TY - JOUR
T1 - A video study of drop instillation in both glaucoma and retina patients with visual impairment
AU - Hennessy, Amy L.
AU - Katz, Joanne
AU - Covert, David
AU - Kelly, Colleen A.
AU - Suan, Eric P.
AU - Speicher, Matthew A.
AU - Sund, Newman J.
AU - Robin, Alan L.
N1 - Funding Information:
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Publication of this article was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Alcon Research Ltd , Fort Worth, Texas. Drs Hennessy, Katz, Suan, Speicher, and Sund and Ms Kelly indicate no financial conflict of interest. Dr Robin is a consultant to Merck, Glaucos, Transcend, and Pfizer; speaks for Allergan, Merck, Lumenis, and Pfizer; and has performed research for Alcon, Merck, and Vistakon. Mr Covert is an employee of Alcon Research Ltd. Involved in Design of study (A.L.H., D.C., A.L.R.); Conduct of study (A.L.H., C.A.K., A.L.R.); Collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data (A.L.H., J.K., C.A.K., A.L.R.); and Preparation, review, or approval of manuscript (A.L.H., J.K., D.C., C.A.K., E.P.S., M.A.S., N.J.S., A.L.R.). The Southwest Independent Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol. The study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. 00760240).
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - Purpose: To compare self-administration of drops in both visually impaired glaucoma subjects and retina subjects. Design: Prospective, observational study. Methods: Setting: Distinct glaucoma and retina practices. Study Population: Subjects with glaucoma or retinal diseases with visual acuity of 20/60 or worse in 1 eye, significant field loss, or both. Observation Procedures: Subjects were video recorded self-instilling a drop onto the worse eye. Main Outcome Measure: Proper instillation of eye drop onto ocular surface. Results: We included 409 subjects (205 glaucoma, 204 retina). Differences between the groups included the following: glaucoma subjects included fewer females (P =.05), included fewer white persons (P <.005), had worse visual acuity (P <.005), had less self-reported arthritis (P <.05), were younger (P <.005), and had more previous exposure to drop use (P <.005). Glaucoma subjects had more bilateral impairment (60% vs 42%; P <.0005). Retina subjects instilled more drops (1.7 vs 1.4; P =.02) and more frequently touched the bottle to the eye (47% vs 33%; P =.003). Of subjects claiming not to miss the eye, nearly one third from each group (P =.32) actually missed. Approximately one third of each group could not get a drop onto the eye (30% retina vs 29% glaucoma; P =.91). Among subjects placing 1 drop onto the eye without touching the adnexae, there was a trend for glaucoma patients to perform better, although both groups did poorly (success, 39% glaucoma vs 31% retina; P =.09). Conclusions: Among visually impaired subjects, regardless of cause, drop administration was a problem. Both groups wasted drops, contaminated bottles, and had inaccurate perception of their abilities. This has implications for future therapeutic delivery systems.
AB - Purpose: To compare self-administration of drops in both visually impaired glaucoma subjects and retina subjects. Design: Prospective, observational study. Methods: Setting: Distinct glaucoma and retina practices. Study Population: Subjects with glaucoma or retinal diseases with visual acuity of 20/60 or worse in 1 eye, significant field loss, or both. Observation Procedures: Subjects were video recorded self-instilling a drop onto the worse eye. Main Outcome Measure: Proper instillation of eye drop onto ocular surface. Results: We included 409 subjects (205 glaucoma, 204 retina). Differences between the groups included the following: glaucoma subjects included fewer females (P =.05), included fewer white persons (P <.005), had worse visual acuity (P <.005), had less self-reported arthritis (P <.05), were younger (P <.005), and had more previous exposure to drop use (P <.005). Glaucoma subjects had more bilateral impairment (60% vs 42%; P <.0005). Retina subjects instilled more drops (1.7 vs 1.4; P =.02) and more frequently touched the bottle to the eye (47% vs 33%; P =.003). Of subjects claiming not to miss the eye, nearly one third from each group (P =.32) actually missed. Approximately one third of each group could not get a drop onto the eye (30% retina vs 29% glaucoma; P =.91). Among subjects placing 1 drop onto the eye without touching the adnexae, there was a trend for glaucoma patients to perform better, although both groups did poorly (success, 39% glaucoma vs 31% retina; P =.09). Conclusions: Among visually impaired subjects, regardless of cause, drop administration was a problem. Both groups wasted drops, contaminated bottles, and had inaccurate perception of their abilities. This has implications for future therapeutic delivery systems.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81855205010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81855205010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.015
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 21821228
AN - SCOPUS:81855205010
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 152
SP - 982
EP - 988
JO - American journal of ophthalmology
JF - American journal of ophthalmology
IS - 6
ER -