AIM: Aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term effects and related symptoms of preservative-free tafluprost vs. preservative-containing prostaglandins (PPG) on tear function and ocular surface in patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. The study enrolled 16 patients treated with tafluprost, 42 with PPG and 20 controls. All subjects were queried for ocular symptoms by Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Glaucoma Symptom Scale (GSS) questionnaires; ocular signs were assessed by Schirmer I test, break up time (BUT), in vivo corneal confocal microscopy. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between tafluprost and PPG groups as regards Schirmer I test (P=0.0041), BUT (P=0.0274) and most in vivo corneal confocal microscopy parameters (basal epithelial cells, P=0.0211; stromal reflectivity, P=0.0207; number of sub-basal nerves, P=0.0198; sub-basal nerve tortuosity, P=0.0203). No significant differences (P>0.05) in questionnaires were found between therapy groups but mean OSDI score (PPG=13.9; tafluprost=8.72) and mean GSS score (PPG=80.60; tafluprost=87.19) were worse in the PPG group. Epithelial cells, stromal reflectivity, number of sub-basal nerves, sub-basal nerve tortuosity were significantly different between tafluprost and control groups (P=0.0071, 0.0115, 0.0205, 0.0032, respectively) whereas Schirmer I test and BUT were not (P>0.05). Sub-basal nerve reflectivity and endothelial cells were similar in PPG and tafluprost groups, and in tafluprost and control groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The study underlines tafluprost’s safe profile with regards to tear function, its less corneal side effects and its better tolerability than PPG.
Effects of preservative-free tafluprost on ocular surface: an in vivo confocal study
SPINETTA, ROBERTA;ROLLE, Teresa;DALMASSO, Paola;GRIGNOLO, Federico
2014-01-01
Abstract
AIM: Aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term effects and related symptoms of preservative-free tafluprost vs. preservative-containing prostaglandins (PPG) on tear function and ocular surface in patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. The study enrolled 16 patients treated with tafluprost, 42 with PPG and 20 controls. All subjects were queried for ocular symptoms by Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Glaucoma Symptom Scale (GSS) questionnaires; ocular signs were assessed by Schirmer I test, break up time (BUT), in vivo corneal confocal microscopy. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between tafluprost and PPG groups as regards Schirmer I test (P=0.0041), BUT (P=0.0274) and most in vivo corneal confocal microscopy parameters (basal epithelial cells, P=0.0211; stromal reflectivity, P=0.0207; number of sub-basal nerves, P=0.0198; sub-basal nerve tortuosity, P=0.0203). No significant differences (P>0.05) in questionnaires were found between therapy groups but mean OSDI score (PPG=13.9; tafluprost=8.72) and mean GSS score (PPG=80.60; tafluprost=87.19) were worse in the PPG group. Epithelial cells, stromal reflectivity, number of sub-basal nerves, sub-basal nerve tortuosity were significantly different between tafluprost and control groups (P=0.0071, 0.0115, 0.0205, 0.0032, respectively) whereas Schirmer I test and BUT were not (P>0.05). Sub-basal nerve reflectivity and endothelial cells were similar in PPG and tafluprost groups, and in tafluprost and control groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The study underlines tafluprost’s safe profile with regards to tear function, its less corneal side effects and its better tolerability than PPG.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
