Abstract
Topical anti-glaucomatous medications are still the most important measure to lower intraocular pressure. Large number of studies have confirmed that long-term use of anti-glaucomatous eye drops, especially containing benzalkonium chloride, a preservative, can cause or aggravate ocular surface injury. Ocular surface diseases damage the ocular microenvironmental health status, reduce the patients’ compliance with the treatment, and finally affect the treatment result. Therefore, the ocular surface management of patients with glaucoma is very important. This includes the selection of drugs that are better tolerated according to individual conditions, preservative-free formulations, drugs that protect against ocular surface disease, or selecting surgery and laser treatment, to prevent the damage to the ocular surface by topical anti-glaucomatous drugs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
This review aims to update and summarize the causes and management of ocular surface disease induced by anti-glaucomatous medications in relation to patients’ eye health and drug compliance. The preservative, especially benzalkonium chloride, and active pharmaceutical ingredients in these medications are the main causes of ocular surface disease. |
It is recommended to use a new preservative with less toxicity or preservative-free preparations and a fixed combination formulation to reduce the incidence of ocular surface disease. Artificial tears, diquafosol sodium, and serum preparations are required to alleviate symptoms. Surgical treatment is also an option if necessary. |
Introduction
As the global population ages, glaucoma has become the second leading cause of blindness, and is expected to affect 112 million individuals worldwide by 2040 [1]. Glaucoma is a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative ocular diseases characterized by progressive visual field loss and optic nerve atrophy. The pathological increase of intraocular pressure (IOP) caused by the imbalance of aqueous humor production and drainage is the main risk factor for irreversible optic nerve injury in glaucoma. Currently, topical anti-glaucomatous medications continue to be the mainstay of therapy for controlling IOP. However, most patients with glaucoma require long-term or lifelong use of eye drops, which is associated with ocular surface diseases (OSD) including dry eye, meibomian gland dysfunction, and ocular chronic allergy [2].
OSD is a multifactorial disorder of internal environment balance between tear film and ocular surface morphological and functional units, resulting in abnormal tear quality, quantity, or dynamics, accompanied by ocular surface inflammation, tear film instability, visual disturbance, and ocular discomfort [2]. The pathological changes of OSD are closely related to dysregulation of cellular phenotypes, such as the decrease of goblet cell density, inflammatory cell infiltration, reduced corneal sensitivity, and corneal nerve fiber loss [3]. The estimated incidence of OSD in patients with glaucoma varies from 38.5% to 60%, which is much higher than that of the general population. Moreover, 49–59% of patients using topical anti-glaucomatous medications suffer OSD, while the prevalence of OSD in normal populations over 50 years old ranged from 5% to 30% [2, 4]. The long-term use of topical anti-glaucomatous medications, especially those containing preservatives, is the main factor leading to induction or aggravation of OSD.
Topical monotherapy is currently the preferred treatment for IOP control in accordance with European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma [5]. However, up to approximately 50–75% of patients require multidrug combination therapy to achieve the target IOP. The increased use of drug types and frequency may lead to poor ocular surface health for patients with glaucoma [6, 7]. The development of OSD has a significant adverse impact on the patients’ drug compliance, treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and also affects the treatment results [8]. Furthermore, OSD is associated with a higher anti-glaucomatous surgical failure rate. Therefore, the management of OSD in patients with glaucoma has significant clinical implications for improving the success rate of glaucoma treatment and patients’ quality of life. Here we present a comprehensive review of occurrence and management of OSD related to pharmaceutically active ingredients and preservatives of anti-glaucomatous medications.
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.
Damage to Ocular Surface by Active Ingredients in Anti-glaucomatous Medications
Currently, there are six main kinds of topical drugs commonly used for clinical treatment of glaucoma, namely β-adrenergic blockers, prostaglandin analogues (PGAs), α-adrenergic agonists, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs), cholinergic agonists, and Rho kinase inhibitors. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can reduce the viability of corneal epithelial cells at clinically relevant concentration, but will not destroy the stability of the cell membrane [9,10,11]. The long-term treatment cycle of glaucoma and combination with other drugs make the risk of OSD increase substantially. On the basis of a previous review of the adverse effects of all these active pharmaceutical ingredients [12], here we update and summarize OSD induced by anti-glaucomatous medications.
Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockers on Ocular Surface
β-Adrenergic blockers can reduce the production of aqueous humor by blocking the sympathetic nerve endings of the ciliary body. Currently, the first choice of β-adrenergic blocker is mainly levobunolol (0.5%) or timolol (0.5%) available alone or in combination with other drugs for IOP reduction. However, clinically, topical application of β-adrenergic blockers was proved to have adverse effects on tear film, cornea, and conjunctiva. Symptoms of OSD include ocular aching, burning, tingling, redness, photophobia, and foreign body sensation. This leads to 2–10% of patients discontinuing medication [13]. A prospective study showed that compared with other types of anti-glaucomatous medications, β-adrenergic blockers display more serious adverse effects on the ocular surface [14].
Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockers on Tear Film
Topical use of β-adrenergic blockers can affect tear production, stabilization, and exchange. In a study which compares the effects of levobunolol and timolol on tear volume, precorneal tear film stability, and corneal epithelial barrier function in normal eyes, timolol significantly shortened the precorneal tear film breakup time (TBUT) compared to levobunolol, and both of them reduced ocular surface tear volume, which was strongly associated with dry eye symptoms [15]. In a study investigating corneal epithelial lesions in 193 eyes of 110 patients with glaucoma, tear film lipid layer, tear volume, and tear film stability were assessed; superficial punctate keratitis occurred significantly more frequently in patients using timolol (46.2%) than in those using carteolol (4.2%) but was less severe than with carteolol [16]. A cross-sectional study showed that preservative-free (PF) timolol still resulted in increased tear instability and altered corneal microstructure, suggesting that its active ingredient may also cause ocular surface damage [17].
Effects of β-Adrenergic Blocker on Cornea
Several studies have proved the corneal toxicity of β-adrenergic blockers. Timolol specifically causes extensive epithelium abscission, promotes plasma membrane pore formation and rupture [18]. Studies researching the toxicity of anti-glaucomatous medications on human corneal epithelial line cells found that β-adrenergic blockers appear to possess inhibitory and cytotoxic effects on corneal cells, and restrain the corneal epithelial barrier function [11, 19]. Another study has pointed out that a thinner corneal epithelial thickness was significantly associated with topical application of β-adrenergic blockers [20]. Mastropasqua et al. used laser scanning confocal microscopy and impression cytology to investigate the morphologic changes of the corneoscleral limbus in patients with glaucoma. They discovered that β-adrenergic blockers exhibited a worse limbal transition epithelium regularity, which means β-adrenergic blockers may delay corneal regeneration by interfering with the limbal stem cell microenvironment [21]. Furthermore, Yuan et al. established a corneal wound healing mouse model and identified the β2AR-EGFR-ERK1/2 axis as the main mechanism of β-adrenergic blocker-induced impaired corneal epithelial regeneration [22]. A cross-sectional study of 300 eyes in 187 patients with glaucoma showed that corneal epithelial erosion occurs more in β-adrenergic blocker-instilled eyes, whereas there is no difference in ocular toxicity between CAIs and PGAs [23]. Van Buskirk also found that a portion of patients suffered superficial punctate keratitis after topical timolol maleate treatment [24]. The corneal sensitivity of elderly patients with long-term use of timolol maleate is significantly reduced. Therefore, it is recommended to regularly measure the corneal sensitivity of elderly patients with long-term topical use of timolol or betaxolol [25].
Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockers on Conjunctiva
β-Adrenergic blockers also inflict damage on the conjunctiva. An in vivo confocal microscopy and impression cytology analysis revealed that unpreserved levobunolol induced a 17% decrease of goblet cell density compared to baseline [26]. Two animal studies using rabbits found that compared with PGAs, timolol significantly increased subepithelial collagen density and extracellular matrix (ECM), which may result in failure of filtering surgery [27, 28]. With topical use of timolol, there is a decrease in secretory epithelial cells, and vacuolation and expansion of the intracellular rough endoplasmic reticulum [29]. This may amplify the cytotoxic effect of preservatives. And a clinical study using biopsy specimens has also proved the enhanced diffuse immune response in patients with long-term use of timolol [30]. Allergic reactions due to timolol have also been reported [31].
Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockers on Lacrimal Punctum and Canaliculus
Previous studies have reported lacrimal drainage system obstruction associated with topical use of β-adrenergic blocker-containing preparations in patients with glaucoma. A cross-sectional controlled study found that timolol + dorzolamide and timolol + dorzolamide + pilocarpine had a significant association with lacrimal punctum and canaliculus obstruction [32, 33]. This study indicated that combination therapy might cause more adverse effects on the lacrimal drainage system. These two preparations both contain timolol and dorzolamide. Timolol-induced unilateral stenosis or obstruction has been reported widely [34], whereas the related adverse effects of dorzolamide have not been reported yet. A significantly higher percentage of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in the lacrimal drainage obstruction group (69%) were treated with timolol, compared with patients in the control group (18%) [35]. It is presumed that chronic use of β-adrenergic blockers caused lacrimal drainage system cicatricial reaction and autonomic nervous system effects [34, 36]. However, punctal occlusion has been proved to lower IOP of patients treated with topical medications for glaucoma [37]. Further studies are required to figure out the exact effects of anti-glaucomatous medications on the lacrimal punctum and canaliculus.
Effects of Prostaglandin Analogues on Ocular Surface
PGAs may act to lower IOP by promoting relaxation of the ciliary muscle and remodeling of the ECM of the ciliary myocytes. However, with the widespread clinical use of these drugs, they have been found to affect the ocular surface, including conjunctival congestion, corneal damage, and reduced central corneal thickness (CCT) [38].
Effects of PGAs on Cornea
PGAs also have adverse effects on the cornea. Recurrence of herpes simplex keratitis associated with the use of PGAs has been reported in several cases. In addition, corneal punctate epithelial erosions and dendritic keratitis are associated with the topical use of PGAs [39]. Kahook and Ammar determined the toxicity of four kinds of PGAs on human corneal epithelial cells in vitro, and found that tafluprost 0.005% with 0.010% benzalkonium chloride (BAK) and latanoprost 0.005% with 0.020% BAK exhibited the highest toxicity, followed by travoprost 0.004% with 0.015% BAK and then travoprost 0.004% with sofZia [40]. Whether the preservative has greater adverse effects on the cornea is to be proven by further experiments. Shen et al. further studied the toxicity of latanoprost on corneal stroma, and its underlying mechanisms may be associated with death receptor-mediated mitochondria-dependent apoptosis [41].
Effects of PGAs on Conjunctiva
Hyperemia is the most common side effect of PGAs, occurring in up to 65% of patients, with a higher incidence than timolol [42]. The reason may be related to nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation of the conjunctiva. Although several studies have reported decreased goblet cell density, conjunctival epithelial defects, poor Schirmer test, and decreased TBUT results after topical PGAs use [43], the effect of preservatives cannot be ruled out in this case. Biopsy specimens from human and animal studies all showed that PGAs can affect conjunctival fibroblasts; matrix metalloproteinase family expression is upregulated in the PGAs group compared to controls, and these genes are associated with the repair of conjunctival tissue [44, 45]. An in vitro study also demonstrated that latanoprost and travoprost may protect against toxicity of BAK on conjunctiva-derived epithelial cells [46]. And a study reported a higher goblet cell count in the superior central conjunctiva after 6-month treatment with BAK-containing latanoprost compared with that in patients treated with PF timolol and BAK-containing timolol [14]. PGAs seems to harm to goblet cell less than other kinds of anti-glaucomatous medications do.
Effects of PGAs on CCT
In addition, several studies have pointed to a decrease in CCT after topical treatment with PGAs in patients with glaucoma. The reason for this may be related to the action of PGAs in degrading collagen through upregulation of matrix metalloproteinases. Considering the cornea mainly composed of collagen fibers, it is believed that topical use of PGAs causes changes in corneal biomechanical properties. A retrospective analysis showed that after 3 years of topical PGA monotherapy, patients with glaucoma had a mean reduction in CCT of 17.75 µm [47]. Other studies have also demonstrated similar results: 5 years use of latanoprost caused reduction of CCT in patients with normal-tension glaucoma [48]. CCT is considered as an independent risk factor for glaucoma progression, and it also has a significant impact on the outcome of IOP measurements [49]. Thus, with the progression of CCT thinning, the lifetime use of PGAs may increase the likelihood of overestimating the IOP-lowering effect. However, it has also been noted that IOP reduction and responder rates measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry were lower than those measured with modified surface Goldmann prism in patients with topically applied latanoprost, and no difference in IOP lowering was detected in patients with timolol [50]. This may be related to factors such as CCT changes and corneal hysteresis caused by PGAs. Therefore, it is important to measure CCT values continuously during the follow-up of glaucoma, especially in patients treated with PGAs. More follow-up studies are also required to show the PGAs-induced alterations of corneal biomechanics and their relationship to IOP measurements.
Although some basic research has demonstrated the toxicity of PGAs to corneal and conjunctival cells, a growing number of clinical studies suggest that the ocular surface adverse effects caused by PGAs may be minimal. A study compared dry eyes between patients with glaucoma receiving PGAs monotherapy and subjects without glaucoma and showed no significant difference between the two groups [51]. Damage to the ocular surface also varies among different types of PGAs. In a cross-sectional study, Rolle et al. noted that tafluprost did not affect tear stability compared to PF timolol [17]. PGAs showed better tolerability than other antiglaucoma drugs in all of these studies. However, long-term topical application of PGAs can lead to obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction [52]. Agnifili et al. observed PGA-induced morphological changes of the meibomian gland by laser confocal scanning microscopy, which are associated with the development of dry eyes [53].
Effects of Cholinergic Agonists on Ocular Surface
Cholinergic agonists were the earliest used anti-glaucomatous drugs, mainly pilocarpine, reducing the aqueous humor outflow resistance by constricting the pupil and ciliary muscle. The major adverse effect of pilocarpine is miosis, and sometimes with constriction of the visual field, conjunctival irritation, eyelid twitching, blurred vision, and superficial punctate keratitis. Ocular irritation and blurred vision are more pronounced in patients using pilocarpine gel preparations, with incidences of 50% and 70%, respectively. Approximately 20% of patients discontinue pilocarpine therapy because of unacceptable topical adverse effects [54].
Effects of Cholinergic Agonists on Tear Film
A clinical study revealed that 13% of patients treated with pilocarpine for 1 year showed Schirmer’s test value of less than 10 mm, and TBUT of less than 10 s in 27% of patients [55]. Investigators also discovered that pilocarpine significantly suppressed proliferation of meibomian gland epithelial cells in vitro [56].
Effects of Cholinergic Agonists on Cornea
An increased incidence of superficial punctate keratitis and dry eye symptoms due to pilocarpine has been widely reported. Twenty percent of patients using pilocarpine gel suffer from superficial corneal haze, which persists after discontinuation of the drug [54]. Topical application of pilocarpine has also been associated with corneal limbal infiltrates and limbal ulcers, causing the classic allergic limbal keratitis [57]. Animal studies have shown that pilocarpine causes corneal endothelial dysfunction. In a study analyzing the effects of pilocarpine on healthy rabbit corneal endothelial cells, pilocarpine stimulation led to ultrastructural changes in cell contraction, nuclear heterochromatin margination, and cytoplasmic vacuolization [58].
Effects of Cholinergic Agonists on Conjunctiva
Pilocarpine causes changes in the conjunctiva. Cholinergic agonists can induce follicular conjunctivitis and cicatricial pemphigoid. Increased numbers of desmosomes, basal layer changes, and ablation of the intrastromal vascular lumen are visible on microscopic histological sections. In a clinical study, conjunctival impression smears suggested that moderate loss of goblet cell occurred in 32% of patients after 1-year pilocarpine treatment, with squamous metaplasia and inflammatory infiltration in 41% of patients [55]. This may be related to increased expression of matrix metalloproteinases and ECM remodeling imbalance induced by topical application of pilocarpine [59]. Cholinergic agonists also cause significant shortening of the inferior conjunctival vault. However, oral pilocarpine treatment seems to benefit goblet cells and conjunctival epithelium [60].
Effects of α-Adrenergic Agonists on Ocular Surface
α-Adrenergic agonists mainly include drugs such as apraclonidine and brimonidine. The most common reasons for discontinuing α-adrenergic agonist treatment are ocular discomfort, congestion, foreign body sensation, photophobia, and eyelid retraction. Tachyphylaxis and high allergy rate of apraclonidine limit its effectiveness as a long-term treatment. Brimonidine reduces aqueous humor production and increases aqueous humor outflow via the uveoscleral pathway to lower IOP. The most common adverse effects associated with brimonidine are conjunctival reactive hyperemia, allergic blepharo-conjunctivitis, and ocular pruritus [61]. Compared with apraclonidine, brimonidine exhibits a lower incidence (25%) of allergic reactions and no tachyphylaxis. However, brimonidine may increase the potential for allergy to subsequently administered agents, particularly timolol, brinzolamide, and latanoprost [62]. In a large prospective study, approximately 7–14% of patients quit treatment with brimonidine because of ocular allergic reactions [63].
Effects of α-Adrenergic Agonists on Tear Film
A clinical study investigated the short-term effect of topical antiglaucoma medication on tear film within 90 min. Brimonidine showed the most significant reduction of tear basal secretion, and latanoprost caused the most significant reduction in TBUT [64]. After 1-year treatment with brimonidine, 9% and 18% of patients exhibited poor Schirmer’s test score and reduced TBUT, respectively [55]. This may be related to allergic reactions to brimonidine. A retrospective study found that tear film production was significantly decreased in the brimonidine-allergic group when compared with the non-allergic one [65].
Effects of α-Adrenergic Agonists on Conjunctiva
α-Adrenergic agonists have clear conjunctival effects, which are more obvious than those of PGAs, but less harmful to goblet cells than β-adrenergic blockers are. Conjunctival congestion and conjunctivitis occur in approximately 11.0–13.9% of patients using brimonidine, and these are the most common adverse effects of the drug and the most common reason for patients to discontinue the drug [66]. A retrospective medical record review study found 15 suspected cases and four confirmed cases with conjunctival lymphoproliferative disease among 208 patients after topical brimonidine use [67]. After 1-year treatment with brimonidine, 23% and 36% of patients exhibited loss of goblet cell and squamous metaplasia, respectively [55]. Clinical cytological analysis suggested that brimonidine induced more inflammatory responses (in approximately 55% of patients) among four kinds of anti-glaucomatous medications. An animal study suggested that the increase of inflammatory cytokines in the aqueous humor after long-term brimonidine treatment may contribute to the pathogenesis of brimonidine-induced conjunctivitis and uveitis [68].
Effects of Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors on Ocular Surface
Currently, the two main anti-glaucomatous CAIs in common use are dorzolamide and brinzolamide, which reduce IOP by inhibiting carbonic anhydrase in the ciliary epithelium to reduce aqueous humor outflow. The most common ocular surface damage caused by the treatment with CAIs includes temporary blurred vision (3–8%) and discomfort (1.8–5.9%), followed by hyperemia, blepharitis, dry eye, and tearing with less than 3% incidence rate [61]. Patients appear to tolerate brinzolamide better than dorzolamide. Switching from dorzolamide to brinzolamide decreased the incidence rate of ocular irritation by 43% [69]. It has been proposed that the physiological pH of brinzolamide compared to lower pH of dorzolamide may improve tolerability and adherence [70].
Effects of CAIs on Tear Film
The topical application of CAIs can also lead to decreased tear film stability. Using a tear film stability analysis system and functional visual acuity measurements, Noguchi et al. found that topical application of brinzolamide can cause tear film instability, leading to blurred vision [71]. A prospective study found that basal secretion (Jones test) was reduced by 17.3% at 90 min after application of dorzolamide [64].
Effects of CAIs on Cornea
Corneal decompensation caused by CAIs has been reported in several cases [72,73,74]. Topical dorzolamide and brinzolamide cause damage to the corneal endothelium and a significant increase of CCT, possibly due to the inhibition of corneal transparency maintained by carbonic anhydrase isoenzymes [75]. Dorzolamide can slightly reduce corneal sensitivity and may be associated with its corneal epithelial cell toxicity, with up to 15% of patients progressing to superficial punctate keratitis [76]. However, a clinical study reported that 18 months of brinzolamide treatment did not affect corneal thickness or corneal endothelium cell density [77].
Effects of CAIs on Conjunctiva
Conjunctival congestion is the most common side effect associated with the use of CAIs. Conjunctival congestion has been reported in up to 20.7% of patients after dorzolamide application [78]. Dorzolamide also causes conjunctivitis after approximately 3–12 months of treatment, leading to discontinuation of the drug in 4% of patients [79]. Conjunctival follicles at the corneal limbus have also been reported after topical dorzolamide application [80].
Effects of Rho Kinase Inhibitors on Ocular Surface
Rho kinase inhibitors are another novel medication to lower IOP; they show remarkable therapeutic efficacy in glaucoma but also have common topical adverse effects. A systematic review of 10 studies showed that the most common ocular surface damage caused by Rho kinase inhibitors was conjunctival congestion (19–65%), followed by conjunctival hemorrhage (6–20%) and corneal rotavirus (13–26%) [81]. Bhargava et al. also found that netarsudil and ripasudil may result in reticular epithelial corneal edema [82]. However, only 12 eyes were included in this study. More clinical and basic research needs to be conducted to figure out the specific effects of Rho kinase inhibitors on the ocular surface.
Effects of the Preservative BAK in Anti-glaucomatous Medications on Ocular Surface
Preservatives play an important role in the formulation of topical ophthalmic medications, with their primary role being to provide antimicrobial activity to maintain sterility. However, many preservatives can also cause damage to ocular tissues, especially in the case of long-term use. In general, the antimicrobial activity of a preservative is inversely proportional to its compatibility with the ocular surface. BAK is a quaternary ammonium compound with bacteriostatic, bactericidal, and surfactant properties and is the most commonly used preservative in ophthalmic preparations, including anti-glaucomatous medications. BAK interacts with bacterial cell membranes, resulting in membrane instability and cell lysis. However, BAK is not selective in its action on cell membranes. It can also damage epithelial cells of the ocular surface by the same mechanism. BAK also acts as a corneal permeation enhancer, enhancing the ocular permeability of the active ingredient in BAK-preserved formulations. The threshold concentration of action of BAK is approximately 0.005%. As a preservative in topical ophthalmic preparations, its concentration is approximately 0.004–0.02%. The cytotoxic effects of BAK on ocular tissue cells have been extensively studied, and the total “dose” of BAK (number of drugs, number of drops per day, duration of treatment, etc.) correlates with the prevalence and severity of OSD in patients with glaucoma [83]. Toxic effects of BAK include reduced tear film stability, corneal and conjunctival epithelium toxicity, and immune sensitivity reactions. BAK has been proved to reduce the survival of corneal, conjunctival, trabecular meshwork, and ciliary epithelial cells. In patients with glaucoma using BAK-preserved drugs, clinical manifestations of BAK-induced ocular surface toxicity include tingling, burning, foreign body sensation, pruritus, and ocular dryness, tearing, increased surface staining of the conjunctival and corneal epithelium, shortened TBUT, reduced Schirmer test, increased prevalence of punctate keratitis, and poor score of ocular surface disease index (OSDI) [84]. OSDI is a questionnaire asking patients the frequency of specific symptoms, such as dryness, photophobia, redness, and foreign body sensation, and their impact on vision-related functions. In numerous in vitro experiments, BAK can induce cytotoxicity or death in a dose-dependent manner.
Mechanism of BAK-Induced Damage to Ocular Surface
BAK is a quaternary ammonium compound with a positive charge, and mitochondria are the only negatively charged compartment in the cell. So BAK may interact with mitochondria. BAK stimulates conjunctival epithelial cells to produce hydrogen peroxide, leading to partial mitochondrial dysfunction. BAK has also been shown to trigger oxidative stress and mitochondrial fragmentation and to inhibit mitochondrial function [85]. Meanwhile, mitochondrial oxidative stress plays an important role in the development of ocular surface diseases as well as age-related corneal diseases and normal corneal aging.
BAK Damage to Tear Film
BAKs destroy the lipid layer of the tear film, shorten TBUT, and decrease tear film stability. Multivariate analysis showed that each additional use of BAK-containing eye drops trebled the odds of abnormal corneal staining tests and the symptoms improved when BAK was removed. A large cross-sectional study of 9658 patients with glaucoma showed that PF anti-glaucomatous medications had relieved pain or discomfort, foreign body sensation, stinging or burning sensation, and dry eyes compared to patients using preservative-containing drops [86]. These symptoms were also relieved if patients switched from a preservative-containing formulation to a PF formulation. An Australian study of 375 patients with glaucoma and OSD further confirmed the benefits of switching from BAK-preserved to BAK-free anti-glaucomatous medications [87]. Patients who switch to BAK-free anti-glaucomatous drops experienced less use of tear lubricants, improved ocular symptoms, and TBUT with no change in IOP. A number of studies have examined the clinical differences in OSD between patients taking BAK-containing and BAK-free or PF formulations of the same drug. In a prospective epidemiologic study of more than 4000 patients, the prevalence of OSD was approximately two times higher in patients using BAK-containing formulations than PF formulations, with symptoms including discomfort during drops (43% vs. 17%), burning pain (40% vs. 22%), foreign body sensation (31% vs. 14%), dry eye (23% vs. 14%), tearing (21% vs. 14%), and eyelid pruritus (18% vs. 10%) [58].
Although there is strong evidence that BAK is associated with the development of OSD in patients with glaucoma, conflicting evidence exists. A group of prospective studies that included 85 eyes showed no significant differences in tear function (Schirmer and TBUT) and impression cytology between anti-glaucomatous drops monotherapy with and without BAK [14]. Another prospective trial comparing BAK-containing tafluprost with travoprost containing SofZia had similar rates of punctate keratitis and TBUT; however, this study cannot exclude the toxic effects of SofZia and different PGAs [88].
BAK Damage to Cornea
BAK has a significant toxic effect on the corneal epithelium. Ammar and Kahook compared various preservative formulations in ophthalmic drugs and found that BAK was the most toxic to corneal epithelial cells [89]. BAK can induce corneal epithelial cell apoptosis. Immunohistochemistry showed that exposure to higher concentrations of BAK resulted in decreased corneal epithelial cell viability, increased apoptosis, enhanced inflammatory response, and impaired cell proliferation [90]. This cytotoxicity of BAK may be related to DNA damage [91]. It has been suggested that low concentrations (0.001–0.005%) of BAK cause cessation of normal cell mitotic activity and oxidative mitochondrial damage leading to apoptosis, while high concentrations (0.01%) cause cells to undergo rapid and violent necrosis in response [92]. Clinical studies suggest that these effects may be partially reversible after cessation of BAK exposure [93]. Lower incidence of punctate corneal epithelial erosions and self-reported adverse events (stinging, burning, and redness) was reported in the BAK-free group when comparing dorzolamide/timolol with and without BAK [94].
In animal models, BAK has been proved to reduce cellular tight junction stability [95]. Ultrastructural analysis reveals disruption of epithelial barrier function due to misalignment of tight junctions and disruption of the actin cytoskeleton [96]. During topical administration of anti-glaucomatous drugs, superficial epithelial cells exposed to BAK undergo swelling and detachment, followed by corneal stromal edema, neuronal loss, and damage to endothelial structures [97]. Ayaki et al. also found that corneal endothelial cell damage resulting from anti-glaucomatous eye drops appeared to depend on the presence of BAK [98]. Meanwhile inflammatory cell infiltration can also be seen in the cornea. And its toxic effects are dependent on both dose and exposure time. In animal experiments, mice treated with BAK (0.2 mg/ml) four times daily for 1 week showed a significant increase in corneal staining and an enhanced inflammatory response [99].
In addition, in a clinical study that included 38 patients, after 78–108 months of IOP-lowering treatment, patients treated with topical anti-glaucomatous drugs presented reduced subbasal nerve numbers and lower density compared to controls. However, corneal cell density was similar in both groups [100]. Another study by Martone et al. included 84 patients with bilateral POAG or high IOP and 20 age-matched healthy patients as controls. Using confocal microscopy, the authors found that, except patients receiving pure anti-glaucomatous drops, patients receiving long-term topical IOP-lowering therapy exhibited ocular surface changes: significant reduction in epithelial cell density in the superficial corneal layer, activation of stromal keratocytes, enhanced inflammatory response, and reduction of subbasal nerves [101]. A clinical study by Saini et al. also revealed a correlation between reduced nerve number and increased curvature, decreased corneal sensation, and tear production [102]. Also, a clinical study showed that when using commercially available anti-glaucomatous drugs containing different concentrations of BAK, the lowest BAK concentration caused the least epithelial damage [103]. These results suggest that BAK-induced dry eye may be associated with subbasal nerve injury.
Substantial experimental evidence confirms the toxicity of BAK to the corneal surface. However, in vitro studies may not accurately mimic real clinical situations. The duration of epithelial cell exposure to BAK in a laboratory setting may not adequately mimic the pharmacokinetic conditions in clinical patients. Although the duration of exposure in experimental models ranged from minutes to days, clinical observations revealed that in vivo topical application of BAK resulted in an eightfold dilution of BAK concentration in the tear fluid within only 30 s and a 36-fold decrease after 3 min [104]. The usual concentration of 0.02% BAK will be diluted to 0.00056% or barely detectable within 3 min [105]. Furthermore, it is still unclear whether periocular structures (conjunctival vault, eyelids, and lacrimal structures) in patients with OSD have an effect on BAK clearance.
BAK Damage to Conjunctiva
The conjunctiva plays an important role in the maintenance of ocular surface health. The conjunctival epithelium contains goblet cells that produce mucin to reduce evaporation from the aqueous layer of the tear film, the dysfunction of which may cause or exacerbate dry eyes. The conjunctiva is the major target for the toxic effects of topical ophthalmic agents. Essentially all types of preservatives cause inflammatory responses in the conjunctiva. Epstein et al. studied the effects of various preservatives on corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells and confirmed that all preservatives cause significant goblet cell toxicity to varying degrees [106]. Among these preservatives, BAK is considered to be the most important cause of conjunctival tissue damage, characterized by increased conjunctival epithelium karyoplasmicratio, reduced goblet cell density, subconjunctival fibrosis, squamous metaplasia, inflammatory infiltration, and conjunctival epithelial toxicity. Albietz and Bruce found that in patients with OSD, preservatives exacerbated conjunctival inflammation in dry eye, resulting in reduced cup cell density [107]. BAK also leads to impaired mucin production by goblet cells and exacerbates cellular damage. Several studies have reported a decrease in the number of conjunctival goblet cells and an increase in the number of mast cells, fibroblasts, macrophages, and lymphocytes induced by BAK [30]. Huang et al. measured the expression levels of ECM, COX-2, and TGF-β1/Smad3-related molecules. They demonstrated that BAK-induced subconjunctival fibrosis is the result of COX-2-regulated activation of TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling [108]. Labbé et al.’s study also demonstrated that the promotion of subconjunctival fibrosis by BAK in anti-glaucomatous medications was associated with increased expression of ECM metalloproteinase inducers and modification of conjunctival ECM remodeling [109].
New Preservative Formulations with Less Toxicity
Many alternative preservatives to BAK have been developed for topical ophthalmic treatment and are generally better tolerated than BAK. The main disadvantage of these preservatives is that they are limited to use in fixed formulations.
SofZia
SofZia is an ionic buffer solution containing borates, sorbitol, propylene glycol, and zinc to create an oxidative antibacterial environment [110]. These components are rapidly degraded upon contact with cations on the ocular surface. SofZia is therefore less cytotoxic to ocular tissue than BAK is [111]. In clinical studies, travoprost with SofZia scored higher on ocular symptoms and quality of life surveys compared to travoprost with BAK [112]. In addition, significant improvements in ocular signs and symptoms of OSD were observed in patients when switching from BAK-containing travoprost to SofZia-containing travoprost. More importantly, given the potential role of BAK in enhancing active ingredient penetration, the IOP control performance remained excellent when BAK was replaced by SofZia [113].
Polyquad
Polyquad is a hydrophilic cationic quaternary ammonium polymer with a similar mechanism of action to BAK, which can disrupt bacterial cytoplasmic membranes. As a result of its large size and lack of a hydrophobic region may prevent it from entering eukaryotic cells, thus reducing its adverse effects on human cells [114]. Polyquad has been used in contact lens solutions and dry eye preparations since the 1980s and is now included in anti-glaucomatous medication formulations [115]. Polyquad exhibits significantly lower cytotoxicity to ocular surface compared to BAK, which is equal to PF preparations [116]. In clinical studies, eyes treated with polyquad-containing travoprost had lower OSDI scores than treated with BAK-containing travoprost. And switching from the BAK-containing formulation to polyquad showed improvements in both OSD signs and symptoms [117]. As with SofZia, replacing BAK with polyquad does not affect the IOP-lowering effect of anti-glaucomatous drug formulations [118].
Purite
Purite contains 99.5% chlorite, 0.5% chlorate, and trace amounts of chlorine dioxide, which are converted to sodium ions, chloride ions, oxygen, and water upon contact with the tear film. The chlorine dioxide radicals in the solution confer antimicrobial activity, effectively against both bacteria and viruses. Purite is less cytotoxic to the ocular surface than BAK is [119]. Clinical studies suggest that in patients with glaucoma and signs or symptoms of OSD, brimonidine preserved with purite was better tolerated than brimonidine preserved with BAK and afforded comparable IOP reduction [120]. In another 12-month randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with glaucoma treated with brimonidine-purite (Alphagan; Allergan, Irvine, CA) 0.15% had a 41% lower incidence of allergic conjunctivitis, a significantly lower incidence of conjunctival congestion, ocular discharge, higher comfort and satisfaction scores than brimonidine–BAK (Alphagan) 0.2% group [121]. Brimonidine–purite causes less corneal injury and conjunctiva inflammatory infiltration than BAK-containing medications [122]. In a study with rabbits, the levels of the drug in aqueous humor were similar after the use of 0.2% brimonidine–BAK and 0.15% brimonidine–purite formulations [123]. In addition, there was no statistical difference in pain, tingling, and blurred vision between the PF and purite formulations of brimonidine used [124]. These results suggest that the brimonidine–purite formulation may exhibit better systemic safety and efficacy than the BAK-preserved formulation, but comparative clinical studies are needed to further confirm its effects.
Preservative-Free Formulations
Topical ophthalmic treatments for glaucoma and OSD are available in PF formulations such as Timoptic in Ocudose, Cosopt PF, Zioptan, etc. Currently, PF tafluprost is mainly used in China. As expected, these formulations have lower cytotoxicity than their corresponding BAK-preserved formulations. In clinical studies, the PF formulations showed less severe signs and symptoms of OSD and performed well in terms of IOP control compared to the preservative-containing formulations [84, 86, 84,86,125,126,127]. Several studies have evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of PF tafluprost [128,129,130,131,132]. And results showed significant reductions of IOP in patients treated with PF tafluprost either initially or by conversion from other PGAs. PF tafluprost is well tolerated and safe, with 97.9% of patients continuing treatment [130]. A meta-analysis showed that PF tafluprost significantly increased TBUT and tear production and significantly improved ocular symptoms compared to latanoprost [125]. A prospective, observer-blind study enrolled 30 patients (60 eyes) with open-angle glaucoma, and revealed that switching from latanoprost to the PF tafluprost significantly increased TBUT and reduced the proportion of abnormal corneal fluorescein staining [133]. Furthermore, after switching from other PGA monotherapy to PF tafluprost, patients had a lower proportion of conjunctival congestion and significantly improved tolerability [128, 129].
However, PF formulations also have limitations. For example, many topical therapies are not available in PF formulations. Single-dose packages are more expensive and carry a greater financial burden for patients. In addition, for many patients, especially the aged with the highest risk of age-related diseases such as glaucoma and OSD, single-dose packages are inconvenient to use, resulting in poorer medication compliance. Multidose packaging can overcome these problems, but there is still a risk of microbial contamination. Multidose PF formulations systems have been developed to prevent microbial influx, such as the ABAK and COMOD systems. PF liposomal ophthalmic sprays have also been developed for the treatment of OSD.
Sustained Release System
Drug sustained release (SR) refers to the continuous administration of drugs to target tissues at the expected therapeutic concentration to avoid the peak and trough of pulsed local administration. A drug delivery system can reduce patients’ need for self-administration and improve compliance, so it may improve clinical results and quality of life. At present, a variety of anti-glaucomatous medication delivery systems have entered clinical research, but not to be implemented clinically, including intraocular implants, punctal plugs, contact lenses, nanospheres, etc.
Intraocular Implants
The intraocular implants are mainly placed in the iridocorneal angle. Bimatoprost SR for glaucoma treatment is 10 mg bimatoprost embedded in the poly-d,l-sustained lactide-co-glycolide polymer matrix, which is slowly degraded into water and carbon dioxide, leaving no residue in the eyes. A phase I/II, prospective controlled clinical trial suggested that Bimatoprost SR exhibited favorable efficacy and safety comparable to bimatoprost eye drops within 24 months [134]. The most common adverse events include conjunctival congestion, foreign body sensation, and eye pain, which may result from active pharmaceutical ingredients and implantation procedure. The high loss rate of corneal endothelium is the main problem of this system [135]. iDOSE can constantly release travoprost for 6–12 months. The phase II trial found that iDOSE exhibited an equal IOP reduction effect to timolol [136]. This system showed no adverse effects on conjunctiva and cornea.
Punctal Plugs
Punctal plugs allowing elution of drugs into the tear film are easy to load and unload and well tolerated by patients. OTX-TP is an intracanalicular punctal plug produced by Ocular Therapeutix, consisting of polyethylene glycol hydrogel and brimonidine polylactic acid. OTX-TP showed a 15.6% reduction of IOP in an Asian population [137]. Another punctal plug Evolute loaded with latanoprost showed retention rate of 96% and 5 mmHg reduction in IOP after 12 weeks [138]. These systems help to maintain tear volume, thus protecting the ocular surface from drug damage.
In addition, other sustained release systems have incorporated many natural polymers into drug delivery vehicles. Drugs can be loaded onto the hydrogel contact lenses, placed on the cornea, and eluted by tear film, so as to improve the bioavailability of the drug increase and increase retention time on the ocular surface. Polymeric hydrogels are also used as biocompatible nanospheres for drug delivery to penetrate the corneal barrier. Currently, this research is still at the stage of animal experiments.
OSD Management for Patients with Glaucoma
During the treatment of glaucoma, it is important to consider not only the effect of medications on IOP but also the incidence and severity of drug-induced OSD. Thirty-eight percent of patients receiving topical monotherapy, 54% of patients receiving two topical treatments, and 71% of patients receiving three or more topical treatments resulted in moderate or severe OSD. The inherent decline in ocular surface condition of the aged makes it important for populations treated with multiple eye drops and the elderly population, in particular, to carry on OSD management [139]. However, it should be emphasized that in daily practice this situation may be more severe than in clinical trial data. The proportion of patients with glaucoma and signs and symptoms of OSD in clinical practice is significantly higher than in prospective clinical trials or the general population [140]. The typical duration of a clinical trial is 6–12 months. During this period, the long-term effects of treatment may go undetected and be underestimated. Thus, the background of drug-induced OSD is usually more severe than demonstrated in clinical trials, and management of OSD in patients with glaucoma is more difficult to improve in clinical practice.
Efficacy and tolerability should always be a prominent consideration in the treatment of glaucoma. Clinical routine evaluation of glaucoma should include assessment of OSD signs and symptoms. A thorough ocular surface examination should be performed on every patient with glaucoma before starting topical treatment and during follow-up. A number of routine examinations can readily identify OSD, such as dryness or burning sensation, foreign body sensation, eyelid congestion, meibomian gland dysfunction, shortened TBUT, corneal or conjunctival fluorescein staining, and the need for artificial tears.
In addition, given the frequency and severity of ocular toxicity associated with the topical use of anti-glaucomatous medications, particularly BAK, the European Medicines Agency recommends that preservatives be avoided for patients who are intolerant of preservative-containing eye drops and in patients with long-term therapy. It is recommended to use the lowest concentration consistent with antimicrobial function in a stand-alone formulation. For patients using multiple BAK-containing formulations, there is an option to switch to a fixed combination formulation to reduce BAK exposure through lessening the total number of drops administered per day [141].
Use of Less Frequent Dosing Agent
It is important to note that not all patients are sensitive to preservatives and not all topical adverse effects of IOP-lowering medications are caused by preservatives. Given that both increased frequency of dosing and co-administration are risk factors for the development of OSD in patients with glaucoma, the use of less frequent dosing agents (e.g., PGAs, once daily) is recommended. PGAs have been increasingly used as first-line or preferred anti-glaucomatous medications because of their high efficiency in lowering IOP, lack of significant systemic adverse effects, once-daily dosing, and excellent overall tolerability. Special attention should be paid to patients with glaucoma who have existing OSD or who develop dry eyes or ocular irritation over time. Once OSD has developed, the option of changing to another more tolerable medication, using a PF formulation, or opting for surgery or laser treatment may be available on an individual basis.
Fixed Combination Formulation
Compared to generic formulations, fixed combination formulations offer higher efficacy in lowering IOP, reduce preservative exposure and risk of preservative-related OSD symptoms, eliminate washout associated with inadequate interval between drops, and decrease the total number of drops. In addition, the fixed combination formulation improves treatment compliance and persistence owing to the simplification of the eye drop strategy, resulting in improved stability of IOP control [142]. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing three fixed combination formulations of PGAs and timolol showed that the combination therapy displayed a more pronounced IOP-lowering effect than the respective PGAs or timolol components [143]. Several randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective clinical studies have shown that the IOP-lowering effect of fixed combination formulations is comparable to that of the corresponding non-combination agent therapy [144,145,146]. Two 6-month randomized double-blind prospective phase III clinical trials investigated the IOP-lowering efficacy, ocular tolerability, and safety of the fixed combination formulation of tafluprost and timolol. The formulation showed good IOP-lowering effects and fewer adverse events, with conjunctival congestion being the most common adverse event during treatment at 4.8–9.5% [147, 148]. In another study, the PF tafluprost/timolol fixed combination had a lower incidence of ocular congestion (6.4–8%) and ocular irritation (7–12.4%). So, the short-term tolerability of the combination may depend on the action of the IOP-lowering active ingredient itself [149].
Ocular Surface Protective Medication
Artificial Tears
Artificial tears are the main treatment for dry eyes. Artificial tears improve tear film stability, protect the cornea, and reduce pressure of the ocular surface, thereby improving quality of life. There are currently various preparations based on polyvinyl alcohol, povidone, hydroxypropyl guar gum, cellulose derivatives, and hyaluronic acid. These preparations have a branching structure similar to that of mucin and can maintain and replenish the tear film, thereby improving dry eyes symptoms. In principle, PF medications are recommended for OSD. The results of a systematic review showed that these drugs significantly improved dry eye signs, but there were no clear statistical differences among different product types. Generally, less viscous artificial tears, such as 0.1% sodium hyaluronate and 0.5% carboxymethyl cellulose, are indicated for mild dry eyes. Patients with moderate to the severe dry eyes should use artificial tears with higher viscosity such as 0.3% sodium hyaluronate and 1% carboxymethyl cellulose [150]. Clinical studies have shown that artificial tears containing lipid components are superior in improving signs of patients with moderate to severe dry eyes compared to formulations containing hyaluronic acid. Especially in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, these artificial tears have also shown better improvement in TBUT [151]. Carbomer in situ gel systems undergo a solution-gel shift when in contact with the ocular surface, which helps increase the residence time of artificial tears and are mainly used for severe dry eye. However, they are often used at bedtime because they can cause blurred vision and eye discomfort. Therefore, the choice of artificial tears is based on the type and degree of dry eye, patient compliance, and comfort.
Promoting Tear Production
Diquafosol sodium promotes the repair of ocular surface damage by promoting aqueous tear secretion, mucin secretion from conjunctival goblet cells, and increasing the thickness of the lipid layer by protecting the function of the meibomian gland [152]. A study enrolled 138 patients with glaucoma with dry eye disease who received topical anti-glaucomatous drops for more than 6 months. Treatment with 3% diquafosol sodium resulted in stable IOP, improved subjective ocular surface symptoms OSDI, prolonged TBUT, increased tear production, and improved goblet cell counts [153]. Another study including 46 patients with 84 eyes with primary normal IOP glaucoma also showed that 3% diquafosol sodium drops protected the meibomian gland morphology in patients with long-term use of PGA-containing preservative [154].
Facilitating Ocular Surface Repair
The active ingredients of pro-ocular surface repair eye drops are mainly epidermal growth factors and fibroblast growth factors, which can promote epithelial cell proliferation and improve the microenvironment of the ocular surface. In addition, studies have shown that dry eye is associated with oxidative stress. So, antioxidants or free radical scavengers such as vitamins A, E, and B6 have been used to treat dry eye. A clinical study showed that the addition of vitamin A to tear substitutes improved dry eye symptoms [155]. However, in animal models, vitamin A has also been shown to cause meibomian gland dysfunction [156]. And vitamin A is very unstable in liquid formulations and poorly tolerated by patients. In addition, the lipoic acid may improve tear film stability [157].
Ophthalmic Serum Preparations
Ophthalmic serum preparations, mainly consisting of autologous serum and calf serum deproteinized extract, are rich in growth factors that promote ocular surface epithelial repair and nerve regeneration, and maintain the ocular surface microenvironment. They are applicable to moderate to severe dry eye with ocular surface damage and corneal pain. In a clinical study, calf serum deproteinized extract was shown to be more effective than 0.3% sodium hyaluronate drops in relieving eye pain and photosensitivity in patients with dry eye [158].
Surgical Treatment
Drug therapy is the first-line method for glaucoma treatment. When a drug therapy performs poorly in IOP control or can not stabilize disease progression, surgical treatment can be taken into account. Although OSD caused by glaucoma filtration surgery is common, given that the long-term use of anti-glaucomatous medications and topical steroid infusion after surgery may have a positive impact on the ocular surface status, surgical treatment is still beneficial to reduce OSD [159, 160]. A 1-year follow-up study showed the improved conjunctival state, the decreased level of pro-inflammatory protein, and the enhanced function related to lipid transport in patients after trabeculectomy [161]. In addition, selective laser trabeculoplasty or minimally invasive glaucoma surgery may be a more appropriate choice for patients with glaucoma and OSD. This kind of surgery avoids or reduces conjunctival injury, thus alleviating postoperative inflammatory response and ocular surface irritation [162].
Conclusion
Anti-glaucomatous medications remain the preferred treatment option for many types of glaucoma. The ensuing OSD needs to be considered by physicians, especially in patients using multiple anti-glaucomatous medications and geriatrics. Evaluation of the ocular surface should be included as a routine part of the follow-up of patients with glaucoma. Ocular surface disease resulting from glaucoma medications mainly occurs in the cornea, conjunctiva, and meibomian glands. And changes of the ocular surface microenvironment are associated with patient compliance with treatment as well as treatment outcomes and quality of life. Comprehensive management of the ocular surface is needed for patients with glaucoma. And medications with good IOP-lowering effects and requiring less frequent use (such as PGAs and fixed combination formulations) should be selected as much as possible to improve the quality of patients’ ocular surface environment. The ideal anti-glaucomatous drug is one that is only mildly damaging to the ocular surface tissue and maintains drug activity, containing a new preservative with less toxicity or PF preparations, even with a sustained release system. For patients who have developed OSD, additional treatment with ocular surface protective medication may be considered to improve the overall ocular surface structure by stabilizing the three layers of the tear film. Laser and surgical treatments are also options if necessary.
References
Kang JM, Tanna AP. Glaucoma. Med Clin North Am. 2021;105(3):493–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2021.01.004.
Zhang X, Vadoothker S, Munir WM, et al. Ocular surface disease and glaucoma medications: a clinical approach. Eye Contact Lens. 2019;45(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000544.
Baudouin C, Kolko M, Melik-Parsadaniantz S, et al. Inflammation in glaucoma: from the back to the front of the eye, and beyond. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2021;83: 100916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100916.
Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, et al. TFOS DEWS II epidemiology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003.
Azuara-Blanco A, Bagnasco L, Bagnis A, et al. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 5th edn. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(Suppl 1):1–169. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines.
MyllaBoso AL, Gasperi E, Fernandes L, et al. Impact of ocular surface disease treatment in patients with glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:103–11. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S229815.
Roberti G, Tanga L, Manni G, et al. Tear film, conjunctival and corneal modifications induced by glaucoma treatment. Curr Med Chem. 2019;26(22):4253–61. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867326666190517111823.
Stalmans I, Lemij H, Clarke J, et al. Signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease: the reasons for patient dissatisfaction with glaucoma treatments. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3675–80. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S269586.
Shen W, Huang B, Yang J. Ocular surface changes in prostaglandin analogue-treated patients. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:9798272. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9798272.
Robciuc A, Witos J, Ruokonen SK, et al. Pure glaucoma drugs are toxic to immortalized human corneal epithelial cells, but they do not destabilize lipid membranes. Cornea. 2017;36(10):1249–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001322.
Pozarowska D, Pozarowski P, Darzynkiewicz Z. Cytometric assessment of cytostatic and cytotoxic effects of topical glaucoma medications on human epithelial corneal line cells. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2010;78(2):130–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.20493.
Servat JJ, Bernardino CR. Effects of common topical antiglaucoma medications on the ocular surface, eyelids and periorbital tissue. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(4):267–82. https://doi.org/10.2165/11588830-000000000-00000.
Battershill PE, Sorkin EM. Ocular metipranolol. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs. 1988;36(5):601–15. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198836050-00004.
Aydin Kurna S, Acikgoz S, Altun A, et al. The effects of topical antiglaucoma drugs as monotherapy on the ocular surface: a prospective study. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014: 460483. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/460483.
Ishibashi T, Yokoi N, Kinoshita S. Comparison of the effects of topical levobunolol and timolol solution on the human ocular surface. Cornea. 2003;22(8):709–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003226-200311000-00001.
Inoue K, Okugawa K, Kato S, et al. Ocular factors relevant to anti-glaucomatous eyedrop-related keratoepitheliopathy. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(6):480–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200312000-00007.
Rolle T, Spinetta R, Nuzzi R. Long term safety and tolerability of tafluprost 0.0015% vs timolol 0.1% preservative-free in ocular hypertensive and in primary open-angle glaucoma patients: a cross sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0534-z.
Trope GE, Liu GS, Basu PK. Toxic effects of topically administered Betagan, Betoptic, and Timoptic on regenerating corneal epithelium. J Ocul Pharmacol. 1988;4(4):359–66. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.1988.4.359.
Cheong HI, Johnson J, Cormier M, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of eight beta-blockers in human corneal epithelial and retinal pigment epithelial cell lines: comparison with epidermal keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008;22(4):1070–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2008.01.013.
Nam M, Kim SW. Changes in corneal epithelial thickness induced by topical antiglaucoma medications. J Clin Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163464.
Mastropasqua R, Agnifili L, Fasanella V, et al. Corneoscleral limbus in glaucoma patients: in vivo confocal microscopy and immunocytological study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(3):2050–8. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-15890.
Yuan X, Ma X, Yang L, et al. beta-blocker eye drops affect ocular surface through β2 adrenoceptor of corneal limbal stem cells. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):419. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02186-w.
Lee S, Kim MK, Choi HJ, et al. Comparative cross-sectional analysis of the effects of topical antiglaucoma drugs on the ocular surface. Adv Ther. 2013;30(4):420–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-013-0021-8.
Van Buskirk EM. Corneal anesthesia after timolol maleate therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1979;88(4):739–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(79)90675-5.
Weissman SS, Asbell PA. Effects of topical timolol (0.5%) and betaxolol (0.5%) on corneal sensitivity. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74(7):409–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.74.7.409.
Ciancaglini M, Carpineto P, Agnifili L, et al. An in vivo confocal microscopy and impression cytology analysis of preserved and unpreserved levobunolol-induced conjunctival changes. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18(3):400–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/112067210801800314.
Mietz H, Schlotzer-Schrehardt U, Strassfeld C, et al. Effect of latanoprost and timolol on the histopathology of the rabbit conjunctiva. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(3):679–87.
Russ HH, Costa VP, Ferreira FM, et al. Conjunctival changes induced by prostaglandin analogues and timolol maleate: a histomorphometric study. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007;70(6):910–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-27492007000600005.
Steuhl KP, Knorr M, Frohn A, et al. Effect of anti-glaucoma eyedrops on cell differentiation of the conjunctiva. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1991;88(6):865–9.
Nuzzi R, Vercelli A, Finazzo C, et al. Conjunctiva and subconjunctival tissue in primary open-angle glaucoma after long-term topical treatment: an immunohistochemical and ultrastructural study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233(3):154–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166608.
Baldone JA, Hankin JS, Zimmerman TJ. Allergic conjunctivitis associated with timolol therapy in an adult. Ann Ophthalmol. 1982;14(4):364–5.
Kashkouli MB, Pakdel F, Hashemi M, et al. Comparing anatomical pattern of topical anti-glaucoma medications associated lacrimal obstruction with a control group. Orbit. 2010;29(2):65–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/01676830903324284.
Kashkouli MB, Rezaee R, Nilforoushan N, et al. Topical antiglaucoma medications and lacrimal drainage system obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(3):172–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181706829.
Narioka J, Ohashi Y. Effects of beta-adrenergic antagonist on width of nasolacrimal drainage system lumen. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2007;23(5):467–75. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2007.0025.
Seider N, Miller B, Beiran I. Topical glaucoma therapy as a risk factor for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(1):120–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.033.
McNab AA. Lacrimal canalicular obstruction associated with topical ocular medication. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1998;26(3):219–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.1998.tb01315.x.
Huang TC, Lee DA. Punctal occlusion and topical medications for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):151–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(89)90214-6.
Dis S, Agnifili L, Cecannecchia S, et al. In vivo analysis of prostaglandins-induced ocular surface and periocular adnexa modifications in patients with glaucoma. In Vivo. 2018;32(2):211–20. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11227.
Sudesh S, Cohen EJ, Rapuano CJ, et al. Corneal toxicity associated with latanoprost. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(4):539–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.4.539.
Kahook MY, Ammar DA. In vitro toxicity of topical ocular prostaglandin analogs and preservatives on corneal epithelial cells. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2010;26(3):259–63. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2010.0003.
Shen JW, Shan M, Peng YY, et al. Cytotoxic effect of latanoprost on human corneal stromal cells in vitro and its possible mechanisms. Curr Eye Res. 2017;42(4):534–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2016.1225770.
Li F, Huang W, Zhang X. Efficacy and safety of different regimens for primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(3):e277–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13568.
Stefan C, Dumitrica DM. Ocular surface disfunction in glaucoma. Oftalmologia. 2008;52(3):114–9.
Mietz H, Esser JM, Welsandt G, et al. Latanoprost stimulates secretion of matrix metalloproteinases in tenon fibroblasts both in vitro and in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(12):5182–8. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-0462.
Karli S, Ayala-Haedo JA, Feuer WJ, et al. Effect of prostaglandin analogs on matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases in eyelid muscle specimens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2039–46. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S178106.
Guenoun JM, Baudouin C, Rat P, et al. In vitro comparison of cytoprotective and antioxidative effects of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost on conjunctiva-derived epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):4594–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-0776.
Jang M, Kang KE, Cho BJ. Effect of prostaglandin analogues on central corneal thickness: 3-year follow-up results. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2020;34(5):347–52. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2019.0129.
Lee H, Cho BJ. Long-term effect of latanoprost on central corneal thickness in normal-tension glaucoma: five-year follow-up results. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(3):152–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2014.0109.
Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.6.714.
Radcliffe N, Berdahl J, Ibach M, et al. Improved efficacy of topical latanoprost 0.005% demonstrated by corneal biomechanical correcting modified goldmann prism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2245–53. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S264055.
Ra S, Ayaki M, Yuki K, et al. Dry eye, sleep quality, and mood status in glaucoma patients receiving prostaglandin monotherapy were comparable with those in non-glaucoma subjects. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188534. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188534.
Mocan MC, Uzunosmanoglu E, Kocabeyoglu S, et al. The association of chronic topical prostaglandin analog use with meibomian gland dysfunction. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(9):770–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000495.
Agnifili L, Fasanella V, Costagliola C, et al. In vivo confocal microscopy of meibomian glands in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(3):343–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302597.
Schuman JS. Antiglaucoma medications: a review of safety and tolerability issues related to their use. Clin Ther. 2000;22(2):167–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(00)88478-7.
Kamath AP, Satyanarayana S, Rodrigues F. Ocular surface changes in primary open angle glaucoma with long term topical anti glaucoma medication. Med J Armed Forces India. 2007;63(4):341–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(07)80011-6.
Zhang Y, Kam WR, Liu Y, et al. Influence of pilocarpine and timolol on human meibomian gland epithelial cells. Cornea. 2017;36(6):719–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001181.
Radian AB. Erosive marginal keratitis due to pilocarpine allergy. Oftalmologia. 1999;47(2):83–4.
Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(4):418–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.4.418.
Helin-Toiviainen M, Ronkko S, Puustjarvi T, et al. Conjunctival matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93(2):165–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12550.
Aragona P, Di Pietro R, Spinella R, et al. Conjunctival epithelium improvement after systemic pilocarpine in patients with Sjogren’s syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(2):166–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.078865.
Lusthaus JA, Goldberg I. Brimonidine and brinzolamide for treating glaucoma and ocular hypertension; a safety evaluation. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16(9):1071–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1346083.
Osborne SA, Montgomery DM, Morris D, et al. Alphagan allergy may increase the propensity for multiple eye-drop allergy. Eye (Lond). 2005;19(2):129–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701441.
Schuman JS, Horwitz B, Choplin NT, et al. A 1-year study of brimonidine twice daily in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. A controlled, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Chronic Brimonidine Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(7):847–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100160017002.
Terai N, Muller-Holz M, Spoerl E, et al. Short-term effect of topical antiglaucoma medication on tear-film stability, tear secretion, and corneal sensitivity in healthy subjects. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:517–25. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S18849.
Manni G, Centofanti M, Sacchetti M, et al. Demographic and clinical factors associated with development of brimonidine tartrate 0.2%-induced ocular allergy. J Glaucoma. 2004;13(2):163–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200404000-00014.
Serle JB. A comparison of the safety and efficacy of twice daily brimonidine 0.2% versus betaxolol 0.25% in subjects with elevated intraocular pressure. The Brimonidine Study Group III. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;41(Suppl 1):S39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82030-3.
Hwang HB, Kim SY, Ohn K, et al. Histopathologic analysis of conjunctival lymphoproliferative disease after topical brimonidine use. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2019;35(9):503–11. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2019.0037.
Shin HY, Lee HS, Lee YC, et al. Effect of brimonidine on the B cells, T cells, and cytokines of the ocular surface and aqueous humor in rat eyes. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(10):623–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2015.0067.
Tsukamoto H, Noma H, Mukai S, et al. The efficacy and ocular discomfort of substituting brinzolamide for dorzolamide in combination therapy with latanoprost, timolol, and dorzolamide. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(5):395–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2005.21.395.
DeSantis L. Preclinical overview of brinzolamide. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(Suppl 2):S119–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6257(99)00108-3.
Noguchi T, Kawasaki S, Mizoue S, et al. Mechanism of blurred vision after brinzolamide instillation. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2010;114(4):369–73.
Zhao JC, Chen T. Brinzolamide induced reversible corneal decompensation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(3):389–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.049544.
Adamsons I. Irreversible corneal decompensation in patients treated with topical dorzolamide. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(6):774–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(99)00349-9.
Tanimura H, Minamoto A, Narai A, et al. Corneal edema in glaucoma patients after the addition of brinzolamide 1% ophthalmic suspension. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005;49(4):332–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-004-0197-1.
Wirtitsch MG, Findl O, Heinzl H, et al. Effect of dorzolamide hydrochloride on central corneal thickness in humans with cornea guttata. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(10):1345–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.125.10.1345.
Ammar DA, Kahook MY. The effects of combination glaucoma medications on ocular surface epithelial cells. Adv Ther. 2009;26(10):970–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-009-0076-8.
Brinzolamide IM. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008;9(4):653–62. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.9.4.653.
Adamsons IA, Polis A, Ostrov CS, et al. Two-year safety study of dorzolamide as monotherapy and with timolol and pilocarpine. Dorzolamide Safety Study Group. J Glaucoma. 1998;7(6):395–401.
Strahlman E, Tipping R, Vogel R. A double-masked, randomized 1-year study comparing dorzolamide (Trusopt), timolol, and betaxolol. International Dorzolamide Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(8):1009–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100080061030.
Gupta R, Vernon SA. An unusual appearance of limbal conjunctival follicles in a patient on brimonidine and dorzolamide. Eye (Lond). 2005;19(3):356–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701498.
Wu JH, Chang SN, Nishida T, et al. Intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and ocular safety of Rho-kinase inhibitor in glaucoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review of prospective randomized trials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(3):937–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05379-7.
Bhargava M, Sen S, Bhambhani V, et al. Reticular epithelial corneal edema as a novel side-effect of Rho kinase inhibitors: an Indian scenario. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70(4):1163–70. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_2865_21.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, et al. Risk factors to develop ocular surface disease in treated glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23(3):296–302. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000220.
Lopes NLV, Gracitelli CPB, Chalita MR, et al. Ocular surface evaluation after the substitution of benzalkonium chloride preserved prostaglandin eye drops by a preservative-free prostaglandin analogue. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2019;8(1):52–6.
Rogov AG, Goleva TN, Sukhanova EI, et al. Mitochondrial dysfunctions may be one of the major causative factors underlying detrimental effects of benzalkonium chloride. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2020;2020:8956504. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8956504.
Jaenen N, Baudouin C, Pouliquen P, et al. Ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative-free glaucoma medications. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17(3):341–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/112067210701700311.
Goldberg I, Graham SL, Crowston JG, et al. 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(3):214–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12431.
Kanamoto T, Kiuchi Y, Tanito M, et al. Comparison of the toxicity profile of benzalkonium chloride-preserved tafluprost and SofZia-preserved travoprost applied to the ocular surface. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(3):156–64. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2014.0104.
Ammar DA, Kahook MY. Effects of glaucoma medications and preservatives on cultured human trabecular meshwork and non-pigmented ciliary epithelial cell lines. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(10):1466–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300012.
Liang H, Pauly A, Riancho L, et al. Toxicological evaluation of preservative-containing and preservative-free topical prostaglandin analogues on a three-dimensional-reconstituted corneal epithelium system. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(6):869–75. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.189449.
Ye J, Wu H, Zhang H, et al. Role of benzalkonium chloride in DNA strand breaks in human corneal epithelial cells. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(11):1681–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1755-0.
Debbasch C, Brignole F, Pisella PJ, et al. Quaternary ammoniums and other preservatives’ contribution in oxidative stress and apoptosis on Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(3):642–52.
Garcia-Feijoo J, Munoz-Negrete FJ, Hubatsch DA, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of benzalkonium chloride-free travoprost in glaucoma patients switched from benzalkonium chloride-preserved latanoprost or bimatoprost. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:2085–91. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S112711.
Shedden A, Adamsons IA, Getson AJ, 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(12):1757–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1397-7.
Chen W, Hu J, Zhang Z, et al. Localization and expression of zonula occludins-1 in the rabbit corneal epithelium following exposure to benzalkonium chloride. PLoS One. 2012;7(7): e40893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040893.
Chen W, Dong N, Huang C, et al. Corneal alterations induced by topical application of commercial latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost in rabbit. PLoS One. 2014;9(3): e89205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089205.
Chen W, Zhang Z, Hu J, et al. Changes in rabbit corneal innervation induced by the topical application of benzalkonium chloride. Cornea. 2013;32(12):1599–606. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a8196f.
Ayaki M, Iwasawa A, Inoue Y. Toxicity of antiglaucoma drugs with and without benzalkonium chloride to cultured human corneal endothelial cells. Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;4:1217–22. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S13708.
Barabino S, Antonelli S, Cimbolini N, et al. The effect of preservatives and antiglaucoma treatments on the ocular surface of mice with dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6499–504. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-14548.
Baratz KH, Nau CB, Winter EJ, et al. Effects of glaucoma medications on corneal endothelium, keratocytes, and subbasal nerves among participants in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Cornea. 2006;25(9):1046–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000230499.07273.c5.
Martone G, Frezzotti P, Tosi GM, et al. An in vivo confocal microscopy analysis of effects of topical antiglaucoma therapy with preservative on corneal innervation and morphology. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(4):725–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.10.019.
Saini M, Vanathi M, Dada T, et al. Ocular surface evaluation in eyes with chronic glaucoma on long term topical antiglaucoma therapy. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10(6):931–8. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2017.06.16.
Noecker R, Miller KV. Benzalkonium chloride in glaucoma medications. Ocul Surf. 2011;9(3):159–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1542-0124(11)70025-8.
Friedlaender MH, Breshears D, Amoozgar B, et al. The dilution of benzalkonium chloride (BAK) in the tear film. Adv Ther. 2006;23(6):835–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02850204.
Tressler CS, Beatty R, Lemp MA. Preservative use in topical glaucoma medications. Ocul Surf. 2011;9(3):140–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1542-0124(11)70024-6.
Epstein SP, Ahdoot M, Marcus E, et al. Comparative toxicity of preservatives on immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009;25(2):113–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2008.0098.
Albietz JM, Bruce AS. The conjunctival epithelium in dry eye subtypes: effect of preserved and non-preserved topical treatments. Curr Eye Res. 2001;22(1):8–18. https://doi.org/10.1076/ceyr.22.1.8.6977.
Huang C, Wang H, Pan J, et al. Benzalkonium chloride induces subconjunctival fibrosis through the COX-2-modulated activation of a TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(12):8111–22. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-14504.
Labbé A, Gabison E, Brignole-Baudouin F, et al. Increased extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer (EMMPRIN) expression in the conjunctival epithelium exposed to antiglaucoma treatments. Curr Eye Res. 2015;40(1):40–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2014.915574.
Walsh K, Jones L. The use of preservatives in dry eye drops. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:1409–25. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S211611.
Actis AG, Rolle T. Ocular surface alterations and topical antiglaucomatous therapy: a review. Open Ophthalmol J. 2014;8:67–72. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101408010067.
Kumar S, Singh T, Ichhpujani P, et al. Correlation of ocular surface disease and quality of life in Indian glaucoma patients: BAC-preserved versus BAC-free travoprost. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2020;50(2):75–81. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2019.29000.
Aihara M, Ikeda Y, Mizoue S, et al. Effect of switching to travoprost preserved with Sofzia in glaucoma patients with chronic superficial punctate keratitis while receiving BAK-preserved latanoprost. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):e610–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000265.
Ammar DA, Noecker RJ, Kahook MY. Effects of benzalkonium chloride-preserved, polyquad-preserved, and sofZia-preserved topical glaucoma medications on human ocular epithelial cells. Adv Ther. 2010;27(11):837–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-010-0070-1.
Kaur IP, Lal S, Rana C, et al. Ocular preservatives: associated risks and newer options. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2009;28(3):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569520902995834.
Kim JH, Kim EJ, Kim YH, et al. In vivo effects of preservative-free and preserved prostaglandin analogs: mouse ocular surface study. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015;29(4):270–9. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2015.29.4.270.
Kumar S, Singh T, Ichhpujani P, et al. Ocular surface disease with BAK preserved travoprost and polyquaternium 1(polyquad) preserved travoprost. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2019;63(3):249–56.
Peace JH, Ahlberg P, Wagner M, et al. Polyquaternium-1-preserved travoprost 0.003% or benzalkonium chloride-preserved travoprost 0.004% for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(2):266–2674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.041.
Dutescu RM, Panfil C, Schrage N. Comparison of the effects of various lubricant eye drops on the in vitro rabbit corneal healing and toxicity. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2017;69(3):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2016.12.002.
Mundorf T, Wilcox KA, Ousler GW 3rd, et al. Evaluation of the comfort of Alphagan P compared with Alphagan in irritated eyes. Adv Ther. 2003;20(6):329–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02849799.
Katz LJ. Twelve-month evaluation of brimonidine-purite versus brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(2):119–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200204000-00007.
Noecker RJ, Herrygers LA, Anwaruddin R. Corneal and conjunctival changes caused by commonly used glaucoma medications. Cornea. 2004;23(5):490–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000116526.57227.82.
Dong JQ, Babusis DM, Welty DF, et al. Effects of the preservative purite on the bioavailability of brimonidine in the aqueous humor of rabbits. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20(4):285–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/1080768041725326.
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(1):21–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2019.1680685.
Uusitalo H, Egorov E, Kaarniranta K, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S91402.
Aptel F, Pfeiffer N, Schmickler S, 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(6):498–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001248.
Ruangvaravate N, Choojun K, Srikulsasitorn B, et al. Ocular surface changes after switching from other prostaglandins to tafluprost and preservative-free tafluprost in glaucoma patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3109–19. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S264984.
Hommer A, Mohammed Ramez O, Burchert M, et al. IOP-lowering efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free tafluprost 0.0015% among patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(8):1905–13. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2010.492030.
Erb C, Lanzl I, Seidova SF, et al. Preservative-free tafluprost 0.0015% in the treatment of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Adv Ther. 2011;28(7):575–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-011-0038-9.
Lanzl I, Hamacher T, Rosbach K, et al. Preservative-free tafluprost in the treatment of naive patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:901–10. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S41640.
Chabi A, Baranak C, Lupinacci R, et al. Preservative-free tafluprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in India: a phase III clinical trial. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70(7):577–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12815.
Hommer A, Kimmich F. Switching patients from preserved prostaglandin-analog monotherapy to preservative-free tafluprost. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:623–31. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S17876.
Januleviciene I, Derkac I, Grybauskiene L, et al. Effects of preservative-free tafluprost on tear film osmolarity, tolerability, and intraocular pressure in previously treated patients with open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:103–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S28104.
Craven ER, Walters T, Christie WC, et al. 24-month phase I/II clinical trial of bimatoprost sustained-release implant (Bimatoprost SR) in glaucoma patients. Drugs. 2020;80(2):167–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-019-01248-0.
Medeiros FA, Walters TR, Kolko M, et al. Phase 3, randomized, 20-month study of bimatoprost implant in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (ARTEMIS 1). Ophthalmology. 2020;127(12):1627–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.018.
Belamkar A, Harris A, Zukerman R, et al. Sustained release glaucoma therapies: novel modalities for overcoming key treatment barriers associated with topical medications. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):343–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2021.1955146.
Perera SA, Ting DS, Nongpiur ME, et al. Feasibility study of sustained-release travoprost punctum plug for intraocular pressure reduction in an Asian population. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:757–64. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S102181.
Singh RB, Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, et al. Promising therapeutic drug delivery systems for glaucoma: a comprehensive review. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2020;12:2515841420905740. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515841420905740.
Fukuchi T, Wakai K, Suda K, et al. Incidence, severity and factors related to drug-induced keratoepitheliopathy with glaucoma medications. Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;4:203–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s9716.
Baudouin C, Renard JP, Nordmann JP, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for ocular surface disease among patients treated over the long term for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000181.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L, et al. Ocular surface disease and glaucoma: how to evaluate impact on quality of life. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2013;29(4):390–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2011.0159.
Hollo G, Topouzis F, Fechtner RD. Fixed-combination intraocular pressure-lowering therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension: advantages in clinical practice. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15(12):1737–47. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2014.936850.
Aptel F, Cucherat M, Denis P. Efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000009.
Inoue K, Shiokawa M, Sugahara M, et al. Three-month evaluation of dorzolamide hydrochloride/timolol maleate fixed-combination eye drops versus the separate use of both drugs. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56(6):559–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-012-0186-8.
Zhao JL, Ge J, Li XX, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. BMC Ophthalmol. 2011;11:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-11-23.
Choudhri S, Wand M, Shields MB. A comparison of dorzolamide-timolol combination versus the concomitant drugs. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(6):832–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00717-0.
Hollo G, Hommer A, Anton Lopez A, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost 0.0015%/timolol 0.5% versus concomitant use of the ingredients. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;30(6):468–75. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2013.0229.
Pfeiffer N, Traverso CE, Lorenz K, et al. A 6-month study comparing efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost 0.0015% and timolol 0.5% versus each of its individual preservative-free components. Adv Ther. 2014;31(12):1228–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3.
Hollo G, Vuorinen J, Tuominen J, et al. Fixed-dose combination of tafluprost and timolol in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: comparison with other fixed-combination products. Adv Ther. 2014;31(9):932–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0151-7.
Chinese Branch of the Asian Dry Eye Society, Ocular Surface and Tear Film Diseases Group of Ophthalmology Committee of Cross-Straits Medicine Exchange Association, Ocular Surface and Dry Eye Group of Chinese Ophthalmologist Association. Chinese expert consensus on dry eye: dry eye related to drugs (2021). Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2021;57(10):734–42. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112142-20210726-00350.
Amrane M, Creuzot-Garcher C, Robert PY, et al. Ocular tolerability and efficacy of a cationic emulsion in patients with mild to moderate dry eye disease—a randomised comparative study. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2014;37(8):589–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2014.05.001.
Fukuoka S, Arita R. Tear film lipid layer increase after diquafosol instillation in dry eye patients with meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized clinical study. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9091. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45475-7.
Jin SW, Min JS. Clinical evaluation of the effect of diquafosol ophthalmic solution in glaucoma patients with dry eye syndrome. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2016;60(3):150–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-016-0430-8.
Guo Y, Ha JY, Piao HL, et al. The protective effect of 3% diquafosol on meibomian gland morphology in glaucoma patients treated with prostaglandin analogs: a 12-month follow-up study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01550-6.
Kim EC, Choi JS, Joo CK. A comparison of vitamin A and cyclosporine a 0.05% eye drops for treatment of dry eye syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(2):206–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.08.015.
Gomes JAP, Azar DT, Baudouin C, et al. TFOS DEWS II iatrogenic report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):511–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.004.
Ajith TA. Alpha-lipoic acid: a possible pharmacological agent for treating dry eye disease and retinopathy in diabetes. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2020;47(12):1883–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.13373.
Wu Y, Jin X, Mou Y, et al. A 4-week, randomized, double-masked study to evaluate efficacy of deproteinized calf blood extract eye drops versus sodium hyaluronate 0.3% eye drops in dry eye patients with ocular pain. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(4):3617–25. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-1453.
Agnifili L, Brescia L, Oddone F, et al. The ocular surface after successful glaucoma filtration surgery: a clinical, in vivo confocal microscopy, and immune-cytology study. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):11299. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47823-z.
Baudouin C. Ocular surface and external filtration surgery: mutual relationships. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:67–79. https://doi.org/10.1159/000458487.
Vaajanen A, Nattinen J, Aapola U, et al. The effect of successful trabeculectomy on the ocular surface and tear proteomics-a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(2):160–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14526.
Baiocchi S, Mazzotta C, Sgheri A, et al. In vivo confocal microscopy: qualitative investigation of the conjunctival and corneal surface in open angle glaucomatous patients undergoing the XEN-Gel implant, trabeculectomy or medical therapy. Eye Vis (Lond). 2020;7:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-020-00181-8.
Acknowledgements
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant Numbers 81970801 to XD]; the Hunan Province research and development plan funding projects in key areas [Grant Numbers 2020SK2133 to XD]; the Science and Technology Foundation of Changsha, Hunan, China [Grant Numbers kh1801229 to XD]; the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China [Grant Numbers 2019JJ40001 to XD]; and the Science and Technology Foundation of Aier Eye Hospital Group, China [Grant Numbers AR1906D1, AM1906D2 to XD]. The National Natural Science Foundation of China is funding the journal’s Rapid Service Fees.
Editorial, Medical Writing, and Other Assistance
The authors wish to thank China Santen Medical Affairs [China Santen Medical Affairs, Santen Pharmaceutical (China) Co., Ltd.] for providing assistance.
Author Contributions
Xuanchu Duan proposed and designed the study. Xinyue Zhang searched the literature. Xiaoyu Zhou drafted the manuscript. Dengming Zhou and Yang Zhao revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Disclosures
Xiaoyu Zhou, Xinyue Zhang, Dengming Zhou, Yang Zhao and Xuanchu Duan confirm that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
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.
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, X., Zhang, X., Zhou, D. et al. A Narrative Review of Ocular Surface Disease Related to Anti-Glaucomatous Medications. Ophthalmol Ther 11, 1681–1704 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00557-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00557-0