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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Fungal infection after endothelial keratoplasty: Association with hypothermic corneal storage

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Macular spatial distribution of preserved autofluorescence in patients with choroideremia

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalThe British journal of ophthalmology
Volume104
Issue number11
Pages (from-to)1512-1518
Number of pages7
ISSN0007-1161
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2020

ID: 62030916