Comparison of the hypotensor effect between latanoprost versus selective laser trabeculoplasty obtained with the water drinking test

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_GERMANO_Comparison_of_the_hypotensor_effect_between_latanoprost_versus_2021.PDF (211.31 KB)
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
DOI
SciELO
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
CONSEL BRASIL OFTALMOLOGIA
Autores
GARCIA, Arthur Sonego
GERMANO, Flavio Augusto Schiave
GERMANO, Caroline Schiave
CID, Felipe Biscegli
GERMANO, Jorge Estefano
Citação
ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA, v.84, n.4, p.361-366, 2021
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose: Glaucoma is the main cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Peak intraocular pressure is one of the main risk factors for glaucoma progression, and intraocular pressure reduction remains the only therapeutic strategy for all types of glaucoma. The main purpose of our study was to compare the baseline and peak intraocular pressure reduction obtained with the water drinking test between the two eyes of the same patients using 0.005% latanoprost in one eye and selective laser trabeculoplasty application in the contralateral eye. Methods: This was a prospective, interventional, longitudinal, and randomized clinical trial, in which 30 consecutive glaucomatous patients, medically controlled using latanoprost monotherapy, were recruited from a single ophthalmological center. The patients' eyes were randomized, and one eye was selected for SLT treatment and topical 0.005% latanoprost was introduced in the contralateral eye. The baseline intraocular pressure and peak intraocular pressure were evaluated 1 month (water drinking test 2) and 6 months (water drinking test 3) after treatment. Results: There was no significant difference between the mean pre-washout intraocular pressure in the randomized eyes for selective laser trabeculoplasty and latanoprost (13.6 +/- 2.1 and 13.3 +/- 1.8 mmHg, respectively; p=0.182). Regarding baseline intraocular pressure, there was no significant difference in the water drinking test 2 (p=0.689) and water drinking test 3 (p=0.06) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the intraocular pressure peak between the SLT and latanoprost groups at water drinking test 2 (p=0.771) or water drinking test 3 (p=0.774). Conclusions: The intraocular pressure reduction efficacy is similar between latanoprost and selective laser trabeculoplasty. Glaucomatous patients who are medically controlled with latanoprost and switch treatment to selective laser trabeculoplasty maintain control of intraocular pressure.
Palavras-chave
Glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Latanoprost, Lasers
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/41719
Referências
  1. Casson RJ, 2012, CLIN EXP OPHTHALMOL, V40, P341, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02773.x
  2. De Moraes CG, 2017, J GLAUCOMA, V26, P767, DOI 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000725
  3. De Moraes CGV, 2011, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V129, P562, DOI 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.72
  4. Gazzard G, 2019, LANCET, V393, P1505, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32213-X
  5. Hong BK, 2009, J GLAUCOMA, V18, P180, DOI 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31817eee0b
  6. HOTEHAMA Y, 1993, JPN J OPHTHALMOL, V37, P259
  7. Kagan DB, 2014, CLIN EXP OPHTHALMOL, V42, P675, DOI 10.1111/ceo.12281
  8. Kerr NM, 2016, J GLAUCOMA, V25, P727, DOI 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000512
  9. Krieglstein G. K., 1993, Ophthalmologe, V90, P554
  10. Kumar RS, 2008, CLIN EXP OPHTHALMOL, V36, P312, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01765.x
  11. LATINA MA, 1995, EXP EYE RES, V60, P359, DOI 10.1016/S0014-4835(05)80093-4
  12. LEE PY, 1984, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V25, P1087
  13. Mansouri K, 2013, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V120, P2508, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.040
  14. McAlinden C, 2014, EYE, V28, P249, DOI 10.1038/eye.2013.267
  15. Nagar M, 2005, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V89, P1413, DOI 10.1136/bjo.2004.052795
  16. Nagar M, 2009, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V93, P497, DOI 10.1136/bjo.2008.148510
  17. Patelska B, 1997, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V124, P279, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)70819-0
  18. Pillunat KR, 2016, ACTA OPHTHALMOL, V94, P692, DOI 10.1111/aos.13094
  19. ROTH JA, 1974, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V58, P55, DOI 10.1136/bjo.58.1.55
  20. Schmidt K., 1928, ARCH AUGENHEILKD, V98, P569
  21. Stein JD, 2007, CURR OPIN OPHTHALMOL, V18, P140, DOI 10.1097/ICU.0b013e328086aebf
  22. Susanna R, 2006, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V47, P641, DOI 10.1167/iovs.04-0268
  23. Susanna R, 2005, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V89, P1298, DOI 10.1136/bjo.2005.070649
  24. Tsukamoto H, 2005, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V21, P170, DOI 10.1089/jop.2005.21.170
  25. Vasconcelos-Moraes CG, 2008, CLINICS, V63, P433, DOI 10.1590/S1807-59322008000400004
  26. Vetrugno M, 2005, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V21, P250, DOI 10.1089/jop.2005.21.250
  27. Vuori ML, 1997, ACTA OPHTHALMOL SCAN, V75, P692
  28. Waisbourd M, 2014, CAN J OPHTHALMOL, V49, P519, DOI 10.1016/j.jcjo.2014.10.003
  29. Weinreb RN, 2004, LANCET, V363, P1711, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16257-0

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/33