Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  1. Conjunctival melanoma treatment outcomes in 288 patients: a multicentre international data-sharing study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Ocular adnexal lymphoma in Denmark: a nationwide study of 387 cases from 1980 to 2017

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for Alzheimer's disease: let's not forget about the retina

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLederForskningpeer review

  1. Inflammation in Glaucoma: From the back to the front of the eye, and beyond

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  2. Prevalence of Charles Bonnet syndrome in patients with glaucoma: a systematic review with meta-analyses

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops.

METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study.

RESULTS: Of 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI -0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting.

CONCLUSION: No clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139692.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftThe British journal of ophthalmology
Vol/bind104
Udgave nummer11
Sider (fra-til)1512-1518
Antal sider7
ISSN0007-1161
DOI
StatusUdgivet - nov. 2020

Bibliografisk note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 62030916