-preserved latanoprost. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):e610–4.
Kumar S, Singh T, Ichhpujani P, Vohra S, Thakur S. Correlation of ocular surface disease and quality of life in Indian glaucoma patients: BAC-preserved versus BAC-free travoprost. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2020;50(2):75–81.
Rossi GC, Tinelli C, Pasinetti GM, Milano G, Bianchi PE. Dry eye syndrome-related quality of life in glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(4):572–9.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, Bianchi PE. Ocular surface disease and glaucoma: how to evaluate impact on quality of life. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2013;29(4):390–4.
Chamard C, Larrieu S, Baudouin C, Bron A, Villain M, Daien V. Preservative-free versus preserved glaucoma eye drops and occurrence of glaucoma surgery. A retrospective study based on the French national health insurance information system, 2008–2016. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98(7):e876–81.
Boimer C, Birt CM. Preservative exposure and surgical outcomes in glaucoma patients: the PESO study. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(9):730–5.
Lindenfeld J, Jessup M. “Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them” (C. Everett Koop, MD, US Surgeon General, 1985). Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(11):1412–3.
Zimmerman TJ, Kass MA, Yablonski ME, Becker B. Timolol maleate: efficacy and safety. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97(4):656–8.
Katz LJ. Twelve-month evaluation of brimonidine-purite versus brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(2):119–26.
Liu JH, Kripke DF, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the nocturnal effects of once-daily timolol and latanoprost on intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138(3):389–95.
Liu JH, Medeiros FA, Slight JR, Weinreb RN. Diurnal and nocturnal effects of brimonidine monotherapy on intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology. 2010.
Liu JH, Zhang X, Kripke DF, Weinreb RN. Twenty-four-hour intraocular pressure pattern associated with early glaucomatous changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(4):1586–90.
Ciulla L, Moorthy M, Mathew S, Siesky B, Verticchio Vercellin AC, Price D, et al. Circadian rhythm and glaucoma: what do we know? J Glaucoma. 2020;29(2):127–32.
Jampel HD, Chon BH, Stamper R, Packer M, Han Y, Nguyen QH, et al. Effectiveness of intraocular pressure-lowering medication determined by washout. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(4):390–5.
Johnson TV, Jampel HD. Intraocular pressure following prerandomization glaucoma medication washout in the HORIZON and COMPASS trials. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;216:110–20.
Bartlett VL, Liu P, Dhruva SS, Shah ND, Bollinger KE, Ross JS. Prostaglandin coverage and costs to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries, 2009–2017. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020;26(4):562–7.
Rasendran C, Li A, Singh RP. Incremental health care expenditures associated with glaucoma in the united states: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Glaucoma. 2022;31(1):1–7.
Schehlein EM, Im LT, Robin AL, Onukwugha E, Saeedi OJ. Nonmedical out-of-pocket patient and companion expenditures associated with glaucoma care. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(4):343–8.
Blumberg DM, Prager AJ, Liebmann JM, Cioffi GA, De Moraes CG. Cost-related medication nonadherence and cost-saving behaviors among patients with glaucoma before and after the implementation of Medicare part D. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(9):985–96.
Sood S, Heilenbach N, Sanchez V, Glied S, Chen S, Al-Aswad LA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive trabecular meshwork stents with phacoemulsification. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2022;5(3):284–96.
Ahmed IIK, Podbielski DW, Patel V, Falvey H, Murray J, Botteman M, et al. A Canadian cost-utility analysis of 2 trabecular microbypass stents at time of cataract surgery in patients with mild to moderate open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2020;3(2):103–13.
Ngan K, Fraser E, Buller S, Buller A. A cost minimisation analysis comparing iStent accompanying cataract surgery and selective laser trabeculoplasty versus topical glaucoma medications in a public healthcare setting in New Zealand. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256(11):2181–9.
Stein JD, Kim DD, Peck WW, Giannetti SM, Hutton DW. Cost-effectiveness of medications compared with laser trabeculoplasty in patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(4):497–505.
World Health Organization. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol.
Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE, et al. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):1954–65.
Latif K, Nishida T, Moghimi S, Weinreb RN. Quality of life in glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023;261:3023.
Nishida T, Moghimi S, Yamane MLM, Wu JH, Mohammadzadeh V, Kamalipour A, et al. Vision-related quality of life among healthy, preperimetric glaucoma, and perimetric glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023;248:127–36.
Nordmann JP, Auzanneau N, Ricard S, Berdeaux G. Vision related quality of life and topical glaucoma treatment side effects. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):75.
Balkrishnan R, Bond JB, Byerly WG, Camacho FT, Anderson RT. Medication-related predictors of health-related quality of life in glaucoma patients enrolled in a Medicare health maintenance organization. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2003;1(2):75–81.
Samuelson TW, Singh IP, Williamson BK, Falvey H, Lee WC, Odom D, et al. Quality of life in primary open-angle glaucoma and cataract: an analysis of VFQ-25 and OSDI from the iStent inject pivotal trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;229:220–9.
Al Habash A, Albuainain A. Long term outcome of combined phacoemulsification and excisional goniotomy with the Kahook Dual Blade in different subtypes of glaucoma. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10660.
Al Habash A, Nagshbandi AA. Quality of life after combined cataract and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery in glaucoma patients. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2020;14:3049–56.
Kass MA, Gordon MO, Gao F, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, et al. Delaying treatment of ocular hypertension: the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(3):276–87.
Hyman LG, Komaroff E, Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Leske MC. Treatment and vision-related quality of life in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(9):1505–13.
Jones L, Garway-Heath DF, Azuara-Blanco A, Crabb DP, United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study I. Are Patient self-reported outcome measures sensitive enough to be used as end points in clinical trials?: evidence from the united kingdom glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(5):682–9.
Vandenbroeck S, De Geest S, Zeyen T, Stalmans I, Dobbels F. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO’s) in glaucoma: a systematic review. Eye (Lond). 2011;25(5):555–77.
Walland MJ. Glaucoma treatment in Australia: changing patterns of therapy 1994–2003. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;32(6):590–6.
Newman AR, Andrew NH. Changes in Australian practice patterns for glaucoma management. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47(5):571–80.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Selective laser therapy recommended to treat glaucoma and ocular hypertension 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/selective-laser-therapy-recommended-to-treat-glaucoma-and-ocular-hypertension.
European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 5th ed. Savona: PubliComm; 2020.
Realini T, Gazzard G, Latina M, Kass M. Low-energy selective laser trabeculoplasty repeated annually: rationale for the COAST trial. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(7):545–51.
Ruiz-Lozano RE, Alamillo-Velazquez J, Ortiz-Morales G, Garza-Garza LA, Quiroga-Garza ME, Alvarez-Guzman C, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty is safe and effective in patients previously treated with prostaglandin analogs: an evidence-based review. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43(2):677–95.
Evidence review A. Evidence reviews for selective laser trabeculoplasty in ocular hypertension or chronic open-angle glaucoma adult patients: Glaucoma: diagnosis and management. NICE Evidence Reviews Collection. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2022.
Seider MI, Keenan JD, Han Y. Cost of selective laser trabeculoplasty vs topical medications for glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(4):529–30.
Shah M. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery—an interventional glaucoma revolution. Eye Vis (Lond). 2019;6:29.
Richter GM, Coleman AL. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: current status and future prospects. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:189–206.
Saheb H, Ahmed II. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23(2):96–104.
Radcliffe N. The case for standalone micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: rethinking the role of surgery in the glaucoma treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2023;34(2):138–45.
Pahlitzsch M, Davids AM, Winterhalter S, Zorn M, Reitemeyer E, Klamann MKJ, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus MIGS: forgotten art or first-step procedure in selected patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10(3):509–24.
Tektas OY, Lutjen-Drecoll E. Structural changes of the trabecular meshwork in different kinds of glaucoma. Exp Eye Res. 2009;88(4):769–75.
Montesano G, Ometto G, Ahmed IIK, Ramulu PY, Chang DF, Crabb DP, et al. Five-year visual field outcomes of the HORIZON trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023;251:143–55.
Wright DM, Konstantakopoulou E, Montesano G, Nathwani N, Garg A, Garway-Heath D, et al. Visual field outcomes from the multicenter, randomized controlled laser in glaucoma and ocular hypertension trial (LiGHT). Ophthalmology. 2020;127(10):1313–21.
Fea AM, Cattel F, Gandolfi S, Buseghin G, Furneri G, Costagliola C. Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle Glaucoma in Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):824.
Editorial Assistance
Editorial assistance (Dana M. Hornbeak, MD, MPH) was provided and funded by Glaukos Corporation.
Funding
No funding was provided for the creation of this manuscript. The journal’s Rapid Service fee was provided by Glaukos Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All named authors contributed to the study conception and design and take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. All authors contributed to manuscript drafting and gave their approval for this version to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Nathan Radcliffe: consultant/fees from Allergan, Alcon, Glaukos, Sight Science, New World Medical, Lumenis, Belkin, Bausch and Lomb, Thea, and Iridex. Dr. Manjool Shah: to be submitted separately. Dr. Thomas W. Samuelson: consultant for Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon Surgical, Allergan, Bausch & Lomb/Valeant, BELKIN Vision, ELT Sight, Equinox, Glaukos, Imprimis, Irisvision, Ivantis, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Ocuphire, MicroOptx, New World Medical, PolyActiva, Ripple Therapeutics, Santen, Sight Science, TearClear, Vialase, and Zeiss Meditec; and stock options from Belkin Vision, Equinox, Ivantis, Ocuphire, Sight Science, Tear Clear, and Vialase.
Ethical Approval
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Radcliffe, N.M., Shah, M. & Samuelson, T.W. Challenging the "Topical Medications-First” Approach to Glaucoma: A Treatment Paradigm in Evolution. Ophthalmol Ther 12, 2823–2839 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00831-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00831-9