May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Interpretation of Monocular Trials of Glaucoma Medications
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C.T. Leffler
    Ophthalmology, medical college of va, Richmond, VA, United States
  • L. Amini
    Ophthalmology, medical college of va, Richmond, VA, United States
  • D. McGrath
    Ophthalmology, medical college of va, Richmond, VA, United States
  • R.C. Allen
    Ophthalmology, medical college of va, Richmond, VA, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C.T. Leffler, None; L. Amini, None; D. McGrath, None; R.C. Allen, Alcon C; Merck C; Allergan F; Pharmacia C.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 98. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C.T. Leffler, L. Amini, D. McGrath, R.C. Allen; Interpretation of Monocular Trials of Glaucoma Medications . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):98.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To predict the efficacy of topical glaucoma medications based on monocular treatment trials. To specifically test a traditional hypothesis that efficacy following a monocular trial is related to the change in the treated eye minus the change in the untreated eye, where the untreated eye serves as a control. Methods: Based on a review of medical records in a large glaucoma practice, we identified 144 monocular trials with well-documented intraocular pressure (IOP) readings at baseline (IOP1), during the trial (IOP2), and at follow-up (IOP3). Abstracted data included demographic and other clinical findings. Predictors of the IOP response following the trial (IOP3) in the initially treated eye were identified by univariate and multivariable linear regression. Results: In a multivariable analysis, baseline IOP1 and maximal pretreatment pressure accounted for 28% of the variation in follow-up IOP3 (p < 0.001). This analysis highlighted that higher initial pressures are associated with more dramatic pressure reductions. The change in IOP in the treated eye during the trial (IOP2 – IOP1) predicted 52% of the variation in follow-up IOP3. Fifty-eight per cent of the variation in IOP3 was accounted for in a model which included all factors, including the IOP change in the fellow, untreated eye during the trial. Although the IOP change in the untreated eye was statistically significant (p = 0.02), this change explained only 2% of the variance, and the coefficient was small and opposite in sign from that expected under the standard hypothesis. Conclusions: While we have not proposed that monocular trials be abandoned, we have found that the response in the treated eye is the best predictor of the follow-up IOP response after a monocular trial. The traditional teaching that the IOP change in the untreated eye should be subtracted to control for diurnal and other correlated fluctuations does not universally apply, perhaps due to crossover effects, lack of compliance, regression to the mean, observer bias, spontaneous asymmetric pressure fluctuations, and other factors.

Keywords: intraocular pressure • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: tre • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: bio 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×