Switching to preservative-free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction

Abstract

Patient satisfaction with glaucoma treatment has been poorly studied to date. Because glaucoma is a chronic condition in which the therapeutic response is dependent on adherence to treatment, patient acceptability is an important factor in achieving satisfactory outcomes. This multicenter, international (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain), epidemiological convenience sample survey among patients commencing treatment with preservative-free latanoprost collected data on patient satisfaction with particular regard to tolerability. A total of 1,541 patients were recruited who were predominantly elderly (74% were over 60 years of age) and female (61%). Most of the patients had previously received preserved topical glaucoma medication (69%), 6.7% had previously received preservative-free medication, whereas 24% had not previously been treated for glaucoma. The great majority of patients (>95%) were satisfied with the preservative-free latanoprost treatment. Among the patients who had previously received preserved medication, 73% of patients found preservative-free latanoprost to be better tolerated and 89% found it at least as easy to use as their prior treatment. Patient satisfaction (determined by a 0–100 mm visual analog scale) was improved by 47% on a switch from preserved treatment to preservative-free latanoprost. Intraocular pressure was similar in patients who had previously received preserved (18.3 mmHg), preservative-free (17.8 mmHg) glaucoma medication or who were naïve to treatment (20.3 mmHg). Preservative-free latanoprost provided effective reduction of intraocular pressure with better tolerability and patient satisfaction than preserved glaucoma medication. This tolerability profile can be expected to improve adherence to treatment in glaucoma patients.

Keywords:

• prostaglandins analogs
• glaucoma therapy
• preservative
• patient satisfaction
• tolerability
• persistence
• tear substitutes

View correction statement:

Switching to preservative-free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction [Corrigendum]

Supplementary materials

List of ethical approval bodies

Germany

• Ethik-Kommission of the Ärztekammer Berlin

The Netherlands

• Stichting Code Geneesmiddelenreclame

Spain

Approval was obtained from the individual Comiteś de Ética en Investigación Clínica (CEIC):

• CEIC Biomédica Provincial de Granada

• CEIC Área 10 – Hospital Universitario de Getafe

• CEIC Área 11 – Hospital Doce de Octubre

• CEIC Área 2 – Hospital Universitario de la Princesa

• CEIC Área 3 – Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias de Alcalá de Henares

• CEIC Área 4 – Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal

• CEIC Área 5 – Hospital Universitario La Paz

• CEIC Área 6 – Hospital Universitario Puerta del Hierro de Majadahonda

• CEIC Área 7 – Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid

• CEIC Área 8 – Fundación Hospital Alcorcón

• CEIC Área de Salud de Ávila

• CEIC Área de Salud de Burgos y Soria

• CEIC Área de Salud de León

• CEIC Área de Salud de Salamanca

• CEIC Autonómico de la Rioja

• CEIC Capio Hospital Universitari Sagrat Cor

• CEIC Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo

• CEIC Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco CEIC-E

• CEIC Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

• CEIC Consorci Sanitari Integral

• CEIC Consorcio Hospital General Universitari de València

• CEIC Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón

• CEIC Corporació Sanitaria Parc Taulí

• CEIC de Aragón-CEICA

• CEIC de Asturias

• CEIC de Cantabria

• CEIC de Galicia

• CEIC de las Islas Baleares

• CEIC de Navarra

• CEIC del Complejo Hospitalario Materno-Infantil Insular de Las Palmas

• CEIC Fundació Catalana d’Hospitals

• CEIC Fundació de Gestió Sanitaria Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau

• CEIC Fundación Oftalmológica del Mediterráneo

• CEIC Fundacioó Investigacio en Atenció Primaria Jordi Gol i Gorina

• CEIC Hospital Arnau de Vilanova de Valencia

• CEIC Hospital Ciudad de Jaeń

• CEIC Hospital Clínic de Barcelona

• CEIC Hospital Clínico de Fuenlabrada

• CEIC Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia

• CEIC Hospital Costa del Sol

• CEIC Hospital de Gran Canaria Dr Negrín

• CEIC Hospital de Sagunto i C.E.

• CEIC Hospital General Universitario de Alicante

• CEIC Hospital General Universitario de Elche

• CEIC Hospital General Universitario de Guadalajara

• CEIC Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía de Murcia

• CEIC Hospital General Universitario San Juan de Alicante

• CEIC Hospital Infanta Cristina

• CEIC Hospital La Fe de Valencia

• CEIC Hospital Torrecárdenas

• CEIC Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol

• CEIC Hospital Universitario de Canarias

• CEIC Hospital Universitario de Puerto Real

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Dr Peset

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía de Córdoba

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa de Leganeś

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Macarena

• CEIC Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria

• CEIC Instituto de Microcirugia Ocular-IMO

• CEIC Málaga Nordeste – Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos

• CEIC Sevilla Sur – Hospital Universitario de Valme

• CEIC Vissum Corporación Oftalmológica

Disclosure

This survey was undertaken with funding from Laboratoires Theá under the supervision of the expert group. Members of the expert group were remunerated by Laboratoires Théa for their participation in the study and are consultants to Laboratoires Theá. Editorial assistance in manuscript preparation was provided by Dr JF Stolz who was remunerated by Laboratoires Theá. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.