Aims: To report the initial findings of a unique database of 956 patients with ocular hypertension (OHT), normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) attending the Glaucoma Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Method: The database contains retrospective data from 1981 and prospective data from 1999. Analyses have been carried out using specially written queries to generate reports relating to prescription trends and reasons for treatment discontinuation.
Results: The database included the following numbers of patients: POAG 580; OHT 242; NTG 134. Of 2928 treatment-change episodes recorded, failure to reach or maintain a target intraocular pressure (IOP) accounted for 51.9%, while adverse effects accounted for 22.1%. Use of latanoprost has increased sharply since 1996, and that of brimonidine, betaxolol and dorzolamide has declined significantly. Bimatoprost had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse effects (25%) than travoprost (16.3%) or latanoprost (12.4%), but this was only statistically significant between latanoprost and bimatoprost (p = 0.0038). In 2000 the database informed the introduction of a new treatment protocol that resulted in a fall in discontinuations due to adverse effects by almost two-thirds.
Conclusion: A large and unique treatment database has been established at the Glaucoma Clinic of Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Containing data spanning a 26-year period, it promises to be an invaluable resource for audit and research. It has already demonstrated its worth by informing changes in prescribing practice that have resulted in direct patient benefit.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding The study was funded by an independent research grant from Pfizer.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.