Near Vision Improvement with the Use of a New Topical Compound for Presbyopia Correction: A Prospective, Consecutive Interventional Non-Comparative Clinical Study

Non-Miotic Improvement in Binocular Near Vision with a Topical Compound Formula for Presbyopia Correction

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this case series was to examine the association between unaided binocular visual acuity for near vision and pupil change after the instillation of a special topical formulation for presbyopia treatment.

METHODS

This was a case series consisting of consecutive participants with presbyopia aged 40-70 years who were tested for visual acuity and pupil diameter before and 2 h after instillation of a formulation of pilocarpine and phenylephrine drops (FOV Tears) for presbyopia. Participants underwent subjective refraction, photopic and scotopic pupil diameter measurement and unaided monocular and binocular visual acuity testing by logMAR for distance and near vision both pre- and post-instillation of eye drops.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 363 subjects (n = 176 women, 48%) with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 50.4 ± 5.8 years. Mean spherical equivalent (SE) changed significantly (- 0.17 Diopters) after instillation of the FOV Tears formulation (p < 0.001). Post-instillation of eye drops, the scotopic pupil diameter decreased by 0.97 ± 0.98 mm, and the near visual acuity by logMAR improved significantly by nearly two lines (p < 0.01). In the linear regression analyses, age (p < 0.001) and SE pre-drop instillation (p < 0.001) were associated with unaided binocular visual acuity. The changes in photopic pupil diameter and the scotopic pupil diameter were not associated with unaided binocular visual acuity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the pilocarpine and phenylephrine formulation (FOV Tears) improved binocular visual acuity for near vision in presbyopic patients, and the effect was independent of pupil change.

Pharmacological Treatments for Presbyopia

Accommodation is the change in dioptric power of the eye. It is a dynamic process that allows focusing on an object at all distances. In order to focus sharply, three physiological responses, known as the triad of accommodation, are produced by a change in pupil size, a change in shape and position of the lens, and ocular convergence. This is modulated by the autonomic nervous system, mainly the parasympathetic nervous system. Presbyopia is a refractive condition that occurs with aging, usually manifesting around 40-50 years of age, and is a result of the loss of accommodation in the eye, causing loss of visual performance when focusing on objects placed at different distances, starting with near vision. Glasses, contact lenses, surgical approaches and now pharmacological treatments are accepted methods of treating presbyopia. Pharmacological treatment is a promising new noninvasive option for treating presbyopia. Currently there are three pharmacological approaches to the treatment of presbyopia. The first one aims to produce miosis and, from a pinhole effect, increase depth of focus, and therefore improve uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). The second one addresses rehabilitating accommodation in a binocular way, allowing good vision at all distances. Finally, the third strategy uses lipoic acid to restore the lost elasticity of the lens. All of these pharmacological treatments are topical non-invasive eyedrops, with no serious adverse effects having been reported with any of the strategies, and require the right patient selection process to fulfill expectations and needs. The aim of this article is to provide an update on recent advances in this field.

New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies

Presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eyes focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual’s requirements. Hence, it is more about the impact it has on an individual’s visual ability to function in their environment to maintain their lifestyle than a measured loss of focusing ability. Presbyopia has a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life and emotional state. While a range of amelioration strategies exist, they are often difficult to access in the developing world and prescribing is generally not optimal even in developed countries. This review identified the need for a standardised definition of presbyopia to be adopted. An appropriate battery of tests should be applied in evaluating presbyopic management options and the results of clinical trials should be published (even if unsuccessful) to accelerate the provision of better outcomes for presbyopes.

Correction of presbyopia

Presbyopia, a progressive visual difficulty caused by weakened physiological regulation, is one of the main causes of visual impairment in people over 40 years old. Currently, the main methods of correction of presbyopia include optical correction, surgical correction, and drug treatment, which can improve the visual nearness disorder to some extent. Optical correction is the most common way with advantages of safety, which can adjust the lens parameters at any time, while cause kinds of inconvenience in life by wearing and taking off glasses frequently. Surgical intervention, including corneal surgery, lens surgery and scleral surgery, with certain advantages and disadvantages in each operation style. New pharmaceutical agents are expected to be a new and effective method for the treatment of presbyopia, but it lacks multicenter randomized controlled trials and evidence-based medicine evidence to evaluate the safety and effectiveness.

Pharmacological treatment of presbyopia: A systematic review

The aim of this study was to identify the efficacy of drug agents for pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia. Published research papers were reviewed using the relevant terms in PubMed, Science direct, Google scholar, Medline, Google patent, Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus. In the initial search, 2270 records were obtained. By removing duplicate articles and all articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria or were inappropriate due to indirect relevance to the subject, 44 studies were selected. It should be noted that all studies had inclusion criteria. There are a number of topical pharmacological agents available for treating presbyopia such as FOV Tears and PresbiDrop. They consist of parasympathetic agent and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to contract the ciliary and pupil muscle and restore the accommodation. Another example of topical pharmacological agent is EV06. It is a lens-softening eye drop which can affect the rigid lens in presbyopia. Currently there is no pharmacological agent available to treat presbyopia. Although there are limited number of peer-reviewed articles available, the outcome for future agents under investigation are promising.

Exploring the Experience of Living With and Managing Presbyopia

SIGNIFICANCE

Presbyopia typically occurs around 40 years of age and affects approximately one-quarter of the global population. Up to October 2021, there were no approved pharmacotherapies for presbyopia and common treatments, such as glasses, can have disadvantages for individuals' health-related quality of life.

PURPOSE

To document the experience of living with and managing presbyopia, identify perspectives on treatment options, and determine whether there is an unmet need in the treatment landscape.

METHODS

Coded transcripts of concept elicitation (CE; N = 20) and cognitive debriefing (CD; N = 20) interviews with presbyopic individuals, originally conducted for development of patient-reported outcome instruments, were reanalyzed to identify salient concepts describing participants' experiences with presbyopia treatments. Qualitative ranking exercises assessed participants' preferences for a potential pharmacotherapy versus existing treatments.

RESULTS

As most concepts were identified with the CE interviews, data reflect CE findings unless otherwise noted. Average age across CE/CD interviews was 49.4 years; a vast majority of participants used glasses for presbyopia treatment. Four themes related to treatment with glasses were identified with the interviews: inconvenience during daily activities, negative physical sensations around the eyes/head, limitations, and undesirable impacts on daily life (e.g., psychosocial). Most commonly, participants reported inconveniences related to forgetting glasses and psychosocial impacts (e.g., feeling/looking older). Strained/tired eyes and limited ability to see at varying distances were also reported. Among participants with near-vision glasses who provided data, two thirds expressed interest in alternative treatments. Additionally, almost three quarters of the participants ranked hypothetical eye drops as their first or second preferred option, versus reading glasses, contact lenses, magnifying glasses, and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explored the experience of living with and managing presbyopia, identified limitations and negative impacts of current treatments. Pharmacological development (e.g., eye drops) may fulfill an unmet need in the presbyopia treatment landscape.

Pharmacological Treatment in Presbyopia

Pharmacological treatment of presbyopia may be an alternative for those who want a spectacle-free scenario and an easy-to-use method with lower risk of irreversible ocular adverse events. There are two main agents, miotics and lens softeners, investigated as agents for the pharmacological treatment. Miotic agents treat presbyopia by creating a pinhole effect which may increase the depth of focus at all working distances. The miotic agents have been studied for application to only one eye for monovision or both eyes. Their effect is temporary with common adverse events, such as headache and dim vision at nighttime, with no known long-term safety and efficacy. There have been studies on the miotic agents in combination with other agents for additive treatment effects or lessening adverse events, however, these combination effects are not clear. Lens softeners increase the elasticity of the lens, which is targeted at one of the etiologic mechanisms of presbyopia. There is only one lens softener being investigated in only a few trials. The results were inconclusive. The recent approval of 1.25% pilocarpine for treatment of presbyopia by the US FDA may be an important milestone for investigation of real-world data of pharmacological treatment of presbyopia.

Presbyopia Treatments by Mechanism of Action: A New Classification System Based on a Review of the Literature

Presbyopia, a loss of accommodative ability associated with aging, is a significant cause of vision impairment globally. At the clinical level, it is a frustrating and difficult issue that negatively impacts patients’ quality of life. Less appreciated is the fact that loss of accommodative ability and its current treatments methods may present safety concerns, for example, increasing the risk of falls. Therefore, a more complete understanding of treatment options with respect to how they relate to the natural ability of the eye is needed to improve decision making and to aid clinicians in individualizing treatment options. This article reviews the options for expanding functional through focus—a term coined to describe the ability of the eye to see at all distances with minimal latency—by how they vary the refractive power over time, across the visual field, between eyes, or across a range of distances.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/HZw7qvIu6pw

Pharmacological strategies for treating presbyopia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Presbyopia is the normal progressive loss of accommodation, which leads to the inability to focus clearly on objects located at different distances. Some of the accepted methods for treating this condition are glasses, contact lenses, and surgery. Pharmacological treatments are a new and promising noninvasive option for dealing with presbyopia. The aim of this review is to provide an update on some recent advances in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, there are three different strategies for the pharmacological treatment of presbyopia. The first one aims to produce miosis and increase depth of focus through a pinhole effect, therefore improving uncorrected near visual acuity. The second one tries to restore the elasticity the lens has lost due to aging. Finally, the third strategy is based on rehabilitating accommodation; which is to say, in a binocular way, allowing for good vision at all distances.

SUMMARY

Pharmacological treatments are a new alternative that expands the diversity of existing strategies for treating presbyopia. These treatments are based on the instillation of eyedrops with different compositions, which vary according to the different strategies. Many of these developments will most likely be on the market in the next few years. If the process of patient selection is done properly, any one of these three strategies can be used successfully.

A multicentric study of pharmacological treatment for presbyopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction with a pharmacological treatment of presbyopia performed with the Benozzi's method.

METHODS

A non-randomized multicentric case-series retrospective study was developed. Were included patients from 5 centers of Argentina, from January 2010 to June 2019, aged at baseline between 40 and 60 years old, with binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 25/20 or better, and with uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at least Jaeger (J) 2 or worse. The treatment was performed with a patented formulation (pilocarpine and diclofenac preservative-free eye drops). The main outcome was binocular UNVA and UDVA. Differences were evaluated by paired t-test. The presence of side effects and patient's satisfaction were also evaluated. Data was analyzed in separated groups according to their follow-up time, from 2 to 10 years.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were included. At baseline, the UNVA for the different groups were between J3 and J8 which was improved to J1 to J2. The mean baseline UDVA has been ranged between 0.02 and 0.04 logMAR. The mean baseline UDVA has been ranged between 0.02 to 0.04 logMAR, after treatment were between 0.01 to 0.03, without a statisticallysignificant improvement. Side effects were spontaneously resolved, and subjective evaluation shows that patients were satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

This first multicentric shows that Benozzi's method for presbyopia treatment was safety and improves the UNVA without affecting the UDVA, maintaining their efficacy even after 10 years, in a population aged between 40 and 60 years old, from different ophthalmic centers in Argentina.

Pharmacological Therapy for Presbyopia in Patients with Previous Corneal Refractive Surgery: A Pilot Study

Purpose

To perform a pilot evaluation of a novel pharmacological therapy for presbyopia in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

This interventional study included 130 presbyopic patients. The patients were divided into three groups: (1) LASIK group, which included patients with previous LASIK for myopia or hyperopia; (2) previous presbyopia surgery group, including patients with previous monovision or PresbyLASIK (PresbyMAX, SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany); and (3) control group, which included presbyopes without any corneal refractive procedure. The main reason for dividing them into groups is that we hypothesized that the previous presbyopia surgery group may have better outcomes as the patients already have an increased depth of field. The uncorrected near and distance visual acuity was measured before and 2 hours after the binocular instillation of the eye drop (FOV tears), as well as the objective scatter index (OSI), and pupil diameter in photopic and scotopic conditions. Side effects were reported as well.

Results

There was a statistically significant improvement in the uncorrected near vision in all groups (p = 0.001). Ninety-one percent of the patients included in this study gained at least one line in near vision. All patients in the previous presbyopia surgery group gained at least one line in near vision. Six patients (13.9%) in the LASIK group and five (7.6%) in the control group did not gain any lines of near vision. There was no significant difference in the OSI, there was a significant change in pupil size in scotopic conditions in all groups (p = 0.001), and 5.3% of the patients reported having a headache as a side effect of the therapy.

Conclusions

Topical treatment with this pharmacological therapy offers a potential for near vision improvement in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery, especially in those with previous presbyopia surgery.

Presbyopia Treatment With Eye Drops: An Eight Year Retrospective Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy across time, of patients topically treated with Benozzi's method for presbyopia.

Methods

A nonrandomized case series retrospective study was developed, including patients with emmetropia with binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 25/20 or better, and with uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at least Jaeger 2 or worse. The study was set in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from January 2011 to June 2018, with at least 1-year follow-up. Patients were treated with pilocarpine and diclofenac preservative-free eye drops (Benozzi Method; US 8.524.758 B2, EP1.938.839 B1), and the main outcome measured was binocular UNVA at different follow-up times. Other parameters, as the UDVA and presence of side effects, were evaluated.

Results

A total of 910 patients were included with a mean age at baseline of 48.67 ± 3.72 years old (range, 40–59 years). The baseline UNVA was 4.74 ± 1.53 and at 8 years of follow-up was decreased to 1.36 ± 0.48 (Jaeger scale). The mean binocular UDVA at baseline was 0.00 ± 0.01 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and after 8 years of follow-up was 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR. All side effects reported (decrease of light perception, headaches, symptoms of ocular surface dryness, and dizziness) were spontaneously resolved in patients who continued with the treatment.

Conclusions

The efficacy of the pharmacological treatment of presbyopia to improve the UNVA without affecting the UDVA is shown. Side effects were well tolerated and resolved before 1 year of treatment.

Translational Relevance

This is a nonsurgical option for patients with emmetropic presbyopia who do not wish to wear glasses, which is a pharmacological treatment with eye drops.

A Review of Pharmacological Presbyopia Treatment

Presbyopia reduces an individual's ability to perform visual tasks at near distances. It is a global problem, affecting over a billion people worldwide. Contact lenses, glasses, refractive surgery, and intraocular lens surgery are the main modalities in presbyopia treatment, although they all have some disadvantages. Thus, there is an increasing need for effective, easy-to-use, and noninvasive approaches for treating presbyopia while not limiting patients' daily activities. Pharmacological presbyopia treatment as an alternative method has been under investigation in recent years. We reviewed all relevant articles using the keywords "presbyopia," "presbyopia treatment," "pharmacological presbyopia treatment," and "presbyopic corrections" from 2010 to February 9, 2020, and summarized the main results of clinical trials, investigating the drops used for presbyopia treatment.