3.8 Article

Assessment of Phosphate and Osmolarity Levels in Chronically Administered Eye Drops

Journal

Publisher

TURKISH OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.4274/tjo.galenos.2018.43827

Keywords

Phosphate; eye drops; osmolarity; corneal calcification

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess phosphate and osmolarity levels of chronically administered eye drops commercially available in Turkey. Materials and Methods: A total of 53 topical eye drops including 18 antiglaucoma drugs, 4 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 10 corticosteroids, 7 antihistaminics, and 14 artificial tears identified using the Vademecum Modern Medications Guideline (2018) were included in the study. Phosphate levels were assessed using Roche Cobas C501 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) and the respective kits. Osmolarity was assessed using Vescor Vapro 5600 vapor pressure osmometer (Sanova Medical Systems, Vienna, Austria). Mean phosphate and osmolarity levels were obtained after averaging three measurements. Eye drops were categorized as isoosmolar, hypoosmolar and hyperosmolar based on physiologic tear osmolarity range (296.5 +/- 9.8 mOsm/L). Results: The highest phosphate concentration was found in the antiglaucoma group (20.3 +/- 35.4 mmol/L), followed by antihistaminics (17.3 +/- 17.9 mmol/L), corticosteroids (15.2 +/- 19.1 mmol/L), artificial tears (0.8 +/- 1.0), and NSA IDs (0.04 +/- 0.08). Percentage of medications in the hyperosmolar category was highest in the NSAI group (75%), followed by antihistaminics (4 3%), corticosteroids (20%), and antiglaucoma drugs (19%). Nearly all of the artificial tear formulations were in the hypoosmolar (71%) or isoosmolar (21%) categories. Conclusion: Approximately 40% of glaucoma medications and approximately 60% of corticosteroid and antihistaminic medications had a phosphate concentration higher than the physiologic tear phosphate level (1.45 mmol/L).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available