June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
PASSY “Patient satisfaction survey” in glaucoma disease: Spanish results
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Susana Roman
    Laboratorios Thea, Barcelona, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Susana Roman, Laboratorios Thea (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 5022. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Susana Roman, PASSY Study Spanish Research Group; PASSY “Patient satisfaction survey” in glaucoma disease: Spanish results. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):5022.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: To determine the satisfaction regarding tolerance of glaucoma patients currently treated by unpreserved latanoprost 0.005% (Monoprost®); Laboratoires Théa), in ophthalmological consultations.

Methods: This was a European cross-sectional study, including adult patients with primary or secondary glaucoma, having received unpreserved latanoprost 0.005% for at least 3 months as monotherapy. During the only study visit, data collected included patient’s assessment of their tolerance to the current treatment, patient’s evaluation of the treatment easiness of use, patient’s assessment of tolerance to their previous treatment, assessment of the use of tear substitutes and investigator’s assessment of patient’s ocular signs and occurrence of ocular surface disease (OSD). The study was approved by the ethic committee and written consent was obtained from each patient. All procedures were conforming to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results: Total recruitment in Spain was 1313 evaluable patients (61% females/39% males). The mean age was 66.7 years. More than 70% of patients showed ocular hypertension (33.1%) and early glaucoma (41.1%). Twenty-six percent (26%) of patients received unpreserved latanoprost for the first time. Previous treatments for the rest of patients were mainly preserved beta-blockers (41.4%), preserved latanoprost (30.1%) and preserved travoprost (16.9%). Patient's answers on the multiple choice test asking for reasons for treatment change were focused mainly on the insufficient efficacy (50.4%) and local intolerance (59.6%). Regarding tolerance, the current treatment was considered at least better tolerated than the previous one (65.6%). The same tolerance than previous treatment was reported by 24.1% of patients. Compared with previous treatment, 28.8% of patients considered unpreserved latanoprost 0.005% (single dose container) easier to use, much easier to use (9%) or as easy as previous treatment (51.9%). Finally, and regarding tolerance, patient's satisfaction assessment revealed was satisfied (60%) or very satisfied (35.1%) with using preservative-free latanoprost 0.005% treatment.

Conclusions: More than 50% of patients changing their previous treatments reported local intolerance. After 3 months of using unpreserved latanoprost, almost all patients (95.1%) were satisfied or very satisfied regarding tolerance. This is a key point to switch from preserved to unpreserved glaucoma medication.


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.