BACKGROUND: A study was carried out to ascertain, in ophthalmologically normal subjects, the short-term effects of dipivefrin hydrochloride 0.1% on visual performance and make comparisons with pilocarpine. METHODS:Twelve normal volunteers aged 20-26 years attended on three occasions. One eye, randomly selected, received one drop of either pilocarpine 2%, dipivefrin or saline 0.9%. High- and low-contrast LogMAR acuity at 6 m and pupil diameter (measured by infra-red pupillometry) were recorded at baseline (T0) and at intervals up to 90 min following instillation of drops. Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA) was run at T0 and at 60 min after treatment instillation (T60). Saline was always instilled at visit 1, to allow for learning effects. On visits 2 and 3 either pilocarpine or dipivefrin was randomly instilled into the treated eye. RESULTS:Pilocarpine significantly worsened the field global indicesmean deviation (P < 0.001) and pattern standard deviation (P < 0.01) compared with T0. There was no significant change with dipivefrin. A significant (P = 0.01) pupil dilation from 5.44 mm (SD 0.79) at T0 to 6.19 mm (SD 1.09) at T90 occurred with dipivefrin. Pilocarpine caused significant miosis. No significant changes in LogMAR values were found with dipivefrin. Pilocarpine significantly (P < 0.01) increased LogMAR values (i.e. reduced acuity) compared with dipivefrin. At T30 the mean increase in LogMAR was 0.76 (SD 0.30) for high and 0.83 (SD 0.11) for low contrast. By T90 recovery of acuity was virtually complete. CONCLUSIONS: In normals dipivefrin causes mydriasis but does not affect the central visual field global indices (as assessed by STATPAC), or high- and low-contrast LogMAR acuity. Pilocarpine adversely affects the visual field and both measures of acuity. Knowledge of these effects is of value in glaucoma therapy and when monitoring the progression of visual loss.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A study was carried out to ascertain, in ophthalmologically normal subjects, the short-term effects of dipivefrin hydrochloride 0.1% on visual performance and make comparisons with pilocarpine. METHODS: Twelve normal volunteers aged 20-26 years attended on three occasions. One eye, randomly selected, received one drop of either pilocarpine 2%, dipivefrin or saline 0.9%. High- and low-contrast LogMAR acuity at 6 m and pupil diameter (measured by infra-red pupillometry) were recorded at baseline (T0) and at intervals up to 90 min following instillation of drops. Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA) was run at T0 and at 60 min after treatment instillation (T60). Saline was always instilled at visit 1, to allow for learning effects. On visits 2 and 3 either pilocarpine or dipivefrin was randomly instilled into the treated eye. RESULTS:Pilocarpine significantly worsened the field global indices mean deviation (P < 0.001) and pattern standard deviation (P < 0.01) compared with T0. There was no significant change with dipivefrin. A significant (P = 0.01) pupil dilation from 5.44 mm (SD 0.79) at T0 to 6.19 mm (SD 1.09) at T90 occurred with dipivefrin. Pilocarpine caused significant miosis. No significant changes in LogMAR values were found with dipivefrin. Pilocarpine significantly (P < 0.01) increased LogMAR values (i.e. reduced acuity) compared with dipivefrin. At T30 the mean increase in LogMAR was 0.76 (SD 0.30) for high and 0.83 (SD 0.11) for low contrast. By T90 recovery of acuity was virtually complete. CONCLUSIONS: In normals dipivefrin causes mydriasis but does not affect the central visual field global indices (as assessed by STATPAC), or high- and low-contrast LogMAR acuity. Pilocarpine adversely affects the visual field and both measures of acuity. Knowledge of these effects is of value in glaucoma therapy and when monitoring the progression of visual loss.