PURPOSE: The amount of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction achieved by the use of latanoprost eyedrops varies among patients, and there are even nonresponders. This report examines whether there is any correlation between the amount of individual variability in IOP reduction and the uveoscleral outflow facility after latanoprost eyedrop instillation in normal-tension glaucoma patients. METHODS: Sixteen normal-tension glaucoma patients (mean age, 56.4 years) were enrolled in the study to investigate the relationship between the amount of IOP reduction and outflow facility. Before treatment, subjects underwent circadian IOP measurement and then tonography, and the outflow facility was calculated. Subsequently, patients began treatment once daily with latanoprost instillation in one eye. After 4 weeks of daily latanoprost treatment, circadian IOP was measured again. RESULTS: Mean pretreatment outflow facility was 0.23 +/- 0.05 microl/min per mmHg. On average, latanoprost instillation decreased IOP by 2.8 mmHg, but the reduction varied among individuals from -0.3 mmHg to 5.8 mmHg. No significant correlation was noted between the outflow facility and the IOP decline associated with latanoprost. CONCLUSION: Because there was no significant correlation between individual IOP reduction by latanoprost and outflow facility, the differences in substantial change in uveoscleral outflow after latanoprost administration may be one explanation for the individual variation in IOP reduction after treatment with this drug. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2006.
PURPOSE: The amount of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction achieved by the use of latanoprost eyedrops varies among patients, and there are even nonresponders. This report examines whether there is any correlation between the amount of individual variability in IOP reduction and the uveoscleral outflow facility after latanoprost eyedrop instillation in normal-tension glaucomapatients. METHODS: Sixteen normal-tension glaucomapatients (mean age, 56.4 years) were enrolled in the study to investigate the relationship between the amount of IOP reduction and outflow facility. Before treatment, subjects underwent circadian IOP measurement and then tonography, and the outflow facility was calculated. Subsequently, patients began treatment once daily with latanoprost instillation in one eye. After 4 weeks of daily latanoprost treatment, circadian IOP was measured again. RESULTS: Mean pretreatment outflow facility was 0.23 +/- 0.05 microl/min per mmHg. On average, latanoprost instillation decreased IOP by 2.8 mmHg, but the reduction varied among individuals from -0.3 mmHg to 5.8 mmHg. No significant correlation was noted between the outflow facility and the IOP decline associated with latanoprost. CONCLUSION: Because there was no significant correlation between individual IOP reduction by latanoprost and outflow facility, the differences in substantial change in uveoscleral outflow after latanoprost administration may be one explanation for the individual variation in IOP reduction after treatment with this drug. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2006.
Authors: Catherine Jui-Ling Liu; Yu-Chieh Ko; Ching-Yu Cheng; Allen W Chiu; Joe C Chou; Wen-Ming Hsu; Jorn-Hon Liu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C B Camras; M B Wax; R Ritch; R Weinreb; A L Robin; E J Higginbotham; J Lustgarten; W C Stewart; M Sherwood; T Krupin; J Wilensky; G A Cioffi; L J Katz; R A Schumer; P L Kaufman; D Minckler; T Zimmerman; J Stjernschantz Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 5.258