To highlight the clinical benefits of preservative-free topical therapies in the management of glaucoma, with a focus on preservative-free latanoprost, and their role in improving ocular surface health and long-term treatment outcomes.
Methods
A targeted literature search was conducted through May 30, 2024, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes associated with preservative-free latanoprost (Monoprost®/Iyuzeh™, Laboratoires Théa, France).
Results
Glaucoma is a chronic, progressive disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness globally, with prevalence expected to rise as the US population ages. Most patients begin with topical eye drops—primarily prostaglandin analogs—to reduce intraocular pressure, often requiring lifelong treatment. However, chronic use of preserved formulations, especially those containing benzalkonium chloride, is associated with ocular surface disease, discomfort, and reduced adherence. Preservative-free topical therapies offer equivalent intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy to preserved alternatives, while significantly improving tolerability, reducing ocular surface disease symptoms, and minimizing conjunctival inflammation that may complicate future surgical interventions. In Europe, preservative-free therapies are well established in treatment guidelines. In the US, preservative-free latanoprost 0.005% (Iyuzeh) was approved in 2022, providing a new option for patients sensitive to preservatives or with coexisting ocular surface conditions. Advancements in multidose preservative-free packaging and sustained-release delivery systems further enhance the potential for improved adherence and long-term disease control.
Conclusions
This review highlights the benefits of preservative-free topical glaucoma therapies and includes a targeted review of preservative-free latanoprost 0.005%. Recent technologic advancements including multidose preservative-free delivery systems and sustained-release drug delivery approaches are also discussed.
Key Summary Points
Preservative-free (PF) glaucoma therapies provide comparable intraocular pressure (IOP) control to preserved treatments while significantly reducing ocular surface disease symptoms and improving patient quality of life
Benzalkonium chloride, the most common preservative in topical glaucoma medications, is associated with ocular toxicity, including tear film instability, inflammation, and long-term structural damage to ocular tissues
The widespread use of PF therapies in Europe contrasts with limited adoption in the US; this is primarily due to cost barriers and payer-related access challenges, though recent approvals like PF latanoprost (Iyuzeh) signal shifting treatment paradigms
Reducing preservative exposure with PF formulations both enhances patient adherence and comfort and decreases the risk of surgical complications from preoperative ocular inflammation
Introduction
Glaucoma is a chronic, progressive disease of optic neuropathy [1] and the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide [2, 3]. In the USA, the estimated number of glaucoma cases in adults > 40 years of age is 2.6% [4]. Older age is an intrinsic risk factor [5, 6], and the prevalence of glaucoma increases to 7.8% in adults aged 65–84 years and to 13.5% in adults aged ≥ 85 years [7]. Due to the aging of the US baby boomer generation [6, 8], by 2050 the number of US adults aged ≥ 65 years is projected to grow by 30% [8], and glaucoma prevalence is expected to reach 6.3 million [9].
Anzeige
Patients with glaucoma typically require lifelong treatment to prevent progression to blindness [1, 10]. Topical eye drops are the most common initial and enduring glaucoma treatment, received as first-line therapy by approximately 70% of patients [11]. Typical first-line topical therapy may include a prostaglandin analog (PGA), such as latanoprost, tafluprost, or bimatoprost [1, 11]. Switching or adding additional topical therapies is common throughout the disease course [1, 11, 12], with many patients needing to administer more than one type of eye drop daily. A retrospective US commercial healthcare claims analysis (2015–2017) found that immediately after diagnosis, 29.7% of patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) had prescription fills for ≥ 2 unique topical glaucoma medication classes. In the 12 months following diagnosis, 25–45% of patients intensified treatment, most commonly with the addition of a topical therapy [13]. Although reliance on topical medication is reduced for patients who undergo interventional treatment like selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT), these procedures do not definitively eliminate the need for eye drops [11, 14‐16], and SLT is not fully successful for approximately 35% of patients [15, 16]. In addition, the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering benefits of the procedure wane over time, leading to eye drop reinitiation [17] and repeat procedures with IOP-lowering effects that may diminish [18].
A number of well-documented limitations exist to the long-term utility and sustainability of topical treatment for patients with glaucoma [19], and the potential for IOP increases because patient treatment noncompliance is a primary concern for physicians [20, 21]. Barriers include medication burden, side effects, and nonadherence, all of which are interrelated and negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL) [19, 21, 22]. A primary and avoidable shortcoming of topical glaucoma therapies is the toxic effect of preservatives used in the majority of eye drop formulations [19]. These preservatives, most commonly benzalkonium chloride (BAK), are a principal cause of numerous ocular disorders known as preservative-induced ocular surface disease (OSD) [23‐31]. Characterized by damage or malfunction of the cornea, conjunctiva, and/or meibomian glands (i.e., the ocular surface) [32], OSD affects as many as 70% of patients with glaucoma [23, 24, 30], with incidence increasing with age [33, 34]. The presence of OSD increases the odds of patient treatment dissatisfaction by four- to seven-fold [35‐37], and adverse events (AEs) due to concomitant OSD negatively impact treatment compliance [38]. OSD signs and symptoms also contribute to impaired QoL [39‐47] and poorer functional status [47]. These factors can intensify noncompliance and ultimately disease progression [41, 48].
In anticipation of the longevity and needs of the aging US population, a paradigm shift is underway in glaucoma treatment that is focused on both preserving long-term vision and eye health-related QoL [1, 19, 25, 49]. New treatment strategies are addressing the shortcomings of conventional topical therapies [19, 50, 51], and novel interventional technologies are being used earlier in the treatment cascade to reduce reliance on topical therapies [19]. In particular, there is growing interest in topical therapies that improve IOP without causing ocular damage, including preservative-free (PF) and non–BAK-preserved formulations [26, 50].
PF ophthalmic solutions have been available for decades in the US and Europe [52, 53], with PF timolol maleate (a beta blocker) dating back to 1986 [54]. However, PF topical therapy use only became widespread in Europe after 2008, when PF tafluprost (Taflotan; Santen Oy, Tampere, Finland) became the first nonpreserved PGA to receive marketing authorization in Germany and Denmark [55]. This was followed by the 2012 European Union (EU) approval of PF latanoprost 0.005% (Monoprost®; Laboratoires Théa, France) [56]. In contrast, in the US the first BAK-free PGA, PF tafluprost (Zioptan®; Théa Pharma Inc., Waltham, MA; but first marketed by Merck & Co., Rahway, NJ), was approved in 2012 [57]. Most recently, Monoprost entered the US market as Iyuzeh™ (Théa Pharma Inc) in 2022 [58]. PF formulations of dorzolamide, both alone (EU only) and in combination with timolol (EU and US), are also available [59, 60]. Until recently, however, PF formulations have not been typically considered for routine use in the US [1, 61]. A number of reasons exist for this discrepancy, including higher costs for PF formulations [62] and substantial cost increases for branded drugs over the past decade, leading to the increased use of generic treatments [63]. Furthermore, the US payer system often poses significant challenges to accessing PF formulations (e.g., patients may be ineligible for PF treatment unless they have failed preserved treatment). All these factors can contribute to US clinicians having less prescribing control than their EU colleagues.
Anzeige
This review summarizes the history, efficacy, and safety of PF topical glaucoma therapies in general and provides a literature review of clinical evidence for the PF latanoprost formulation recently approved in the US.
Methods
A literature search was conducted through May 30, 2024, using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify clinical data relevant to the clinical efficacy and safety of PF latanoprost (Monoprost®/Iyuzeh™). Keywords used for the literature search included “glaucoma,” “ocular hypertension,” “benzalkonium chloride,” “preservative-free,” and “latanoprost.” Articles were limited to human studies, with no limits on publication dates or the geographic study location. The search results were reviewed to limit selection to the targeted drug product, and additional sources were identified using related references within already-identified articles. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Results
History of Preservative Use in Glaucoma Drugs
Preservatives are used in topical glaucoma formulations to prolong shelf life and prevent microbial growth [24]. Ophthalmic solutions housed within classical (i.e., without novel technology) multidose containers may become contaminated with bacteria within 1–2 weeks after first use [64], and patients typically use individual bottles for months [64]. Microbial contamination can result in serious consequences, including vision loss and blindness [27, 65], with such events recorded from the 1960s to the present day [27, 66]. In the 1970s, to avoid ocular infections arising from contaminated solutions, regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Pharmacopeia, and European Pharmacopoeia, began mandating the use of preservatives in multidose ophthalmic preparations [26, 27, 67‐69].
Today, most (70%) glaucoma medications contain BAK, a detergent and quaternary ammonium compound with broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties [19, 26, 27, 70]. Used widely in ophthalmic products since the 1940s, initially to preserve contact lens solutions [70], BAK became the most commonly used preservative because of its comparative safety and efficacy as an antimicrobial product relative to other preservatives available at the time [69].
Starting in the 2000s, it was theorized that BAK-preserved ocular medications could yield improved drug activity at target tissues and therefore achieve greater clinical efficacy, albeit at the expense of ocular tissues [27, 71‐73]. This hypothesis was based on the demonstrated ability of BAK to disrupt the tight junctions of the corneal epithelium (the hydrophobic, semipermeable barrier that regulates fluid and solute exchange between the avascular corneal stroma and aqueous humor) [27, 74‐78]. It was posited that BAK could facilitate the penetration of active drug to reach higher concentrations in the cornea and anterior chamber [27, 74, 75]. This hypothesis has been subsequently disputed and disproved [56, 79‐90], and the toxic effects of BAK have been confirmed in numerous experimental, laboratory, and clinical studies [24, 26, 27, 67, 91]. Altogether, evidence now suggests that an intact corneal epithelial barrier acts as a defense against biologic, chemical, and physical threats from the environment and that the loss of this barrier is associated with ocular surface disorders [92].
The Detrimental Effects of BAK on the Ocular Surface and Deeper Ocular Tissues
Exposure to BAK in topical glaucoma therapies has a documented detrimental ocular impact, inducing or exacerbating existing OSD [24, 26‐28]. Certain effects of BAK on the ocular surface can be observed after only short-term exposure (e.g., within 30 min to 24 h of use), including tear film instability, apoptosis of healthy cells, and disruption of corneal barrier function [27, 28, 91, 93‐95]. Over time, topical BAK exerts persistent proinflammatory effects and leads to cytotoxic damage to both the ocular surface and deeper ocular structures, including the tear film, conjunctiva, cornea, and trabecular meshwork (TM) (Table 1) [19, 24, 26‐28, 91, 96‐100]. It has been proposed that deeper ocular structures are impacted via preservative-induced inflammatory mediators from the ocular surface penetrating into deeper ocular tissues [96, 101, 102], including via noncorneal routes (i.e., the sclera and conjunctiva) [103]. This theory is reinforced by in vivo research confirming BAK accumulation in the sclera, TM, and choroid [67]; evidence of trabecular cell loss and inflammation in the excised TM of patients treated with preservative-containing eye drops [97]; and in vitro evidence showing the induction of apoptosis and inflammation in trabecular cells exposed to BAK [97].
Eyelid and tear film: Blepharitis, increased pro-inflammatory cytokines and tear film instability, which, combined with conjunctival goblet cell loss, lead to DED
Cornea and corneal nerve: Epithelial and limbal stem cell injury and death; disrupted barrier function; delayed wound healing; neurotoxicity and corneal hypoesthesia (i.e., reduced corneal sensitivity and eventual neurotrophic keratopathy)
Conjunctiva: Lymphocyte infiltration of epithelium and stroma; goblet cell loss (resulting in decreased mucin production and tear film instability); epithelial cell death
Deeper ocular structures
Lens: Increased epithelial stress and inflammation, which may induce cataract and increased rates of cataract and glaucoma surgery
Trabecular meshwork: Long-term BAK instillation may lead to increased BAK retention with potential toxicity to trabecular structures; oxidative damage and DNA fragmentation causing altered gene expression; decreased survival of epithelial cells; damage may lead to worsening IOP
Optic nerve: May cause gradual loss of retinal ganglion cells
BAK benzalkonium chloride, DED dry eye disease, DNA deoxyribonucleic acid, IOP intraocular pressure
BAK-related AEs are dose-dependent, which worsen with increased exposure [19, 70, 104]. With prolonged use, preservative-induced OSD develops, wherein ocular surface damage accrues and induces OSD-related pathologies [31]. The most common preservative-induced OSD arises from tear film destabilization and manifests as dry eye disease (DED) [19, 27, 37, 91, 104]. DED is a multifactorial OSD [104] characterized by loss of tear film homeostasis, resulting in ocular discomfort and visual disturbance [105]. DED is prevalent in 30% to 70% of patients using topical glaucoma medications [19]; its symptoms include burning, dryness, fluctuating visual acuity, foreign body sensation, hyperemia, itching, photophobia, and tearing [41, 91, 105]. DED presence and severity are associated with the use of preserved topical glaucoma therapies, with preservative load playing a key pathogenic role [91]. The condition’s etiologic mechanisms include hyperosmolarity and tear film instability, ocular surface inflammation and damage, and neurosensory abnormalities. Each of these effects can worsen the others, cascading into a cycle of worsening DED [105].
Finally, prolonged exposure to BAK may also lead to the failure of subsequent glaucoma filtering surgery because of BAK-induced preoperative conjunctival inflammation and delayed wound healing [106‐109]. A retrospective chart review of patients with glaucoma and a history of trabeculectomy (N = 128) found that each additional preoperative daily BAK-preserved eye drop increased the risk of early surgical failure by 21% [107].
Anzeige
Innovations and Challenges in PF Topical Glaucoma Therapies
In 2009, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) called on pharmaceutical companies to develop PF glaucoma formulations for patients who could not tolerate eye drops with preservatives [110]. PF topical glaucoma therapies, initially packaged in single-unit-dose containers, have emerged as a solution to protect ocular tissues from preservative-induced damage while still maintaining sterility [24]. However, there have been barriers to the uptake of unit-dose PF formulas, due to cost, handling, and regulatory requirements [24, 62, 67]. Differences in global regulatory requirements for preservatives in multidose containers can make formulation decisions challenging for companies seeking to market ophthalmic products [67]. Unit-dose packaging can be more costly to produce than multidose packaging and can also be more difficult for patients to properly use (due to the mechanics of tearing opening each vial vs traditional screw-top multidose containers) [24, 62, 67]. Handling issues can be particularly challenging for elderly patients with dexterity issues [62]. Concern has also been expressed that patients will fail to discard the remaining solution in a single-unit dose, keeping it for later use, thus potentially exposing themselves to infection [62]. However, this can be mitigated with proper patient education.
In recent years, new delivery technologies have been developed to overcome the limitations of unit-dose containers and optimize ease of use [24, 111]. For example, certain multidose PF artificial tear formulations are available in containers that employ dual-channel systems to release eye drops. These include sterilizing, porous, and/or bidirectional membrane filters, as well as mechanical pathways and exit valves, to block fluid return. These technologies help maintain sterility while allowing for multiple dosing [62, 111]. The artificial tear industry provides an example of successfully transitioning away from preservatives as well as moving to multidose formulations. In the 2017 Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society’s Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II report, nonpreserved ocular lubricants are a second-step treatment option if eliminating the offending systemic/topical medications proves inadequate to control DED [112]. Due to the growing appreciation of how preservatives exacerbate OSD, most topical DED monotherapies are now PF [113].
The key to the successful and safe use of unit-dose PF topical formulations is proper handling and storage. For example, patients should be counseled to wash their hands prior to handling the eye drop container or touching their eyes [114]. In addition, patients should not touch the dropper tip with their hands, nor should they touch the bottle to their eye or eyelid when instilling drops [114]. Last, patients should take care to follow instructions regarding medication storage regarding temperature and discard the container based on the number of days indicated by the manufacturer [115].
Benefits of PF Topical Glaucoma Therapies
Clinical trials and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) show equivalent IOP-lowering efficacy with BAK-preserved vs PF glaucoma formulations in patients with OAG or ocular hypertension (OHT) [56, 79‐90]. Specifically, equivalent IOP-lowering efficacy has been established between multiple PF and BAK-containing formulations, including latanoprost [80‐83], bimatoprost [85, 86], tafluprost [116‐118], and the fixed-combinations dorzolamide/timolol [89] and latanoprost/timolol [87]. Additionally, research evaluating patients switched from BAK-preserved medications to PF formulations show equivalent or similar IOP-lowering efficacy [88, 90, 96, 119].
Anzeige
Not surprisingly, because preservative-induced OSD commonly occurs with therapies containing BAK [23‐30], PF formulations consistently demonstrate better tolerability profiles than BAK-preserved topical drugs [56, 79‐81, 83, 84, 91, 117, 119‐127], confirmed by reductions in OSD signs and symptoms [80, 87, 96, 119, 125, 128‐131] and decreased anterior chamber flare (a sign of inflammation) [102].
Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of PF Latanoprost
Latanoprost was the first marketed topical PGA (1996) and continues to be the most commonly prescribed topical ocular hypotensive [58, 132]. Of available PGAs, latanoprost is considered to have the best efficacy and tolerability [132], and patient persistence is higher with latanoprost than with other PGAs or beta-blockers [133]. PF latanoprost 0.005% is commercially available in 46 countries (branded as Monoprost®; Laboratoires Théa), including the EU (approved 2012) and Canada (2016) [56]. In December 2022, this formulation of PF latanoprost received FDA approval in the US (branded as Iyuzeh®, Thea Pharma, Inc.) [56]. Prior to this approval, US patients requiring PF latanoprost could only obtain this treatment via compounding pharmacies.
Multiple evaluations, including RCTs, cohort and registry studies, various real-world analyses, and meta-analyses, have compared the use of PF latanoprost with BAK latanoprost. Research shows that patients treated with PF latanoprost experience similar IOP lowering compared to those treated with BAK latanoprost [56, 79‐81, 83, 84, 91, 120‐124]. PF latanoprost treatment is also consistently associated with significant improvements in ocular symptoms, including better tolerability, treatment comfort, and reduced AEs [56, 80, 83, 119, 120, 123, 125, 126]. This includes reduced burning and use of dry-eye lubricating drops [123, 125] and greater patient adherence [134] and satisfaction [123, 125, 126, 135]. These features are all associated with improved patient QoL [79, 119, 123].
Definitive improvements in certain ocular surface parameters have also been observed in patients treated with PF latanoprost. A pooled analysis of five published studies found that, after 84 days, composite OSD scores (comprising ocular signs and symptoms, including eyelid redness, eyelid swelling, corneal staining, conjunctival staining, and tear breakup time [TBUT]), improved by 32.2% in patients switched from preserved to PF latanoprost (n = 504) vs a decrease of 14.1% (P < 0.001) in patients switched from PF latanoprost to BAK latanoprost (n = 176) [79]. Research also showed significant reductions in conjunctival hyperemia with PF latanoprost [79, 80, 83, 84, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125] as well as decreased ocular inflammation, including anterior chamber flare [102], and reduced inflammatory tear cytokines [136]. The outcome of switching to PF latanoprost on other ocular parameters (e.g., corneal fluorescein staining, TBUT, tear meniscus height) are less clear. While one study showed improvements in TBUT in patients switched from BAK latanoprost to PF latanoprost [119], another showed no differential effect in TBUT or tear meniscus height [122]. Likewise, a small, prospective, observational study (N = 40) found no significant between-group differences in TBUT, corneal fluorescein staining, OSD index, tear meniscus height, or conjunctival hyperemia between patients treated with PF latanoprost vs BAK latanoprost. However, researchers noted that the wide variation in treatment duration (6 to 120 months) among study patients could have confounded the results [136].
Anzeige
Other Preservatives Used in Topical Glaucoma Therapies
Due to concerns over the deleterious effects of BAK, topical glaucoma therapies with alternative preservatives have also become available [26, 70]. As opposed to the cell-lysing effects of BAK, these preservatives cause oxidative damage to exert antimicrobial activity [26, 62]. Table 2 describes preservatives used in currently available US glaucoma medications, along with their mechanism of action and data regarding their toxicity compared to BAK. Although these preservatives may be gentler on the ocular surface than BAK, more studies are needed regarding ocular toxicity over long-term use [70]. In addition, these preservative formulations are proprietary, limiting their use outside of manufacturer formulations [24, 104].
Table 2
Topical glaucoma medications available in the US with alternative preservatives
Preservative and class
Mechanism of action
Toxicity vs BAK
Glaucoma product(s)
Stabilized oxychloro complex (Purite®)
Oxidizing agent
Penetrates cell membranes to disrupt normal cellular function by oxidizing unsaturated lipids and glutathione; less toxic to human cells than microbes due to antioxidant properties of mammalian cells [62, 68]
Better tolerability, including reduced allergic conjunctivitis [147, 148]
Alphagan® P (brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA)
Borate, sorbitol, propylene glycol, and zinc (SofZia®)
Ionic buffer, oxidizing agent
Disrupts cell membranes, causes oxidative damage to microbes and subsequent death; less toxic to human cells due to degradation upon contact with ocular surface cations (i.e., positively charged) [62, 68, 149]
Improved OSDI score, TBUT, and conjunctival hyperemia and decreased corneal staining [150‐152]
Travatan Z® (travoprost; Novartis, East Hanover, NJ)
Potassium sorbate/sorbic acid
Interferes with microbial cellular membranes, disrupting key cellular processes, including carbohydrate metabolism and the citric acid cycle (i.e., energy production), hindering microbes’ ability to grow and reproduce [31, 149]
More conjunctival
hyperemia, eye pain, and eye pruritis vs BAK; also, more severe adverse events vs BAK [153]
Xelpros® (latanoprost ophthalmic emulsion; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Cranbury, NJ)
Polyquarternium-1 has been omitted from this table; while this preservative is used in a travoprost preparation in Europe, it is no longer commercially available in the US [68]
BAK benzalkonium chloride, OSDI Ocular Surface Disease Index, TBUT tear break-up time
US and EU Glaucoma Treatment Guidelines
European clinical treatment guidelines show the region’s attention to PF topical glaucoma formulations [110] relative to US guidelines, which only recently (2024) provided recommendations related to preservative-induced OSD and the use of PF medications [61]. Table 3 summarizes clinical guideline recommendations from both regions related to the use of glaucoma therapies containing preservatives. European regulators have supported the use of PF topical therapies since 2009, with the EMA being the earliest regulatory body calling for PF formulations for patients who could not tolerate preserved eye drops as well as for those requiring long-term treatment [110]. Subsequent European guidelines, including those from the European Glaucoma Society (EGS), have made explicit the role of preservatives in inducing and/or exacerbating OSD and have positioned PF products in treatment sequencing (Fig. 1) [25, 49, 137]. In addition to the use of PF formulations, EGS discusses the utility of low-preservative-load treatment to reduce preservative-induced OSD [25].
Table 3
Guideline and expert recommendations for treatment with preservative-free and/or non-BAK-preserved glaucoma topical therapies [1, 25, 49, 61, 110, 137]
European Union, guidelines and expert statements
EMA (2009)
Recommend PF topical formulations for patients who:
Cannot tolerate preserved eye drops
Require long-term treatment
When preserved therapies are used, use minimum concentration needed for adequate antimicrobial function
EGS (2021)
Recommend PF or non-BAK topical formulations for patients with:
Preexisting OSD or dry eye
OSD, dry eye, or ocular irritation due to topical therapy
Use fixed combinations to reduce the number of eye drops
The success rate of filtering surgery may be compromised by long-term BAK use
NICE (2022)
Recommend PF topical formulations for patients who, after initial treatment:
Show an allergic response to preservatives
Develop clinically significant, symptomatic OSD
Swedish National Program (2024)
Recommend PF topical formulations for patients who, after initial treatment:
Develop allergies, eye irritation, OSD, or other issues
US, guidelines
AAO (2021)
No specific recommendations for the use of PF topical formulations
AOA (2024)
Recommend evaluating patients treated with topical IOP-lowering therapies for OSD
Consider treatment change for patients who exhibit clinical signs or symptoms of OSD
PF formulations may be clinical beneficial for patients who:
Are highly sensitive to preservatives due to preexisting or concomitant OSD
Receive combination therapy with ≥ 2 topical drugs
Are at risk for surgery
Will need treatment for several decades
AAO American Academy of Ophthalmology, AOA American Optometric Association, BAK benzalkonium chloride, EGS European Glaucoma Society, EMA European Medicines Agency, NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, OSD ocular surface disease, PF preservative free
Fig. 1
European Glaucoma Society: Medical Management, Choosing Therapy
Conversely, as recently as 2021, US guidelines provided no explicit recommendations for the use of topical PF formulations in glaucoma treatment [1]. However, in 2024, the American Optometric Association (AOA) published guidelines recommending that all patients prescribed IOP-lowering topical medications be evaluated for OSD [61]. For patients with clinical signs or symptoms of OSD, treatment changes such as the use of PF formulations, less toxic (non-BAK) preservatives, and/or fewer eye drop instillations per day should be considered. The AOA notes that, compared to preserved therapies, PF formulations are associated with fewer symptoms of ocular irritation. According to the AOA, the recognition and treatment of OSD may reduce AEs and improve tolerability, ocular surface health, patient QoL, and patient treatment satisfaction. Importantly, PF formulations may offer “clinically relevant benefits” for patients with OSD as well as for those who receive combination therapy with ≥ 2 drugs, for those who are at risk for requiring surgery, or for those who will require treatment for several decades.
Sustained-Release Drug Delivery with PF Formulations
Sustained-release drug delivery (SRDD), including conjunctival fornix inserts, contact lenses, intracameral implants, intraocular lens implants, and punctal plugs, have emerged as a potential solution to the shortcomings of topical medications [19, 138]. In the US, available FDA-approved PF-SRDD systems include the PF-bimatoprost intracameral implant (Durysta®; AbbVie Inc., Chicago, IL) [139] and the PF-travoprost intracameral implant (iDose® TR; Glaukos Corp., San Clemente, CA) [140]. Once these SRDD systems have been implanted, drug is released continuously, eliminating some barriers to adherence, including ocular surface issues caused by preservatives (SRDD medications do not require preservatives), medication handling, the burden of multiple daily drops, and forgetfulness [19, 138]. Other SRDD systems are in various stages of development and may ultimately offer PF alternatives to topical eye drops [19, 138]. However, SRDD systems are not without shortcomings; for example, the PF-travoprost intracameral implant requires a small surgical incision in the eye and therefore requires a trip to the operating room for implantation, extraction, and replacement [141], and the PF-bimatoprost intracameral implant is approved for a single administration per eye without retreatment and is designed to release drug for only up to 4 months [139, 142].
Discussion
Glaucoma is a chronic condition, with ongoing and lifelong therapy required for patients to maintain their vision [1, 10]. In the US, most patients with glaucoma use preservative-containing topical eye drops on a daily basis [11, 70]. Until recently, the irritant properties of BAK, the most commonly used preservative in topical glaucoma medications, were largely considered a justifiable tradeoff for BAK’s antimicrobial utility. However, a change in treatment patterns is underway owing to evidence indicating pervasive toxicity with BAK, leading to OSD [23‐30], and the availability of topical PF formulations that provide comparable efficacy but show better tolerability profiles than BAK-preserved drugs [56, 79‐81, 83, 84, 91, 119‐126]. These data are bolstered by studies showing improved adherence, treatment satisfaction, and QoL in patients switched from preserved to PF formulations [79, 123, 125, 126, 134, 135].
As the availability of PF topical therapies increases, it is important that more eye care professionals become aware of the role of these formulations in protecting the integrity of the ocular surface and deeper ocular structures in patients with glaucoma. In all cases, the effective management of chronic ocular disease must balance the benefits and affordability of preserved formulations against the long-term adverse effects of use. When feasible, PF medications should be provided as a first-line option. Consistent with recent recommendations, any patient with ocular surface issues should be transitioned to PF medications or low preservative load regimens [25]. In all cases, global strategies should be considered to improve patient satisfaction and treatment adherence, and physicians should work with patients to implement reminder systems and simpler dosing regimens [21, 25]. The overprescribing of topical glaucoma medications may also be common and presents an additional barrier to patient adherence [143] because of challenges with regimen complexity and cost burden [63, 143‐146]. In all situations, streamlining topical glaucoma medication regimens should be a priority [1, 25] to ensure that patients are receiving treatment that is effective, safe, and delivered in a manner that maximizes patient willingness and ability to adhere to their treatment plan.
The 2008 EU approval of BAK-free PGA formulations [55] led to the earlier and more widespread use of PF topical glaucoma medications in Europe and generated a strong literature base documenting the efficacy and safety of these products. In the US, it can be anticipated that physician and patient awareness of the potential benefits of PF treatment will increase. This will lead to an improved understanding of the ocular damage associated with preservatives and an increased interest in using PF topical medications.
Medical Writing/Editorial Assistance
Medical writing and editing assistance were provided by Caitlin Rothermel, MPH, and Esther Tazartes, MS, of the Global Outcomes Group and funded by Thea Pharma.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
Deepinder K. Dhaliwal: Consultant/Advisor: Thea, Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson, Staar Surgical, Aurion Biotech, Scope Eyecare, Tarsus, CSI Dry Eye Software, Epion Therapeutics, Lenz Therapeutics, and EyeYon Medical. Research grants: Bausch + Lomb, Epion Therapeutics, Kala. Aakrita G. Shukla: Consultant/Speaker: Alcon; Consultant: Thea; Consultant: AbbVie. Paul Singh: Consultant: Allergan, Alcon, Bausch + Lomb, Glaukos, iSTAR Medical, New World Medical, Nova Eye Medical, and Sight Sciences; Lecture fees: Allergan, Alcon, Bausch + Lomb, Glaukos, iSTAR Medical, New World Medical, Nova Eye Medical, Sight Sciences, Thea, and Viatris. Zeba A. Syed: nothing to disclose. Darrell E. White: Consultant: Aldeyra Therapeutics; Speaker/Consultant: Allergan/AbbVie; Speaker/Consultant: Bausch + Lomb; Consultant: Bruder; Speaker/Consultant: Viatris/Oyster Point Pharma; Speaker/Consultant: Sun Ophthalmics; Consultant: Tarsus; Speaker/Consultant/ Investor: Orasis Pharmaceuticals: Speaker/Consultant: Nordic Pharma; Consultant/Investor: SpyGlass Pharma.
Ethical Approval
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Gedde SJ, Vinod K, Wright MM, Muir KW, Lind JT, Chen PP, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:P71–150.PubMed
2.
GBD Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the right to sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9:e144–e60.
3.
Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–90.PubMed
4.
Ehrlich JR, Burke-Conte Z, Wittenborn JS, Saaddine J, Omura JD, Friedman DS, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma among US adults in 2022. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024;142:1046–53.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Davuluru SS, Jess AT, Kim JSB, Yoo K, Nguyen V, Xu BY. Identifying, understanding, and addressing disparities in glaucoma care in the United States. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023;12:18.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Vajaranant TS, Wu S, Torres M, Varma R. The changing face of primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States: demographic and geographic changes from 2011 to 2050. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(303–14):e3.
7.
Vision & Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Vision Health Initiative. Percentage of adults ever told by a doctor or other health professional they had glaucoma (NHIS Adult Module). CDC. https://ddt-vehss.cdc.gov/LP?Level1=Glaucoma.
Kastner A, King AJ. Advanced glaucoma at diagnosis: current perspectives. Eye (Lond). 2020;34:116–28.PubMed
11.
Schwartz GF, Patel A, Naik R, Lunacsek O, Ogbonnaya A, Campbell J. Characteristics and treatment patterns of newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma patients in the United States: an administrative database analysis. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2021;4:117–25.PubMed
12.
Patel AR, Schwartz GF, Campbell JH, Chen CC, McGuiness CB, Multani JK, et al. Economic and clinical burden associated with intensification of glaucoma topical therapy: a US claims-based analysis. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:242–50.PubMed
13.
Shih V, Parekh M, Multani JK, McGuiness CB, Chen CC, Campbell JH, et al. Clinical and economic burden of glaucoma by disease severity: a United States claims-based analysis. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2021;4:490–503.PubMed
14.
Nichani P, Popovic MM, Schlenker MB, Park J, Ahmed IIK. Microinvasive glaucoma surgery: a review of 3476 eyes. Surv Ophthalmol. 2021;66:714–42.PubMed
15.
Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, Barton K, Goyal S, Ahmed II, et al. Treatment outcomes in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study after 5 years of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2022;129:1344–56.PubMed
16.
Wagner FM, Schuster AK, Kianusch K, Stingl J, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann EM. Long-term success after trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: results of a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e068403.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Woo DM, Healey PR, Graham SL, Goldberg I. Intraocular pressure-lowering medications and long-term outcomes of selective laser trabeculoplasty. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;43:320–7.PubMed
18.
Khouri AS, Lari HB, Berezina TL, Maltzman B, Fechtner RD. Long term efficacy of repeat selective laser trabeculoplasty. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014;9:444–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Radcliffe NM, Shah M, Samuelson TW. Challenging the “topical medications-first” approach to glaucoma: a treatment paradigm in evolution. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12:2823–39.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Birhanu G, Tegegne AS. Predictors for elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) on glaucoma patients; a retrospective cohort study design. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22:254.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zaharia AC, Dumitrescu OM, Radu M, Rogoz RE. Adherence to therapy in glaucoma treatment-a review. J Pers Med. 2022;12:514.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Robin AL, Covert D. Does adjunctive glaucoma therapy affect adherence to the initial primary therapy? Ophthalmology. 2005;112:863–8.PubMed
23.
Ghosh S, O’Hare F, Lamoureux E, Vajpayee RB, Crowston JG. Prevalence of signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease in individuals treated and not treated with glaucoma medication. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40:675–81.PubMed
24.
Goldstein MH, Silva FQ, Blender N, Tran T, Vantipalli S. Ocular benzalkonium chloride exposure: problems and solutions. Eye (Lond). 2022;36:361–8.PubMed
25.
European Glaucoma Society terminology and guidelines for glaucoma, 5th edition. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105:1–169.
26.
Steven DW, Alaghband P, Lim KS. Preservatives in glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:1497–503.PubMed
27.
Baudouin C, Labbe A, Liang H, Pauly A, Brignole-Baudouin F. Preservatives in eyedrops: the good, the bad and the ugly. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2010;29:312–34.PubMed
28.
Baudouin C. Detrimental effect of preservatives in eyedrops: implications for the treatment of glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86:716–26.PubMed
29.
Parkkari M, Purola P, Uusitalo H. Ocular surface disease signs and symptoms of glaucoma patients and their relation to glaucoma medication in Finland. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;33:11206721221144339.PubMed
30.
Mylla Boso AL, Gasperi E, Fernandes L, Costa VP, Alves M. Impact of ocular surface disease treatment in patients with glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:103–11.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Kahook MY, Rapuano CJ, Messmer EM, Radcliffe NM, Galor A, Baudouin C. Preservatives and ocular surface disease: a review. Ocul Surf. 2024;34:213–24.PubMed
32.
Suarez-Cortes T, Merino-Inda N, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM. Tear and ocular surface disease biomarkers: a diagnostic and clinical perspective for ocular allergies and dry eye disease. Exp Eye Res. 2022;221:109121.PubMed
33.
Dana R, Bradley JL, Guerin A, Pivneva I, Stillman IO, Evans AM, et al. Estimated prevalence and incidence of dry eye disease based on coding analysis of a large, all-age United States health care system. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;202:47–54.PubMed
34.
Ottobelli L, Fogagnolo P, Guerini M, Rossetti L. Age-related changes of the ocular surface: a hospital setting-based retrospective study. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:532378.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Belie NY, Ayele FA, Mengist B, Alemayehu AM, Assem AS, Fekadu SA, et al. Patients’ satisfaction with topical anti-glaucoma medications and associated factors at Gondar University Tertiary Eye Care and Training Center, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2023;15:139–46.PubMed
36.
Lemij HG, Hoevenaars JG, van der Windt C, Baudouin C. Patient satisfaction with glaucoma therapy: reality or myth? Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:785–93.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Stalmans I, Lemij H, Clarke J, Baudouin C, Goal Study Group. Signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease: the reasons for patient dissatisfaction with glaucoma treatments. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3675–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Chawla A, McGalliard JN, Batterbury M. Use of eyedrops in glaucoma: how can we help to reduce non-compliance? Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:464.PubMed
39.
Baudouin C, Creuzot-Garcher C, Hoang-Xuan T, Rigeade MC, Brouquet Y, Bassols A, et al. Severe impairment of health-related quality of life in patients suffering from ocular surface diseases. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2008;31:369–78.PubMed
40.
Friedman NJ. Impact of dry eye disease and treatment on quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010;21:310–6.PubMed
41.
Kastelan S, Tomic M, Metez Soldo K, Salopek-Rabatic J. How ocular surface disease impacts the glaucoma treatment outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:696328.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Kumar S, Singh T, Ichhpujani P, Vohra S, Thakur S. Correlation of ocular surface disease and quality of life in Indian glaucoma patients: BAC-preserved versus BAC-free travoprost. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2020;50:75–81.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Ocansey S, Antiri EO, Abraham CH, Abu EK. Dry eye symptom questionnaires show adequate measurement precision and psychometric validity for clinical assessment of vision-related quality of life in glaucoma patients. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0283597.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Leila K, Gatfaoui F, Mahjoub A, Yakoubi S, Krifa F, Ghorbel M, et al. Impact of glaucoma medications and ocular surface disease on the quality of life of glaucoma patients in the district of Sousse (Tunisia). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2019;42:464–70.PubMed
45.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, Bianchi PE. Ocular surface disease and glaucoma: how to evaluate impact on quality of life. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2013;29:390–4.PubMed
46.
Miljanovic B, Dana R, Sullivan DA, Schaumberg DA. Impact of dry eye syndrome on vision-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:409–15.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Skalicky SE, Goldberg I, McCluskey P. Ocular surface disease and quality of life in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(1–9):e2.
48.
Denis P. Adverse effects, adherence and cost–benefits in glaucoma treatment. Eur Ophthal Rev. 2011;5:116–22.
49.
Johannesson G, Stille U, Taube AB, Karlsson M, Kalaboukhova L, Bergstrom A, et al. Guidelines for the management of open-angle glaucoma: National Program Area Eye Diseases, National Working Group Glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2024;102:135–50.PubMed
50.
Cvenkel B, Kolko M. Devices and treatments to address low adherence in glaucoma patients: a narrative review. J Clin Med. 2022;12:151.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Shalaby WS, Shankar V, Razeghinejad R, Katz LJ. Current and new pharmacotherapeutic approaches for glaucoma. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2020;21:2027–40.PubMed
52.
Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:418–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
Bacharach J, Ahmed IIK, Sharpe ED, Korenfeld MS, Zhang S, Baudouin C. Preservative-free versus benzalkonium chloride-preserved latanoprost ophthalmic solution in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a phase 3 US clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:2575–88.PubMedPubMedCentral
Walsh K, Jones L. The use of preservatives in dry eye drops. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:1409–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Barayev E, Geffen N, Nahum Y, Gershoni A. Changes in prices and eye-care providers prescribing patterns of glaucoma medications in the United States between 2013 and 2019. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:e83–9.PubMed
64.
Kolko M, Gazzard G, Baudouin C, Beier S, Brignole-Baudouin F, Cvenkel B, et al. Impact of glaucoma medications on the ocular surface and how ocular surface disease can influence glaucoma treatment. Ocul Surf. 2023;29:456–68.PubMed
65.
Iskandar K, Marchin L, Kodjikian L, Rocher M, Roques C. Highlighting the microbial contamination of the dropper tip and cap of in-use eye drops, the associated contributory factors, and the risk of infection: a past-30-years literature review. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:2176.PubMedPubMedCentral
Charnock C. Are multidose over-the-counter artificial tears adequately preserved? Cornea. 2006;25:432–7.PubMed
70.
Freeman PD, Kahook MY. Preservatives in topical ophthalmic medications: historical and clinical perspectives. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2009;4:59–64.
71.
Okabe K, Kimura H, Okabe J, Kato A, Shimizu H, Ueda T, et al. Effect of benzalkonium chloride on transscleral drug delivery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:703–8.PubMed
72.
Pellinen P, Lokkila J. Corneal penetration into rabbit aqueous humor is comparable between preserved and preservative-free tafluprost. Ophthalmic Res. 2009;41:118–22.PubMed
73.
Rathore MS, Majumdar DK. Effect of formulation factors on in vitro transcorneal permeation of gatifloxacin from aqueous drops. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2006;7:57.PubMed
74.
Chen W, Li Z, Hu J, Zhang Z, Chen L, Chen Y, et al. Corneal alternations induced by topical application of benzalkonium chloride in rabbit. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e26103.PubMedPubMedCentral
75.
Brunner J, Ragupathy S, Borchard G. Target specific tight junction modulators. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;171:266–88.PubMed
76.
Kusano M, Uematsu M, Kumagami T, Sasaki H, Kitaoka T. Evaluation of acute corneal barrier change induced by topically applied preservatives using corneal transepithelial electric resistance in vivo. Cornea. 2010;29:80–5.PubMed
77.
Majumdar S, Hippalgaonkar K, Repka MA. Effect of chitosan, benzalkonium chloride and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on permeation of acyclovir across isolated rabbit cornea. Int J Pharm. 2008;348:175–8.PubMed
78.
Nakamura T, Teshima M, Kitahara T, Sasaki H, Uematsu M, Kitaoka T, et al. Sensitive and real-time method for evaluating corneal barrier considering tear flow. Biol Pharm Bull. 2010;33:107–10.PubMed
79.
Harasymowycz P, Hutnik C, Rouland JF, Negrete FJM, Economou MA, Denis P, et al. Preserved versus preservative-free latanoprost for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a post hoc pooled analysis. Adv Ther. 2021;38:3019–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Rouland JF, Traverso CE, Stalmans I, Fekih LE, Delval L, Renault D, et al. Efficacy and safety of preservative-free latanoprost eyedrops, compared with BAK-preserved latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:196–200.PubMed
81.
Aptel F, Choudhry R, Stalmans I. Preservative-free versus preserved latanoprost eye drops in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:1457–63.PubMed
82.
Denis P, Monoprost French Study Group. Unpreserved latanoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. a multicenter, randomized, controlled study. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016;39:622–30.PubMed
83.
Kim JM, Sung KR, Lee JW, Kyung H, Rho S, Kim CY. Efficacy and safety of newly developed preservative-free latanoprost 0.005% eye drops versus preserved latanoprost 0.005% in open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: 12-week results of a randomized, multicenter, controlled phase III trial. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14:1539–47.PubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Cucherat M, Stalmans I, Rouland JF. Relative efficacy and safety of preservative-free latanoprost (T2345) for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:e69–75.PubMed
85.
Day DG, Walters TR, Schwartz GF, Mundorf TK, Liu C, Schiffman RM, et al. Bimatoprost 0.03% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution (Lumigan) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week, randomised, double-masked trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:989–93.PubMed
86.
Filippelli M, Campagna G, Ciampa N, Fioretto G, Giannini R, Marino PF, et al. Ocular tolerability of bimatoprost 0.1 mg/mL preservative-free versus bimatoprost 0.1 mg/mL with benzalkonium chloride or bimatoprost 0.3 mg/mL preservative-free in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. J Clin Med. 2022;11:3518.PubMedPubMedCentral
87.
Aptel F, Pfeiffer N, Schmickler S, Clarke J, Lavin-Dapena C, Moreno-Montanes J, et al. Noninferiority of preservative-free versus BAK-preserved latanoprost-timolol fixed combination eye drops in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2019;28:498–506.PubMed
88.
Bourne RRA, Kaarniranta K, Lorenz K, Traverso CE, Vuorinen J, Ropo A. Changes in ocular signs and symptoms in patients switching from bimatoprost-timolol to tafluprost-timolol eye drops: an open-label phase IV study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e024129.PubMedPubMedCentral
89.
Shedden A, Adamsons IA, Getson AJ, Laurence JK, Lines CR, Hewitt DJ, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free and preservative-containing formulations of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT) in patients with elevated intraocular pressure in a randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:1757–64.PubMed
90.
Uusitalo H, Egorov E, Kaarniranta K, Astakhov Y, Ropo A. Benefits of switching from latanoprost to preservative-free tafluprost eye drops: a meta-analysis of two phase IIIb clinical trials. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:445–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
91.
Nagstrup AH. The use of benzalkonium chloride in topical glaucoma treatment: an investigation of the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride-preserved intraocular pressure-lowering eye drops and their effect on conjunctival goblet cells. Acta Ophthalmol. 2023;101(Suppl 278):3–21.PubMed
92.
Swamynathan S, Kenchegowda D, Piatigorsky J, Swamynathan S. Regulation of corneal epithelial barrier function by Kruppel-like transcription factor 4. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1762–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
93.
Baudouin C, de Lunardo C. Short-term comparative study of topical 2% carteolol with and without benzalkonium chloride in healthy volunteers. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:39–42.PubMedPubMedCentral
94.
Hamard P, Debbasch C, Blondin C, Brignole F, Loison-Dayma K, Warnet JM, et al. Human trabecular cells and apoptosis: in vitro evaluation of the effect of betaxolol with or without preservative. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2002;25:777–84.PubMed
95.
Ishibashi T, Yokoi N, Kinoshita S. Comparison of the short-term effects on the human corneal surface of topical timolol maleate with and without benzalkonium chloride. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:486–90.PubMed
96.
Dubrulle P, Labbe A, Brasnu E, Liang H, Hamard P, Meziani L, et al. Influence of treating ocular surface disease on intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients intolerant to their topical treatments: a report of 10 cases. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:1105–11.PubMed
97.
Baudouin C, Denoyer A, Desbenoit N, Hamm G, Grise A. In vitro and in vivo experimental studies on trabecular meshwork degeneration induced by benzalkonium chloride (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2012;110:40–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
98.
Goto Y, Ibaraki N, Miyake K. Human lens epithelial cell damage and stimulation of their secretion of chemical mediators by benzalkonium chloride rather than latanoprost and timolol. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:835–9.PubMed
99.
Sarkar J, Chaudhary S, Namavari A, Ozturk O, Chang JH, Yco L, et al. Corneal neurotoxicity due to topical benzalkonium chloride. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:1792–802.PubMedPubMedCentral
100.
Villalba M, Sabates V, Orgul S, Perez VL, Swaminathan SS, Sabater AL. Detection of subclinical neurotrophic keratopathy by noncontact esthesiometry. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024;13:2393–404.PubMedPubMedCentral
101.
Fineide F, Lagali N, Adil MY, Arita R, Kolko M, Vehof J, et al. Topical glaucoma medications—clinical implications for the ocular surface. Ocul Surf. 2022;26:19–49.PubMed
102.
Kestelyn PA, Kestelyn PG, De Bacquer D, Stevens AM. Switch from BAK-preserved to preservative-free latanoprost decreases anterior chamber flare in POAG patients. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39:105–9.PubMed
103.
Ahmed I, Patton TF. Importance of the noncorneal absorption route in topical ophthalmic drug delivery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985;26:584–7.PubMed
104.
Zhang X, Vadoothker S, Munir WM, Saeedi O. Ocular surface disease and glaucoma medications: a clinical approach. Eye Contact Lens. 2019;45:11–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
105.
Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, Caffery B, Dua HS, Joo CK, et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:276–83.PubMed
106.
Baudouin C, Pisella PJ, Fillacier K, Goldschild M, Becquet F, De Saint Jean M, et al. Ocular surface inflammatory changes induced by topical antiglaucoma drugs: human and animal studies. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:556–63.PubMed
107.
Boimer C, Birt CM. Preservative exposure and surgical outcomes in glaucoma patients: the PESO study. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:730–5.PubMed
108.
Broadway DC, Grierson I, O’Brien C, Hitchings RA. Adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication. II. The outcome of filtration surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:1446–2154.PubMed
109.
Sherwood MB, Grierson I, Millar L, Hitchings RA. Long-term morphologic effects of antiglaucoma drugs on the conjunctiva and Tenon’s capsule in glaucomatous patients. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:327–35.PubMed
Campolo A, Crary M, Shannon P. A review of the containers available for multi-dose preservative-free eye drops. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2022;45:2022.
112.
Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM, Dana R, Deng SX, et al. TFOS DEWS II management and therapy report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:575–628.PubMed
113.
Moshirfar M, Pierson K, Hanamaikai K, Santiago-Caban L, Muthappan V, Passi SF. Artificial tears potpourri: a literature review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1419–33.PubMedPubMedCentral
Brinkman D, McSwiney T, James M. Comparing the tolerability of preservative-free tafluprost versus preserved latanoprost in the management of glaucoma and ocular hypertension—an observer blinded active-control trial. Ir J Med Sci. 2024;193:2589–95.PubMed
117.
Hagras SM, Al-Duwailah OKH, Nassief MA, Abdelhameed AG. Crossover randomized study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free tafluprost 0.0015% to latanoprost 0.005% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69:2475–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
118.
Fogagnolo P, Dipinto A, Vanzulli E, Maggiolo E, De Cilla S, Autelitano A, et al. A 1-year randomized study of the clinical and confocal effects of tafluprost and latanoprost in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Adv Ther. 2015;32:356–69.PubMedPubMedCentral
119.
Misiuk-Hojlo M, Pomorska M, Mulak M, Rekas M, Wierzbowska J, Prost M, et al. The RELIEF study: tolerability and efficacy of preservative-free latanoprost in the treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29:210–5.PubMed
120.
Kim JM, Park SW, Seong M, Ha SJ, Lee JW, Rho S, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy between preserved and preservative-free latanoprost and preservative-free tafluprost. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14:14:501.PubMed
121.
Daka Q, Sustar Habjan M, Meglic A, Perovsek D, Atanasovska Velkovska M, Cvenkel B. Retinal ganglion cell function and perfusion following intraocular pressure reduction with preservative-free latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Clin Med. 2024;13:1226.PubMedPubMedCentral
122.
El Ameen A, Vandermeer G, Khanna RK, Pisella PJ. Objective ocular surface tolerance in patients with glaucoma treated with topical preserved or unpreserved prostaglandin analogues. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29:645–53.PubMed
123.
Muñoz Negrete FJ, Lemij HG, Erb C. Switching to preservative-free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:557–66.PubMedPubMedCentral
124.
Stalmans I, Oddone F, Cordeiro MF, Hommer A, Montesano G, Ribeiro L, et al. Comparison of preservative-free latanoprost and preservative-free bimatoprost in a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked cross-over clinical trial, the SPORT trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:1151–8.PubMed
125.
Economou MA, Laukeland HK, Grabska-Liberek I, Rouland JF. Better tolerance of preservative-free latanoprost compared to preserved glaucoma eye drops: the 12-month real-life FREE study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2399–407.PubMedPubMedCentral
126.
Chauchat L, Guerin C, Rebika H, Sahyoun M, Collignon N. Real-life study on the efficacy and tolerance of a preservative-free surfactant-free latanoprost eye drop in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024;13:2661–77.PubMedPubMedCentral
127.
Oddone F, Kirwan J, Lopez-Lopez F, Zimina M, Fassari C, Hollo G, et al. Switching to preservative-free tafluprost/timolol fixed-dose combination in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: subanalysis of data from the VISIONARY study according to baseline monotherapy treatment. Adv Ther. 2022;39:3501–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
128.
Duru Z, Ozsaygili C. Preservative-free versus preserved brimonidine %0.15 preparations in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension: short term evaluation of efficacy, safety, and potential advantages. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2020;39:21–4.PubMed
129.
Goldberg I, Graham SL, Crowston JG, d’Mellow G, Australian and New Zealand Glaucoma Interest Group. Clinical audit examining the impact of benzalkonium chloride-free anti-glaucoma medications on patients with symptoms of ocular surface disease. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;43:214–20.PubMed
130.
Lazreg S, Merad Z, Nouri MT, Garout R, Derdour A, Ghroud N, et al. Efficacy and safety of preservative-free timolol 0.1% gel in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in treatment-naive patients and patients intolerant to other hypotensive medications. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2018;41:945–54.PubMed
131.
Lee W, Lee S, Bae H, Kim CY, Seong GJ. Efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost in glaucoma patients: a prospective crossover study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:61.PubMedPubMedCentral
132.
Alm A. Latanoprost in the treatment of glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1967–85.PubMedPubMedCentral
Amiri D, Sessa M, Andersen M, Kolko M. Persistence and adherence with latanoprost: a Danish register-based cohort study in older patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2024;102:172–8.PubMed
135.
Erb C, Stalmans I, Iliev M, Munoz-Negrete FJ. Real-world study on patient satisfaction and tolerability after switching to preservative-free latanoprost. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:931–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
136.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Perez-Bartolome F, Urcelay E, Santiago JL, Moreno-Montanes J, Arriola-Villalobos P, et al. Tear cytokine profile of glaucoma patients treated with preservative-free or preserved latanoprost. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:723–9.PubMed
137.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Glaucoma: diagnosis and management. NICE; 2017 [updated January 26, 2022]. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng81.
Elhusseiny AM, Aref AA. Sustained release therapies with the prostaglandin analogues intracameral implants. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024;13:1833–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
142.
Bacharach J, Tatham A, Ferguson G, Belalcazar S, Thieme H, Goodkin ML, et al. Phase 3, randomized, 20-month study of the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost implant in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (ARTEMIS 2). Drugs. 2021;81:2017–33.PubMedPubMedCentral
143.
Takao E, Ichitani A, Tanito M. Estimation of topical glaucoma medication over-prescription and its associated factors. J Clin Med. 2023;13:184.PubMedPubMedCentral
144.
Tsai JC, McClure CA, Ramos SE, Schlundt DG, Pichert JW. Compliance barriers in glaucoma: a systematic classification. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:393–8.PubMed
145.
Gelb L, Friedman DS, Quigley HA, Lyon DW, Tan J, Kim EE, et al. Physician beliefs and behaviors related to glaucoma treatment adherence: the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:690–8.PubMed
146.
Quaranta L, Novella A, Tettamanti M, Pasina L, Weinreb RN, Nobili A. Adherence and persistence to medical therapy in glaucoma: an overview. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12:2227–40.PubMedPubMedCentral
147.
Katz LJ. Twelve-month evaluation of brimonidine-purite versus brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:119–26.PubMed
148.
Mundorf T, Wilcox KA, Ousler GW 3rd, Welch D, Abelson MB. Evaluation of the comfort of Alphagan P compared with Alphagan in irritated eyes. Adv Ther. 2003;20:329–36.PubMed
149.
Anurova MN, Bakhrushina EO, Demina NB, Panteleeva ES. Modern preservatives of microbiological stability (review). Pharm Chem J. 2019;53:564–71.
150.
Aihara M, Otani S, Kozaki J, Unoki K, Takeuchi M, Minami K, et al. Long-term effect of BAK-free travoprost on ocular surface and intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients after transition from latanoprost. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:60–4.PubMed
151.
Henry JC, Peace JH, Stewart JA, Stewart WC. Efficacy, safety, and improved tolerability of travoprost BAK-free ophthalmic solution compared with prior prostaglandin therapy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008;2:613–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
152.
Horsley MB, Kahook MY. Effects of prostaglandin analog therapy on the ocular surface of glaucoma patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:291–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
153.
Wirta D, Malhotra R, Peace J, Shen Lee B, Mitchell B, Sall K, et al. Noninferiority study comparing latanoprost 0.005% without versus with benzalkonium chloride in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Eye Contact Lens. 2022;48:149–54.PubMed
Ein nachlassender Geruchssinn könnte ein Hinweis auf ein erhöhtes Risiko für die koronare Herzkrankheit (KHK) sein. In einer Analyse von über 5.000 älteren Erwachsenen war die Assoziation in den ersten Jahren nach Testung am stärksten und nahm mit der Zeit ab.
Eine umfangreichere molekulardiagnostische Aufarbeitung kann bei metastasiertem Brustkrebs mehr therapierelevante Angriffsstellen aufdecken als das Standardvorgehen, was sich in Behandlungsvorteile übersetzt. Dafür sprechen zumindest die ersten Ergebnisse der deutschen CATCH-Studie.
Dank verbesserter Therapieoptionen können Frauen mit zystischer Fibrose (CF) heute häufiger Kinder bekommen. Eine retrospektive Analyse aus England zeigt, dass dabei nur selten Komplikationen auftreten.
In zwei Phase-3-Studien zeigte eine Therapie mit dem Antisense-Oligonukleotid Olezarsen einen starken Triglyzerid-senkenden Effekt bei Betroffenen mit schwerer Hypertriglyzeridämie. Auch das Risiko für akute Pankreatitiden reduzierte sich.
