METHODS: A randomised controlled trial in a parallel, single-blinded study involving 60 OAG patients was conducted. The patients were randomised into FCDT or NFDT based on a block randomisation technique. A pre-study run-in with Gutt timolol was administered for two weeks. IOP was assessed at baseline, month 1 and month 3, with a bottle weight measurement at month 3.
RESULTS: Only 55 OAG patients were analysed, with 8.4% dropping out. A statistically significant mean IOP reduction was observed in each group from baseline to month 1 (FCDT: mean difference [MD] = 4.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.00, 5.86); NFDT: MD = 4.92, 95% CI = 4.024, 5.82) and from baseline to month 3 (FCDT: MD 5.17, 95% CI = 4.19, 6.15; NFDT: MD = 4.85, 95% CI = 3.874, 5.82). The overall FCDT mean IOP was significantly lower by 1.02 mmHg (95% CI = -2.01, -0.02) than NFDT (F(1, 53) = 4.19; P = 0.046). A significant interaction was observed between time and treatment at month 3, with the mean IOP for FCDT being lower by 1.22 mg than for NFDT (P = 0.037). The mean adherence score was significantly higher in the FCDT group than in the NFDT group (t stat (df) = 3.88 (53); P < 0.001). The reduction in IOP between the groups became non-significant after adherence was adjusted (F(1, 52) = 2.45; P = 0.124).
CONCLUSION: Both drugs showed a decrease in IOP but more so in FCDT. However, no difference was found in terms of medication adherence. An emphasis on treatment compliance is needed.
DESIGN: A combined cross-sectional and prospective study on PAC and PACG.
METHODS: A total of 35 eyes were included in the study for each group of normal control, PAC, and PACG patients from eye clinics in Kota Bharu, state of Kelantan, Malaysia, from January 2007 to November 2009. The PAC and PACG patients were divided into thin and thick CCT groups. They were followed up for 12 to 18 months for visual field progression assessment with their mean Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) score.
RESULTS: The CCT was 516.8 ± 26.0 µm for PAC and 509.7 ± 27.4 µm for PACG. Both were significantly thinner compared with the control group with CCT of 540 ± 27.8 µm (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the mean AGIS score after 12.9 ± 1.7 months of follow-up in the thin CCT group for PACG (P = 0.002). However, no significant increase in the mean AGIS score was found for the thick CCT group in PACG and for both thin and thick CCT in PAC.
CONCLUSIONS: The PAC and PACG had statistically significant thinner CCT compared with the controls. Thin CCT was associated with visual field progression based on the mean AGIS score in PACG.