June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Prostaglandin Analog versus Brimonidine Mono-Therapy in Preserving Visual Function in Glaucomatous Eyes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Monica Ray
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Nariman Nassiri
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Chaesik Kim
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Anju Goyal
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Justin Tannir
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Aman Shukairy
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Mark S Juzych
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Bret A Hughes
    Glaucoma, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Monica Ray, None; Nariman Nassiri, None; Chaesik Kim, None; Anju Goyal, None; Justin Tannir, None; Aman Shukairy, None; Mark Juzych, None; Bret Hughes, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 4594. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Monica Ray, Nariman Nassiri, Chaesik Kim, Anju Goyal, Justin Tannir, Aman Shukairy, Mark S Juzych, Bret A Hughes; Prostaglandin Analog versus Brimonidine Mono-Therapy in Preserving Visual Function in Glaucomatous Eyes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):4594.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The neuro-protective properties of alpha 2 –adrenergic agonists have been demonstrated in experimental studies. In this retrospective longitudinal study, we aimed to investigate visual field progression in glaucomatous eyes on mono-therapy with prostaglandin analogs (PA) and brimonidine eyedrops.

Methods : Glaucomatous eyes with 4 or more reliable 24-2 SITA-fast HFA (Humphrey® Field Analyzer) were included from the Kresge Eye Institute database. Reliability was considered less than 33% fixation losses, and false positive and false negative errors. In each eye, a linear regression was performed on mean deviation over follow-up time to obtain the rate of change (dB/year).

Results : A total of 99 eyes (65 patients) were included in the study while on brimonidine mono-therapy (36 eyes) and PA mono-therapy (63 eyes). The mean ± SD of follow-up time (yr) was 5.71 ± 4.59 and 5.07 ± 2.15 in the brimonidine and PA groups, respectively (p=0.15). The mean ± SD of number of visual field tests was 4.61 ± 1.05 and 5.02 ± 1.02 in the brimonidine and PA groups, respectively (p=0.06). The mean ± SD of MD (dB) was -4.60 ± 6.24 and -3.38 ± 3.86 in the brimonidine and PA groups, respectively (p=0.23). Between the two groups the only statistically significant patient demographic variables were race (67% and 84% African American in the brimonidine and PA groups respectively, p=0.05), and baseline visual acuity (.19 ± .20 and .12 ± .12 LogMar in the brimonidine and PA groups respectively, p=0.03). The mean ± SD of average IOP (mm Hg) at baseline was 16.94 ± 4.32 and 16.06 ± 4.45 in the brimonidine and PA groups, respectively (p=0.34). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in MD progression rate (-.27 ± .73 dB/yr for brimonidine and -.05 ± .53 dB/yr for PA, p=0.09).

Conclusions : We found no statistically significant difference between brimonidine and PA mono-therapy in visual field progression over an average follow up time of 5.36 ± 1.79 years in eyes with mild to moderate glaucoma. This needs to be further investigated in prospective studies with larger sample size and in eyes with more severe glaucoma.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

Table 1. Comparison of different study outcomes in the study groups.

Table 1. Comparison of different study outcomes in the study groups.

 

Table 2. Univariate regression analysis between progression rate (dB/year) and different study outcomes.

Table 2. Univariate regression analysis between progression rate (dB/year) and different study outcomes.

×
×

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.

×