Role of fixed-combination brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% in the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% is a new fixed-combination for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Brinzolamide/timolol has a favorable safety profile, with an incidence of ocular burning and stinging <5%. Published data show that brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% have similar efficacies for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). There is some evidence that brinzolamide/timolol may be more comfortable. Although patients receiving brinzolamide/timolol may experience more blurred vision on instillation, some data show a preference for brinzolamide/timolol over dorzolamide/timolol. Although available data to assess the role of brinzolamide/timolol in daily clinical practice are still limited, these first results suggest the agent to be a reasonable alternative for patients who do not reach target IOP with monotherapy

Usefulness and acceptability of a standardised orientation and mobility training for partially-sighted older adults using an identification cane

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Orientation and mobility (O&M) training in using an identification (ID) cane is provided to partially-sighted older adults to facilitate independent functioning and participation in the community. Recently, a protocolised standardised O&M-training in the use of the ID cane was developed in The Netherlands. The purpose of this study is to assess the usefulness and acceptability of both the standardised training and the regular training for participants and O&M-trainers in a randomised controlled trial (NCT00946062).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The standardised O&M-training consists of two structured face-to-face sessions and one telephone follow-up, in which, in addition to the regular training, self-management and behavioural change techniques are applied. Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data on the training’s usefulness, e.g. the population reached, self-reported benefits or achievements, and acceptability, e.g. the performance of the intervention according to protocol and participants’ exposure to and engagement in the training.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Data was collected from 29 O&M-trainers and 68 participants. Regarding the self-reported benefits, outcomes were comparable for the standardised training and the regular training according the trainers and participants e.g., about 85% of the participants in both groups experienced benefits of the cane and about 70% gained confidence in their capabilities. Participants were actively involved in the standardised training. Nearly 40% of the participants in the standardised training group was not exposed to the training according to protocol regarding the number of sessions scheduled and several intervention elements, such as action planning and contracting.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The standardised and regular O&M-training showed to be useful and mostly acceptable for the partially-sighted older adults and trainers. Yet, a concern is the deviation from the protocol of the standardised O&M-training by the O&M-trainers regarding distinguishing elements such as action planning. Overall, participants appreciated both trainings and reported benefit.</p

All that glisters is not gold: a comparison of electronic monitoring versus filled prescriptions – an observational study

BACKGROUND: Poor compliance with antihypertensive medication is assumed to be an important reason for unsatisfactory control of blood pressure. Poor compliance is difficult to detect. Each method of measuring compliance has its own strengths and weaknesses. The aim of the present study was to compare patient compliance with antihypertensive drugs as measured by two methods, electronic monitoring versus refill compliance. METHODS: 161 patients with a diagnosis of hypertension for at least a year prior to inclusion, and inadequate blood pressure control (systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 95 mmHg) despite the use of antihypertensive drugs, were included. Patients' pharmacy records from 12 months prior to inclusion were obtained. Refill compliance was calculated as the number of days for which the pills were prescribed divided by the total number of days in this period. After inclusion compliance was measured with an electronic monitor that records time and date of each opening of the pillbox. Agreement between both compliance measures was calculated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: There was very little agreement between the two measures. Whereas refill compliance showed a large range of values, compliance as measured by electronic monitoring was high in almost all patients with estimates between 90% and 100%. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.005. CONCLUSION: While electronic monitoring is often considered to be the gold standard for compliance measurements, our results suggest that a short-term electronic monitoring period with the patient being aware of electronic monitoring is probably insufficient to obtain valid compliance data. We conclude that there is a strong need for more studies that explore the effect of electronic monitoring on patient's compliance

The influence of the assessment method on the incidence of visual field progression in glaucoma: a network meta-analysis

To study and quantify the difference in incidence of progression between methods for the assessment of glaucomatous visual field progression.status: publishe