Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Hedengran, Anne; Steensberg, Alvilda T.; Virgili, Gianni; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto; Kolko, Miriam.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 104, No. 11, 2020, p. 1512–1518.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Hedengran, A, Steensberg, AT, Virgili, G, Azuara-Blanco, A & Kolko, M 2020, 'Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis', British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 104, no. 11, pp. 1512–1518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623

APA

Hedengran, A., Steensberg, A. T., Virgili, G., Azuara-Blanco, A., & Kolko, M. (2020). Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(11), 1512–1518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623

Vancouver

Hedengran A, Steensberg AT, Virgili G, Azuara-Blanco A, Kolko M. Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;104(11):1512–1518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623

Author

Hedengran, Anne ; Steensberg, Alvilda T. ; Virgili, Gianni ; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto ; Kolko, Miriam. / Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma : a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 ; Vol. 104, No. 11. pp. 1512–1518.

Bibtex

@article{e645d8a4fad7497181f573f0006e3866,
title = "Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background/aims: This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study. Results: Of 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI-0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI-0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting. Conclusion: No clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.",
keywords = "drugs, glaucoma, intraocular pressure, ocular surface",
author = "Anne Hedengran and Steensberg, {Alvilda T.} and Gianni Virgili and Augusto Azuara-Blanco and Miriam Kolko",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "1512–1518",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "B M J Group",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Hedengran, Anne

AU - Steensberg, Alvilda T.

AU - Virgili, Gianni

AU - Azuara-Blanco, Augusto

AU - Kolko, Miriam

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background/aims: This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study. Results: Of 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI-0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI-0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting. Conclusion: No clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.

AB - Background/aims: This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study. Results: Of 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI-0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI-0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting. Conclusion: No clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.

KW - drugs

KW - glaucoma

KW - intraocular pressure

KW - ocular surface

U2 - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623

DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32051133

AN - SCOPUS:85079825844

VL - 104

SP - 1512

EP - 1518

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 11

ER -

ID: 237613430