Habitar Portugal 12-17: espaço público: uma casa para todos

Partindo da ideia de que “toda a cidade é espaço público por antonomásia” (Moneo, 2010) e recuperando o conceito platónico-albertiano de que “a cidade é uma casa e, inversamente, a casa é uma cidade” (analogia também subjacente ao poema-desenho Tree is a leaf and leaf is a tree de Aldo van Eyck, 1965), chegamos à proposição de que “o espaço público é uma casa”. E, se entendido “o espaço público como espaço coletivo por excelência” (Solà-Morales, 2010), então podemos afirmar que o espaço público é “uma casa de todos”. “De todos” e, voltando a van Eyck (1962), “para todos”. É esta a abordagem proposta ao tema da edição Habitar Portugal 2012-2017: “Espaço Público: uma casa para todos”info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Preservative-free bimatoprost 0.03% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in clinical practice

Lutz E Pillunat,1 Peter Eschstruth,2 Stefan Häsemeyer,3 Ulrich Thelen,4 Christian Foja,5 Richard Leaback,6 Stefan Pfennigsdorf7 1Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, 2Ophthalmology Practice, Kiel, 3Eye Center Kraichgau, Wiesloch, 4Department of Ophthalmology, University of Münster, Münster, 5Ophthalmology Practice, Leipzig, Germany; 6Allergan Holdings Ltd., Marlow, UK; 7Ophthalmology Practice, Polch, Germany Background: Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension commonly contain preservatives that can cause ocular surface damage in many patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of, and compliance to, preservative-free (PF) bimatoprost 0.03% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (IOP ≥18 mmHg) in a clinical practice setting. Methods: This open-label study observed patients who were switched to PF bimatoprost 0.03% for medical reasons. IOP was measured at baseline and ~12 weeks later at the final visit, and the change in IOP was calculated. Tolerability and continuation of therapy were assessed at two follow-up visits. Results: A total of 1,830 patients were included in the study, and complete IOP data were available for 1,543 patients. Mean IOP was reduced by 23% from 21.64 mmHg to 16.59 mmHg (P<0.0001). In subgroup analyses, the mean IOP was significantly reduced compared with baseline, regardless of prior therapy, including those previously treated with PF monotherapy. A total of 85.7% of physicians reported the IOP-lowering efficacy of PF bimatoprost 0.03% to be as expected or better than expected. Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 5.7% of patients, and there were no serious AEs reported. The most common AEs were eye irritation (1.7%) and hyperemia (1.4%). Physician-reported treatment compliance was reported as better than (48.7%) or equal to (43.6%) prior treatment in most patients. Most patients (82%) were expected to continue PF bimatoprost 0.03% after the end of the study. Conclusion: This observational study showed that, in clinical practice, switching to PF bimatoprost 0.03% was associated with a significant IOP reduction from baseline. There was a low AE rate. PF bimatoprost 0.03% may, therefore, be an effective treatment option for patients who are intolerant of preservatives or have an inadequate response to prior IOP-lowering treatments. Keywords: bimatoprost 0.03%, intraocular pressure, prostaglandin, preservative free, benzalkonium chloride fre