Yuka Wakabayashi1, Tomomi Higashide2, Kazuhisa Sugiyama1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9208641, Japan. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9208641, Japan. eyetomo@kenroku.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of multiple intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements on the correlation of response to glaucoma medication between fellow eyes. METHODS: Latanoprost was applied to the first eye and then to both eyes of 16 patients with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. IOP measurements were performed twice on different days for each of three periods: at baseline, during treatment of the first eye only and for both eyes. IOP decreases in the first and second eyes were evaluated with ∆IOP 1 (=IOP at baseline - IOP after treatment) and ∆IOP 2 (=∆IOP 1 - IOP fluctuation of the contralateral eye). The correlation of IOP decreases between the fellow eyes was analyzed by linear regression analysis using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r. RESULTS: No significant correlations of ∆IOP1 between fellow eyes were found regardless of the number of IOP measurements. ∆IOP2 was significantly correlated between fellow eyes using two post-treatment IOP measurements, but not with a single post-treatment IOP. CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple post-treatment IOP measurements may improve the prediction of a fellow eye's response to glaucoma medication in one-eye trials.
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of multiple intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements on the correlation of response to glaucoma medication between fellow eyes. METHODS:Latanoprost was applied to the first eye and then to both eyes of 16 patients with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. IOP measurements were performed twice on different days for each of three periods: at baseline, during treatment of the first eye only and for both eyes. IOP decreases in the first and second eyes were evaluated with ∆IOP 1 (=IOP at baseline - IOP after treatment) and ∆IOP 2 (=∆IOP 1 - IOP fluctuation of the contralateral eye). The correlation of IOP decreases between the fellow eyes was analyzed by linear regression analysis using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r. RESULTS: No significant correlations of ∆IOP1 between fellow eyes were found regardless of the number of IOP measurements. ∆IOP2 was significantly correlated between fellow eyes using two post-treatment IOP measurements, but not with a single post-treatment IOP. CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple post-treatment IOP measurements may improve the prediction of a fellow eye's response to glaucoma medication in one-eye trials.