Purpose: This study aimed to report on glaucoma patients’ beliefs and illness perceptions and to investigate their opinion on ocular drug delivery devices (ODD). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study in a large tertiary-referral outpatient glaucoma clinic, with 102 patients. Validated anonymized questionnaires were used. We investigated the awareness and acceptance regarding ODD (contact lenses (CLs), punctal plugs (PPs), subconjunctival implants, anterior chamber (AC) injections, and drug-emitting stents) and looked at factors that could influence a patient’s decision for having an ODD. Results: Sixty-three patients (61.8%) confirmed they would rather have ODD than keep their eye-drops (38.2%). The most important factors influencing their decision were effectiveness and long-lasting effect. A large proportion of patients reported a preference for CLs (48.0%), PPs (52.9%), or drug-emitting stents (44.1%). When comparing patients who preferred ODD (group-1) versus eye-drops (group-2), significantly more patients in group-1 were worried (p < 0.001) or felt disrupted (p < 0.001) by their use of eye-drops. A significantly greater share of patients in group-1 showed acceptance towards CLs (60.3% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.032), AC injections (38.1% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.006), or drug-emitting stents (54% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.023), whilst there were no significant differences regarding the acceptance of PPs (p = 0.363) or subconjunctival implants (p = 0.058). Conclusion: ODD for the treatment of glaucoma were broadly deemed acceptable by patients in this study. Effectiveness and long-lasting effect were the most important factors for a decision towards having an ODD. The majority of patients who preferred an ODD felt severely affected by their disease and were negatively influenced by their glaucoma medication intake. (Figure presented.)

Ocular drug delivery systems: glaucoma patient perceptions from a German university hospital eye clinic

Fea A.;
2024-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to report on glaucoma patients’ beliefs and illness perceptions and to investigate their opinion on ocular drug delivery devices (ODD). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study in a large tertiary-referral outpatient glaucoma clinic, with 102 patients. Validated anonymized questionnaires were used. We investigated the awareness and acceptance regarding ODD (contact lenses (CLs), punctal plugs (PPs), subconjunctival implants, anterior chamber (AC) injections, and drug-emitting stents) and looked at factors that could influence a patient’s decision for having an ODD. Results: Sixty-three patients (61.8%) confirmed they would rather have ODD than keep their eye-drops (38.2%). The most important factors influencing their decision were effectiveness and long-lasting effect. A large proportion of patients reported a preference for CLs (48.0%), PPs (52.9%), or drug-emitting stents (44.1%). When comparing patients who preferred ODD (group-1) versus eye-drops (group-2), significantly more patients in group-1 were worried (p < 0.001) or felt disrupted (p < 0.001) by their use of eye-drops. A significantly greater share of patients in group-1 showed acceptance towards CLs (60.3% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.032), AC injections (38.1% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.006), or drug-emitting stents (54% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.023), whilst there were no significant differences regarding the acceptance of PPs (p = 0.363) or subconjunctival implants (p = 0.058). Conclusion: ODD for the treatment of glaucoma were broadly deemed acceptable by patients in this study. Effectiveness and long-lasting effect were the most important factors for a decision towards having an ODD. The majority of patients who preferred an ODD felt severely affected by their disease and were negatively influenced by their glaucoma medication intake. (Figure presented.)
2024
262
2
545
556
Eyedrops; Glaucoma medication; Ocular drug delivery devices; Patient adherence; Stents
Weber C.; Quintin P.; Holz F.G.; Fea A.; Mercieca K.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s00417-023-06248-1.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 627.69 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
627.69 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1973250
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact