Advertisement

Ophthalmika

  • Martin J. Lohse

Zusammenfassung

Bei den Ophthalmika dominieren seit vielen Jahren die Glaukommittel, die neben den „klassischen“ Betarezeptorenblockern vor allem neuere Therapieprinzipien umfassen, wie selektive Alpha2-Agonisten, lokal wirkende Carboanhydrasehemmer und vor allem Prostaglandinderivate. Bei den meisten übrigen Gruppen von Ophthalmika sind die Verordnungen durch das GKV-Modernisierungsgesetz 2004 drastisch gesunken. Im Jahre 2013 sind die Verordnungen von Ophthalmika wiederum in fast allen Arzneimittelgruppen leicht angestiegen. Als Neuentwicklungen für die antineovaskuläre Therapie hat sich neben dem viel diskutierten anti-neovaskulären Antikörper Ranibizumab (Lucentis) mit dem Aflibercept (Eylea) ein weiterer VEGF-Antagonist unter den verordnungshäufigsten Arzneimitteln etabliert.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Investigators AGIS (2000) The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 130:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrens-Baumann W, Begall T (1993) Antiseptics versus antibiotics in the treatment of the experimental conjunctivitis caused by staphylococcus aureus. Ger J Ophthalmol 2:409–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielory L (2002) Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm. Drugs 62:1611–1634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bielory L, Lien KW, Bigelsen S (2005) Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Drugs 65:215–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas P, Sengupta S, Choudhary R, Home S, Paul A, Sinha S (2011) Comparative role of intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in choroidal neovascular membrane in age-related macular degeneration. Indian J Ophthalmol 59:191–196PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CATT Research Group (2011) Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. New Engl J Med 364:1897–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Research Group, Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, Ying GS, Jaffe GJ, Grunwald JE, Toth C, Redford M, Ferris FL 3rd (2012) Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology 119:1388–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalita MR, Hofling-Lima AL, Paranhos A Jr, Schor P, Belfort R Jr (2004) Shifting trends in in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities for common ocular isolates during a period of 15 years. Am J Ophthalmol 137:43–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costagliola C, dell’Omo R, Romano MR, Rinaldi M, Zeppa L, Parmeggiani F (2009a) Pharmacotherapy of intraocular pressure: part I. Parasympathomimetic, sympathomimetic and sympatholytics. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10:2663–2677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costagliola C, dell’Omo R, Romano MR, Rinaldi M, Zeppa L, Parmeggiani F (2009b) Pharmacotherapy of intraocular pressure - part II. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, prostaglandin analogues and prostamides. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10:2859–2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cvetkovic RS, Perry CM (2003) Brinzolamide: a review of its use in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 20:919–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danesh-Meyer HV (2011) Neuroprotection in glaucoma: recent and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 22:78–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietlein TS, Hermann MM, Jordan JF (2009) Medikamentöse und chirurgische Therapie des Glaukoms. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 106:597–606PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Doughty MJ, Glavin S (2009) Efficacy of different dry eye treatments with artificial tears or ocular lubricants: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:573–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elshout M, van der Reis MI, Webers CA, Schouten JS (2014): The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. (im Druck) PMID: 24777708Google Scholar
  16. European GS: Terminologie und Handlungsrichtlinien für die Glaukome. 3.rd ed. (2008), DOGMA, Savona, Italien (www.eugs.org/eng/EGS_guidelines.asp)Google Scholar
  17. Everett SL, Kowalski RP, Karenchak LM, Landsittel D, Day R, Gordon YL (1995) An in vitro comparison of the susceptibilities of bacterial isolates from patients with conjunctivitis and blepharitis to newer and established topical antibiotics. Cornea 14:382–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Everitt HA, Little PS, Smith PW (2006): A randomised controlled trial of management strategies for acute infective conjunctivitis in general practice. Brit med J 333: 321Google Scholar
  19. Feiner L, Piltz-Seymour JR; Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (2003) Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: a summary of results to date. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 14:106–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gharbiya M, Giustolisi R, Allievi F, Fantozzi N, Mazzeo L, Scavella V, Gabrieli CB (2010) Choroidal neovascularization in pathologic myopia: intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab – a randomized controlled trial. Am J Ophthalmol 149(458–464):e–1Google Scholar
  21. Giardini F, Grandi G, De Sanctis U, Eandi C, Machetta F, Pollino C, Grignolo FM (2011) In vitro susceptibility to different topical ophthalmic antibiotics of bacterial isolates from patients with conjunctivitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 19:419–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Göbbels M, Gross D (1996) Klinische Studie der Wirksamkeit einer Dexpanthenol-haltigen künstlichen Tränenflüssigkeit (Siccaprotect) bei der Behandlung des trockenen Auges. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 209:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg I (2002) Should beta blockers be abandoned as initial monotherapy in chronic open angle glaucoma? The controversy. Br J Ophthalmol 86:691–692PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg I, Crowston JG, Jasek MC, Stewart JA, Stewart WC; ADAPT Study Investigator Group (2012) Intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of brinzolamide when added to travoprost/timolol fixed combination as adjunctive therapy. J Glaucoma 21:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granet DB, Dorfman M, Stroman D, Cockrum P (2008) A multicenter comparison of polymyxin B sulfate/trimethoprim ophthalmic solution and moxifloxacin in the speed of clinical efficacy for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 45:340–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grehn F (2008) Chirurgie des primären Offenwinkelglaukoms. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 225:30–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greiner JV, Michaelson C, McWhirter CL, Shams NB (2002) Single dose of ketotifen fumarate .025% vs 2 weeks of cromolyn sodium 4% for allergic conjunctivitis. Adv Ther 19:185–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grieshaber MC, Flammer J (2010) Is the medication used to achieve the target intraocular pressure in glaucoma therapy of relevance? – An exemplary analysis on the basis of two beta-blockers. Prog Retin Eye Res 29:79–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunther JB, Altaweel MM (2009) Bevacizumab (avastin) for the treatment of ocular disease. Surv Ophthalmol 54:372–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haas W, Hesje CK, Sanfilippo CM, Morris TW (2011) High proportion of nontypeable Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates among sporadic, nonoutbreak cases of bacterial conjunctivitis. Curr Eye Res 36:1078–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanioglu-Kargi S, Basci N, Soysal H, Bozkurt A, Gursel E, Kayaalp O (1998) The penetration of ofloxacin into human aqueous humor given by various routes. Eur J Ophthalmol 8:33–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Herkel U, Pfeiffer N (2001) Update on topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 12:88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodge WG, Lachaine J, Steffensen I, Murray C, Barnes D, Foerster V, Ducruet T, Morrison A (2008) The efficacy and harm of prostaglandin analogues for IOP reduction in glaucoma patients compared to dorzolamide and brimonidine: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol 92:7–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holz F, Martini B (2007) Pegaptanib. Intravitreale Injektion bei neovaskulärer altersabhängiger Makuladegeneration. Arzneimitteltherapie 25:47–50Google Scholar
  35. Hwang DG, Schanzlin DJ, Rotberg MH, Foulks G, Raizman MB; Levofloxacin Bacterial Conjunctivitis Place-controlled Study Group (2003) A phase III, placebo controlled clinical trial of 0.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Br J Ophthalmol 87:1004–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Isenberg SJ, Apt L, Valenton M, Del Signore M, Cubillan L, Labrador MA et al (2002) A controlled trial of povidone-iodine to treat infectious conjunctivitis in children. Am J Ophthalmol 134:681–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson WB, Low DE, Dattani D, Whitsitt PF, Leeder RG, MacDougall R (2002) Treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis: 1% fusidic acid viscous drops vs. 0.3% tobramycin drops. Can J Ophthalmol 37:228–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jansen RM (2013) The off-label use of medication: the latest on the Avastin - Lucentis debacle. Med Law 32:65–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jiang S, Park C, Barner JC (2014) Ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis of dose effects and comparison with no anti-VEGF treatment and bevacizumab. J Clin Pharm Ther 39:234–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP et al (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:701–713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kass MA, Gordon MO, Gao F, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JK, Miller JP, Parrish RK, Wilson MR; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group (2010) Delaying treatment of ocular hypertension: the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol 128:276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katz LJ (1999) Brimonidine tartrate 0.2% twice daily vs timolol 0.5% twice daily: 1-year results in glaucoma patients. Brimonidine Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 127:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koss MJ, Eder M, Blumenkranz MS, Klauss V, Ta CN, de Kaspar HM (2007) Wirksamkeit neuer Fluorchinolone gegenüber der bakteriellen Normalflora der Bindehaut. Ophthalmologe 104:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krebs I, Schmetterer L, Boltz A, Told R, Vécsei-Marlovits V, Egger S, Schönherr U, Haas A, Ansari-Shahrezaei S, Binder S; MANTA Research Group (2013) A randomised double-masked trial comparing the visual outcome after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 97:266–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krupin T, Liebmann JM, Greenfield DS, Ritch R, Gardiner S; Low-Pressure Glaucoma Study Group (2011) A randomized trial of brimonidine versus timolol in preserving visual function: results from the Low-Pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 151:671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lai DS, Lue KH, Hsieh JC, Lin KL, Lee HS (2002) The comparison of the efficacy and safety of cetirizine, oxatomide, ketotifen, and a placebo for the treatment of childhood perennial allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 89:589–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lynch SS, Cheng CM (2007) Bevacizumab for neovascular ocular diseases. Ann Pharmacother 41:614–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maguire MG, Daniel E, Shah AR, Grunwald JE, Hagstrom SA, Avery RL, Huang J, Martin RW, Roth DB, Castellarin AA, Bakri SJ, Fine SL, Martin DF; Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT Research Group) (2013): Incidence of Choroidal Neovascularization in the Fellow Eye in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials. Ophthalmology im Druck doi:pii: S0161-6420(13)00241–8. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.03.017Google Scholar
  49. Mantadakis E, Maraki S, Michailidis L, Gitti Z, Pallikaris IG, Samonis G (2013) Antimicrobial susceptibility of Gram-positive cocci isolated from patients with conjunctivitis and keratitis in Crete, Greece. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 46:41–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Messmer EM (2012) Bakterielle Konjunktivitis - Update zu Diagnose und Therapie. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 229:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Niziol LM, Lichter PR, Varma R; CIGTS Study Group (2011) Intraocular pressure control and long-term visual field loss in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 118:1766–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Noble S, McTavish D (1995) Levocabastine. An update of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy and tolerability in the topical treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Drugs 50:1032–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nordlund JR, Pasquale LR, Robin AL et al (1995) The cardiovascular, pulmonary, and ocular hypotensive effects of 0.2% brimonidine. Arch Ophthalmol 113:77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Brien TP, Maguire MG, Fink NE, Alfonso E, McDonnell P (1995) Efficacy of ofloxacin vs cefazolin and tobramycin in the therapy for bacterial keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 113:1257–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Orden Martinez B, Martinez Ruiz R, Millan Perez R (2004) Bakterielle Konjunktivitis: Prävalenz von Pathogenen und ihre Antibiotikaresistenz [Artikel auf Spanisch]. An Pediatr (Barc) 61:32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP and the XLT Study Group (2003) A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol 135:688–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parrish RK, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC, Lichter PR, Musch DC; CIGTS Optic Disc Study Group (2009) Five-year follow-up optic disc findings of the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 147:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Perry CM, McGavin JK, Culy CR, Ibbotson T (2003) Latanoprost: an update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 20:597–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pfeiffer N (2005) Ergebnisse der “Ocular hypertension treatment study” (OHTS). Ophthalmologe 102:230–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pfeiffer N, TATS (Travatan Adjunctive Treatment Study) group (2011) Timolol versus brinzolamide added to travoprost in glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1065–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quigley HA (1996) Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Brit J Ophthalmol 80:389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ravinet E, Mermoud A, Brignoli R (2003) Four years later: a clinical update on latanoprost. Eur J Ophthalmol 13:162–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ray KJ, Srinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Ravindran M, Glidden DV, Oldenburg CE, Sun CQ, Zegans ME, McLeod SD, Acharya NR, Lietman TM (2014) Early addition of topical corticosteroids in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. JAMA Ophthalmol 132:737–741PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, Sloos JH, van Weert HC (2004): Predicting bacterial cause in infectious conjunctivitis: cohort study on informativeness of combinations of signs and symptoms. Brit med J 329: 206–210Google Scholar
  65. Robert PY, Adenis JP (2001) Comparative review of topical ophthalmic antibacterial preparations. Drugs 61:175–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rose P (2007) Management strategies for acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care: a systematic review. Expert Opin Pharmacother 8:1903–1921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenfeld PJ (2011) Bevacizumab versus Ranibizumab – The Verdict. New Engl J Med 364:1966–1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schachar RA, Raber S, Courtney R, Zhang M (2011) A phase 2, randomized, dose-response trial of taprenepag isopropyl (PF-04217329) versus latanoprost 0.005% in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Curr Eye Res 36:809–817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schalnus R (2003) Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologica 217:89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Kaiser PK, Korobelnik JF, Brown DM, Chong V, Nguyen QD, Ho AC, Ogura Y, Simader C, Jaffe GJ, Slakter JS, Yancopoulos GD, Stahl N, Vitti R, Berliner AJ, Soo Y, Anderesi M, Sowade O, Zeitz O, Norenberg C, Sandbrink R, Heier JS (2014): Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: ninety-six-week results of the VIEW studies. Ophthalmology 121: 193–201Google Scholar
  71. Schwab IR, Friedlaender M, McCulley J, Lichtenstein SJ, Moran CT; Levofloxacin Bacterial Conjunctivitis Active Control Study Group (2003): A phase III clinical trial of 0.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution versus 0.3% ofloxacin ophthalmic solution for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 110: 457–465Google Scholar
  72. Sena DF, Ramchand K, Lindsley K (2010): Neuroprotection for treatment of glaucoma in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010: CD006539Google Scholar
  73. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B, van Schayck CP, McLean S, Nurmatov U (2012): Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012: CD001211Google Scholar
  74. Shiuey Y, Ambati BK, Adamis AP (2000) A randomized, double-masked trial of topical ketorolac versus artificial tears for treatment of viral conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 107:1512–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sorensen SJ, Abel SR (1996) Comparison of the ocular beta-blockers. Ann Pharmacother 30:43–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Srinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Ravindran M, Lalitha P, Glidden DV, Ray KJ, Hong KC, Oldenburg CE, Lee SM, Zegans ME, McLeod SD, Lietman TM, Acharya NR; Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial Group (2012) Corticosteroids for bacterial keratitis: the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial (SCUT). Arch Ophthalmol 130:143–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Srinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Ravindran M, Lalitha P, O’Brien KS, Glidden DV, Ray KJ, Oldenburg CE, Zegans ME, Whitcher JP, McLeod SD, Porco TC, Lietman TM, Acharya NR; Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial Group (2014) The steroids for corneal ulcers trial (SCUT): secondary 12-month clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Ophthalmol 157(327–333):e–3Google Scholar
  78. Stein JD, Newman-Casey PA, Mrinalini T, Lee PP, Hutton DW (2014) Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 121:936–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Subramanian ML, Ness S, Abedi G, Ahmed E, Daly M, Feinberg E, Bhatia S, Patel P, Nguyen M, Houranieh A (2009) Bevacizumab vs ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: early results of a prospective double-masked, randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 148(875–882):e–1Google Scholar
  80. Szaflik J, Szaflik JP, Kaminska A; Levofloxacin Bacterial Conjunctivitis Dosage Study Group (2009) Clinical and microbiological efficacy of levofloxacin administered three times a day for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Eur J Ophthalmol 19:1–9Google Scholar
  81. The IVAN Study Investigators Writing Committee: Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Wordsworth S, Reeves BC (2012) Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology 119:1399–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Uusitalo H, Pillunat LE, Ropo A (2010) Efficacy and safety of tafluprost 0.0015% versus latanoprost 0.005% eye drops in open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: 24-month results of a randomized, double-masked phase III study. Acta Ophthalmol 88:12–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wand M, Gilbert CM, Liesegang TJ (1999) Latanoprost and herpes simplex keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol 127:602–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wang SK, Chang RT (2014) An emerging treatment option for glaucoma: Rho kinase inhibitors. Clin Ophthalmol 8:883–890PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Watson PG, Barnett MF, Parker V, Haybittle J (2001) A 7 year prospective comparative study of three topical beta blockers in the management of primary open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 85:962–968PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Webers CA, Beckers HJ, Nuijts RM, Schouten JS (2008) Pharmacological management of primary open-angle glaucoma: second-line options and beyond. Drugs Aging 25:729–759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT (2004) Primary open-angle glaucoma. The Lancet 363:1711–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitson JT (2007) Glaucoma: a review of adjunctive therapy and new management strategies. Expert Opin Pharmacother 8:3237–3249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wright M, Butt Z, McIlwaine G, Fleck B (1997) Comparison of the efficacy of diclofenac and betamethasone following strabismus surgery. Brit J Ophthalmol 81:299–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yildirim N, Sahin A, Gultekin S (2008) The effect of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost on circadian variation of intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 17:36–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin J. Lohse
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Pharmakologie und ToxikologieUniversität WürzburgWürzburg

Personalised recommendations