May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Response of Naturally Hypertensive Monkey Eyes to Common Treatments
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • W.W. Dawson
    University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
  • E.C. Ogle
    University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
  • J. Dawson
    University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
  • M.A. McLaughlin
    Alcon Research Ltd, Fort Worth, TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  W.W. Dawson, Alcon Research Ltd, F; E.C. Ogle, None; J. Dawson, None; M.A. McLaughlin, Alcon Research Ltd, E.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 1546. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      W.W. Dawson, E.C. Ogle, J. Dawson, M.A. McLaughlin; Response of Naturally Hypertensive Monkey Eyes to Common Treatments . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):1546.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To evaluate a select colony of Rhesus monkeys for response to bench–mark IOP–lowering compounds and for mechanism of ocular hypertension. Monkeys were selected from a Florida colony based on three phenotypes (Dawson et al BJO, 1993): 1) binocularly elevated IOP for more than six months (>18mmHg) with large digital cup/disc values (>0.4) (HT), 2) large digital cup/disc values (>0.4) with normal IOP (<15mmHg) for more than six months (HC/D), (3) normal cup/disc values (<0.4) with normal IOP for more than six months (Control).

Methods: : Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were taken with the TonoPen XL (Mentor) on both eyes of ketamine–sedated animals. After baseline IOP, compound or vehicle was instilled topical ocular to one eye of each animal. Post–dose measurements were taken at 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 hours. Facility C(tot) was then measured by tonography with the Shiotz tonometer. Studies were completed on four masked test items for both IOP and C(tot) in 24 animals (8 males in each phenotype).

Results: : Baseline IOP values for the three groups were generally 13–15 mmHg for the HC/D and Control groups and 17–19 mmHg for the OHT group. In 4.5 hours pilocarpine produced an IOP decline in 7 of 8 HT eyes (p=0.002). In HC/D eyes and Control eyes changes were insignificant. Brinzolamide produced an IOP decline in 5 of 8 HT eyes (p=0.17), 4 of 8 HC/D eyes (p=0.41) and 6 of 8 Control eyes (p=0.024). HMN–1152 lowered IOP in 6 or 8 HT eyes (p=0.003), 7 of 8 HC/D eyes (p=0.0005), 6 of 7 Control eyes (p=0.0004). C(tot) increased (p=0.022) in 7 of 7 HT eyes with pilocarpine. In 7 of 7 HC/D eyes C(tot) strongly increased (p=0.0023). In 5 of 6 control eyes C(tot) increased (p=0.025). C(tot) increased more in HC/D than HT eyes (p=0.0052). After 4.5 hours brinzolamide treatment produced no changes in C(tot). HMN–1152 increased C(tot) in HT (p=0.08) and H/CD (p=0.08) groups, but was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: : Drug response of the three groups was as expected for pilocarpine and HMN–1152; however, the lack of results with brinzolamide was not. The mechanism by which the glaucoma–like damage is induced remains to be determined.

Keywords: intraocular pressure • pharmacology • outflow: trabecular meshwork 

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.