4.2 Article

Efficacy and safety of adding ripasudil to existing treatment regimens for reducing intraocular pressure

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 93-98

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0427-9

Keywords

Ripasudil; Intraocular pressure; Safety; Schlemm's canal; Trabecular meshwork

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26462634] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Ripasudil accelerates aqueous humour drainage along the trabecular meshwork-Schlemm's canal route and has been approved for clinical use in Japan. We retrospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of adding ripasudil to existing treatment regimens to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with glaucoma. Methods A total of 119 eyes from 119 subjects (61 men, 58 women) with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had ripasudil added to their treatment regimens between December 2014 and June 2015 were included. An average of 3.8 +/- 1.0 anti-glaucoma medications was in use before adding ripasudil. Subjects were divided into four groups based on the number of medications included in the original treatment regimen: <= 2, 3, 4, or >= 5 medications. The IOP was compared before and after 1 and 3 months of treatment with ripasudil for all subjects and between groups. Patients for whom ripasudil use was discontinued within 3 months were also examined. Results The IOP was significantly lower in all patients after 1 month (17.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg) and 3 months (16.8 +/- 4.2 mmHg) of treatment than it was before (19.8 +/- 5.3 mmHg, p < 0.0001). All groups were equivalent in the rate and magnitude of IOP change. Ripasudil administration was discontinued in five patients (4.2%) prior to the end of the study: three were lost to follow-up and two underwent glaucoma surgery. Conclusion Adding ripasudil to existing glaucoma treatment regimens is effective and safe in reducing IOP, regardless of the number of medications in use.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available