Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Comparative efficacy and safety of preserved versus preservative-free beta-blockers in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Quantifying surgical skill in macular surgery

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Topical anaesthesia in strabismus surgery for Graves' orbitopathy: a comparative study of 111 patients

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Socio-economic status in families affected by childhood cataract

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Factors associated with ocular surface disease and severity in adults with atopic dermatitis: a nationwide survey

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Decreased Glucose Metabolism and Glutamine Synthesis in the Retina of a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Girl Power in Glaucoma: The Role of Estrogen in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Preservative-free topical medications have been introduced for glaucoma care to reduce ocular adverse events associated with preservatives. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers, or combination using beta-blockers, with and without preservatives. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP) from baseline to final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included ocular and systemic side effects, and other clinical and quality of life outcomes. Of 242 records identified, seven RCTs (1125 patients) were included. The follow-up period ranged from one to 12 months. Timolol was used in five studies, and two studies used a combination (timolol with bimatoprost or dorzolamide). The difference in mean change (MD) in IOP between the preservative-free and the preserved drugs was statistically significant but not clinically relevant: (MD 0.29 mmHg, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.51 mmHg, p = 0.010; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events: Level of evidence for all ocular surface outcome was low or very low and reported in few studies. No significant difference was observed on ocular surface symptoms. Tear break-up time (TBUT) was better with preservative-free drops (p < 0.001). Schirmer's test was better in the preservative-free group (p < 0.001). Level of evidence for all ocular surface outcomes was low or very low. There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. We found no clinically relevant difference in mean change in IOP between the preserved and the preservative-free treatments. Data on adverse events used different methods and were incompletely reported. Although some measures of ocular surface health favoured preservative-free medications, more evidence is needed. The increasing use of preservative-free drops may be associated with better ocular surface and tolerability, but strong evidence from RCTs would be welcome.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Ophthalmologica
Volume100
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)253-261
Number of pages9
ISSN1755-375X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2022

Bibliographical note

© 2021 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Research areas

  • beta-blockers, efficacy, glaucoma, intraocular pressure, ocular hypertension, safety

ID: 69983853