Patients with Low Vision Struggle with Placing Eye Drops and Benefit from an Eye Drop Aid

PURPOSE

To evaluate eye drop self-administration in a low-vision patient population and test whether a nose-pivoted drop delivery device (NPDD, GentleDrop) can improve eye drop delivery in these patients.

DESIGN

Repeated-measures case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty subjects (58 eyes) with low vision, defined as best-corrected visual acuity worse than 20/60 or visual field worse than 20° in the better-seeing eye.

METHODS

We video-recorded subjects while self-administering eye drops using their own traditional delivery at baseline, after a standardized teaching, and with an NPDD. Two masked graders independently reviewed each drop delivery. Primary success was defined as the drop reaching the eye without the bottle touching the eye or eyelids. Subjects rated ease-of-use (1-10 scale, 10 = easiest) after each drop delivery and completed a satisfaction survey, which included asking whether subjects could place drops independently (1-5 scale, 5 = most independent).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Logistic-transformed generalized estimating equation regression to compare technique satisfaction, ease-of-use, independence, no contact, and success.

RESULTS

Primary success was observed in 30 (52%) of 58 eyes at baseline and increased to 44 eyes (76%) with an NPDD (P = 0.013). Bottle tip contact occurred in 23 (40%) of 58 eyes at baseline and 8 eyes (14%) with an NPDD (P = 0.004). Mean ease-of-use scores were 6.7 ± 3.1 at baseline and 8.3 ± 1.8 (P < 0.001) with an NPDD. Likewise, the NPDD improved success, bottle tip contact, and ease-of-use compared with post-teaching traditional delivery (P < 0.01). Twenty-two (73%) of 30 subjects preferred the NPDD to traditional delivery. Twenty-nine (97%) thought the NPDD was comfortable to use, and all would recommend the device. A subgroup analysis was performed on 16 subjects that self-reported difficulty instilling drops at baseline. The NPDD showed similar results, and it increased confidence in placing drops independently (4.6 ± 0.9) compared with baseline (2.7 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). Fifteen (94%) subjects in this subgroup preferred the NPDD.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-vision subjects struggled to self-administer eye drops. An NPDD can improve bottle tip contact, ease-of-use, satisfaction, and independence. Eye care providers could consider screening low-vision patients about difficulty with eye drop self-administration and recommending eye drop aids.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Identifying and addressing common contributors to nonadherence with ophthalmic medical therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss common reasons for nonadherence and review existing and emerging options to reduce nonadherence with ocular medical therapy and optimize therapeutic outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonadherence can arise from patient-related issues (e.g. physical, cognitive) and healthcare-related issues (e.g. cost, access to care). Multiple strategies have been developed and evaluated to overcome these barriers to adherence. Identifying nonadherence and its cause(s) facilitates the development of strategies to overcome it.

SUMMARY

Many common causes of nonadherence can be mitigated through a variety of strategies presented.

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Conventional Drug Instillation to A Device Dropper Method in Medical Treatment of Glaucoma

PURPOSE

To compare and analyze the performance of a device dropper (DD) over conventional drop instillation (CDI) method on ease of administration, compliance, patient satisfaction, and intraocular pressure (IOP) control in persons with glaucoma on ocular hypotensive medications.

METHODS

We enrolled 72 individuals with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, on treatment with fixed combination (α agonist+β blocker) drugs for at least 6 months. These were randomized into two groups (36 in each arm). Group 1 administered the drug with a DD and Group 2 used CDI method. Recruited individuals were interviewed for subjective difficulties using a formatted questionnaire at first month follow-up and IOP change from baseline was evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and ocular characteristics were similar in both groups. 57.1% in the conventional instillation and none in the DD had reported difficulty in using the eye drops on follow-up visit. DD group had significantly less spillage and contamination of eye surface or dropper tips, required minimal assistance, accurately targeted on first drop placement directly into the eye compared to CDI group (p-value<0.001). Mean IOP was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

DD instillation method was observed to be easier to administer, more accurate in targeting the conjunctival cul-de-sac, reduced wastage with lesser contamination compared to the CDI technique. DDs may be expected to have better compliance and effectiveness in medical management of glaucoma.

A Comparison of Patient Acceptance of 3 Eye Drop Instillation Aids

PRECIS

Patients can be quite amenable to using eye drop instillation aids. We should consider recommending these devices to patients who otherwise struggle with drop instillation and medication adherence.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare patient acceptance of 3 commercially available eye drop instillation aids in a diverse tertiary care population.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized controlled study, 39 patients being treated with topical antihypertensives were assigned to Arm A (no intervention) or Arm B (AutoDrop, AutoSqueeze, or SimplyTouch). Subjects in Arm B were instructed to administer their eye drop with the assigned drop aid at every use for ~6 weeks. Satisfaction surveys were administered at 3 and 6 weeks, where patients also reported the number of drops missed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two of 39 subjects completed study participation and full data analysis. Within this total group, 24 subjects were randomized to drop aids (AutoDrop N=10, AutoSqueeze N=8, SimplyTouch N=6), and 8 were randomized to no drop aid. At the 3 and 6-week timepoints, patients found instillation easier with AutoDrop (70.0%, 60.0%) followed by the AutoSqueeze (62.5%, 75.0%), and lastly SimplyTouch (33.3%, 33.3%). For the AutoSqueeze, the mean number of drops missed with and without the drop aid were significantly different (P=0.015 at 3 wk, P=0.008 at 6 wk). There was no difference in the mean number of drops missed with the AutoDrop and SimplyTouch at either timepoint.

CONCLUSIONS

For the AutoDrop and AutoSqueeze groups, over 60% of the patients found the devices helpful and would consider using them long-term. Our results suggest that patients would be amenable to using eye drop instillation aids, although more objective data is needed to determine whether these devices would improve medication compliance and clinical outcomes.

The Design and Development of an Eye Drop Aid for Glaucoma Patients

Visual impairment is an important public health problem. A cataract is the most common eye disease, and surgical methods are mostly used. Unlike a cataract, glaucoma may lead to permanent loss of vision and can be treated appropriately using eye drops. In this study, the researchers aimed to create, design, and develop a device called “Eye Drop Aid of Naresuan University (EDANU).” This research employed mixed methods using an in-depth interview and questionnaire, which were conducted with a group of 10 experts to provide preliminary data for the design and a group of 20 volunteers to test the efficacy and safety of the EDANU compared with the instructions of the Xal-Ease™ eye drop administration and instructions as recommended by the Pharmacy Council of Thailand in the laboratory. It was found that the EDANU, which was designed and developed as a prototype using thermoplastic polyurethane, which is a highly flexible material, was more accurate, reliable, and safer than the Xal-Ease eye drop administration. The EDANU displayed efficient statistical significance and proved to be safe for using in the laboratory.This was a device that could help glaucoma patients and their caregivers have a better quality of life because this device was more accurate, reliable, and safer than the other two methods. However, the EDANU is still in the process of prototype development, and, in the future, it would still be necessary to study with a human clinical trial.

Novel Eye Drop Delivery Aid Improves Outcomes and Satisfaction

PURPOSE

To compare a nose-pivoted drop delivery device (NPDD) with traditional eye drop delivery in glaucoma subjects.

DESIGN

Repeated-measures case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty glaucoma subjects (100 eyes) who reported difficulty self-administering eye drops.

METHODS

We compared eye drop delivery using a NPDD against traditional delivery techniques at baseline (baseline traditional) and after standardized teaching (post-teaching traditional). Subjects used a 1-to-10 scale (10 being easiest) to rate the ease of delivery with each technique and completed a satisfaction survey. Two graders used digital video to independently review eye drop delivery and recorded: (1) accurate placement: the eye drop reached the ocular surface; (2) no contact: no bottle tip contact against the ocular or periocular surface; and (3)number of eye drops dispensed. We defined primary success as accurate placement and no contact; secondary success as primary success with only 1 drop dispensed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used logistic-transformed generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression to compare technique satisfaction, accuracy, no contact, and primary and secondary success. Number of drops dispensed was compared using a Cox model.

RESULTS

Forty-seven of 50 subjects (94%) preferred the NPDD over traditional eye drop delivery. The mean score for ease of use was higher for the NPDD (8.9 ± 1.1) than baseline traditional (6.7 ± 2.1; P < 0.001) and post-teaching traditional (7.0 ± 2.0; P < 0.001). Forty-nine of 50 (98%) subjects thought the NPDD was comfortable to use and would recommend the device. The eye drop reached the ocular surface in a similar percentage of subjects (>90%) with each method. The bottle tip contacted fewer eyes with the NPDD (10 eyes) than baseline traditional (33 eyes; P < 0.001) and post-teaching traditional (25 eyes; P = 0.009). The number of drops dispensed was lower with the NPDD (1.7 ± 1.2) than baseline traditional (2.2 ± 1.6; P = 0.017) and post-teaching traditional (2.4 ± 1.8; P = 0.006). The NPDD increased primary and secondary success of eye drop delivery (86% and 54%, respectively) compared to baseline traditional (66% [P = 0.001] and 28% [P < 0.001]) and post-teaching traditional (70% [P = 0.005] and 40% [P = 0.018]).

CONCLUSIONS

Eye drop users preferred the NPDD over traditional eye drop delivery. The NPDD improved eye drop delivery success, reduced bottle tip contact, and decreased the number of eye drops wasted.

Improving Adherence to Topical Medication in Patients with Glaucoma

The glaucomas form a heterogenous group of conditions, which collectively account for one of the most common irreversible causes of blindness worldwide. The only treatment, for which there is evidence, to stop or slow glaucomatous disease progression is to lower intraocular pressure (IOP); this is most often initially achieved with topical medication. Adherence to anti-glaucoma therapy is known to be low even when compared with adherence to therapy for other chronic conditions. We performed a PubMed search to review evidence as to how adherence to and persistence with anti-glaucoma medications might be improved. Approaches to improving adherence include technological (such as using smart drop bottles or automated reminders) use of instillation aids, improving communication with patient education and improving tolerability of eye drop formulations. There is limited short-term evidence that automated reminders can be effective and, unfortunately, instillation aids have not proved to be efficacious with respect to improving adherence. A range of factors have been identified which affect adherence and persistence, although only a multi-faceted approach has proven evidence of efficacy, compared to improved patient education alone. There is now a wider range of available preservative-free eye drops, which have been shown to be non-inferior in achieving IOP control, with fewer side effects and improved short-term adherence. Further studies relating to adherence are warranted, particularly given the projected increase in glaucoma prevalence worldwide.

Impact of the Support, Educate, Empower Personalized Glaucoma Coaching Program Pilot Study on Eye Drop Instillation Technique and Self-Efficacy

PURPOSE

To assess the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) personalized glaucoma coaching program impact on (1) eye drop instillation technique and (2) eye drop instillation self-efficacy.

DESIGN

Prospective pre-post pilot study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension taking ≥1 glaucoma medication, ≥40 years old, spoke English, self-administered their eye drops, and ≤80% adherent to their glaucoma medication by electronic monitoring.

METHODS

Eye drop administration was video recorded before the first SEE in-person coaching session, which included teaching eye drop instillation techniques using a motivational interviewing-based approach. At the third and final in-person counseling session 6 months later, eye drop administration was video recorded. Participants' self-efficacy was assessed using the validated Eye Drop Technique Self-Efficacy Scale (EDTSES) survey at baseline and 1 month after completion of the program. Before and after intervention videos were assessed by an observer masked to time point. Before versus after intervention comparisons were made using McNemar's and paired t tests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was change in participants' eye drop instillation technique as measured by (1) accuracy of an eye drop landing on the eye, (2) ability to instill an eye drop on the first attempt, and (3) contaminating the bottle by contact with ocular surface, eyelashes, and skin. The secondary outcome measure was before versus after change in the EDTSES score (6 items, each assessed on a 3-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better self-efficacy).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine participants completed the SEE intervention, 38 with before and after EDTSES scores and 31 with video recordings. Six of 31 participants instilling drops outside the eye before intervention improved their technique after intervention, whereas 2 participants worsened (P = 0.157). From before to after intervention, participants demonstrated significant improvement in not touching the ocular surface (P = 0.046), the eyelashes (P = 0.020), or the skin (P = 0.025) with the bottle tip. A significant increase was found in eye drop instillation self-efficacy from an average score of 2.6 (standard deviation [SD], 0.3) to 2.8 (SD, 0.2) on the EDTSES score (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The SEE program significantly decreased eye drop bottle contamination, increased eye drop instillation self-efficacy, and demonstrated an insignificant increase in ability to instill drops successfully and accurately.

European real-world data about the use of a new delivery system containing a preservative-free multi-dose glaucoma treatment

Background

Glaucoma treatments are mostly presented in uni-dose or multi-dose format. A certain number of patients with visual acuity and dexterity problems may have problems in instilling eye drops.

Aim

To assess patient satisfaction and ease of use of a preservative-free glaucoma treatment (dorzolamide/timolol) in a new and innovative patented multi-dose delivery system.

Methods

Retrospective, international, multicentre, non-interventional study in 788 adult patients using a multi-dose delivery system for at least 28 days.

Results

Mean patient age was 68.1 ± 12.1 years. Mean duration of multi-dose delivery system use was 132.1 ± 125.1 days; 66.5% of the patients previously used multi-dose and 33.5% uni-dose delivery systems (n = 734); 78.3% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the multi-dose delivery system. A significant majority (all p ≤ 0.045) of patients with a QuickDash® score between [0 to 25[ (66.4%, n = 211) and [50 to 75[ (81.8%, n = 11) rated multi-dose delivery system as easy or very easy to open and significantly more subjects in the [0 to 25[ (72%) score group rated multi-dose delivery system as being better or much better than their previous device (n = 211). Significantly (all p < 0.01) more subjects with available visual acuity results rated multi-dose delivery system as good, better or much better than their previous dispensing device.

Conclusion

The tested multi-dose delivery system was highly accepted. It is, therefore, suitable for glaucoma patients with decreased visual acuity and/or dexterity problems. Further studies may be necessary to assess the easiness of use of this easy-to-grip delivery system.

Glaucoma Patient Preferences for Video Education on Eye Drop Technique

SIGNIFICANCE

Glaucoma patients express a strong need for practical instruction on instilling eye drops correctly. To maximize the benefit of a video intervention to improve eye drop technique, patients recommend that video education be provided both in the clinic setting and online.

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to (1) describe glaucoma patients' perspectives on how to improve an online eye drop technique video and how to disseminate it to other glaucoma patients and (2) examine how these perspectives differ across demographics.

METHODS

Glaucoma patients (N = 43) who viewed an online eye drop technique educational video as part of a randomized controlled trial were interviewed to assess their overall rating of the video on a 4-point scale, with whom they had watched the video, whether they would recommend the video to others, how the video helped them, how they would recommend improving the video, and how they would like the video to be disseminated to other glaucoma patients.

RESULTS

Patients' mean (SD) rating of the video was 3.4 (0.8), with a higher mean rating of 3.8 among African Americans (P = .02). All 43 patients said that they would recommend that others watch the video. Patients most commonly said that the video helped them learn to block the tear duct correctly, put the cap down on its side, mix the medication correctly, and close the eye after instillation. Patients preferred viewing the video in the doctor's office examination room and a website.

CONCLUSIONS

Eye drop technique videos should be disseminated in the doctor's office and online. Health systems that integrate educational videos into their everyday practice may be able to use technique videos to improve patient technique at low cost and little time burden to the provider.

Eye drop technique and patient-reported problems in a real-world population of eye drop users

OBJECTIVE

To assess eye drop technique and patient-reported problems with eye drop instillation in a primary care sample of eye drop users.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational study in 136 community pharmacies in Belgium. Patient inclusion criteria were being age ≥ 18 years and using eye drops for ≥ 1 month (to ensure that patients were already familiar with eye drop instillation). Participants demonstrated their eye drop technique and completed a self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 678) had a mean age of 68.9 ± 12.4 years. During the demonstration, almost everyone (98.0%) successfully instilled at least one drop in the eye, although 14% required multiple attempts to achieve this. Only 3% of the sample exhibited perfect drop technique, meaning that they performed correctly all the steps. Most common deviations were touching the bottle to the eye or eyelid (40.7% of patients), and failing to close the eye (67.8%) and perform nasolacrimal occlusion for at least 1 min (94.7%) after drop instillation. Importantly, we found that 20% of ophthalmic suspensions were not shaken before use. Forty percent of patients reported ≥ 1 problem with eye drop instillation. Most common problems were difficulties with getting a drop in the eye (18.3% of patients), too many drops coming out of the bottle (14.6%), and difficulty squeezing the bottle (12.2%). About half of the sample recalled having had education in eye drop instillation technique.

CONCLUSION

This study showed suboptimal eye drop technique in real-world clinical practice. A proactive role of community pharmacists in detecting and resolving these problems could be helpful.

Drop instillation and glaucoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current state of knowledge regarding glaucoma patients' eye drop technique, interventions attempting to improve eye drop technique, and methods for assessing eye drop technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

In observational studies, between 18.2 and 80% of patients contaminate their eye drop bottle by touching their eye or face, 11.3-60.6% do not instill exactly one drop, and 6.8-37.3% miss the eye with the drop. Factors significantly associated with poorer technique include older age, lack of instruction on eye drop technique, female sex, arthritis, more severe visual field defect, lack of positive reinforcement to take eye drops, lower educational level, low self-efficacy, and being seen at a clinic rather than a private practice. Among intervention studies, four of five studies using a mechanical device and three of four studies using educational interventions to improve technique showed positive results, but none of the studies were randomized controlled trials.

SUMMARY

Poor eye drop technique is a significant impediment to achieving good control of intraocular pressure in glaucoma. Both mechanical device interventions and educational interventions offer promise to improve patients' technique, but studies with stronger designs need to be done followed by introduction into clinical practice.

Topical medication instillation techniques for glaucoma

BACKGROUND

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide and the second most common cause of blindness after cataracts. The primary treatment for glaucoma aims to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) with the use of topical medicines. Topical medication instillation techniques, such as eyelid closure and nasolacrimal occlusion when instilling drops, have been proposed as potential methods to increase ocular absorption and decrease systemic absorption of the drops.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of topical medication instillation techniques compared with usual care or another method of instillation of topical medication in the management of glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 December 2016), Embase Ovid (1947 to 8 December 2016), PubMed (1948 to 8 December 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 8 December 2016), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts Database (1970 to 8 December 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 13 May 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (searched 8 December 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (searched 8 December 2016). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which had compared any topical medication instillation technique with usual care or a different method of instillation of topical medication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records from the searches for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We followed methods recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two trials (122 eyes of 61 participants) that had evaluated a topical medication instillation technique. We also identified two ongoing trials. Both included trials used a within-person design and administered prostaglandin monotherapy for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Because the trials evaluated different instillation techniques and assessed different outcomes, we performed no meta-analysis.One trial, conducted in the US, evaluated the effect of eyelid closure (one and three minutes) versus no eyelid closure on lowering IOP. At one to two weeks' follow-up, reduction in IOP was similar in the eyelid closure group and the no eyelid closure group (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 1.5; 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The second trial, conducted in Italy, evaluated the effect of using an absorbent cloth to wipe excess fluid after instillation (fluid removal) versus not using an absorbent cloth (no removal) on reducing dermatologic adverse events. At four months' follow-up, eyelashes were shorter among eyes in the fluid removal group compared with the no fluid removal group (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -3.46 to 0.06; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence). Fewer eyes showed skin hyperpigmentation in the eyelid region towards the nose in the fluid removal group compared with the no removal group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the difference was uncertain in the eyelid region towards the temples (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.66; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect hypertrichosis (excessive hair growth) was uncertain between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.98; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence).Neither trial reported other outcomes specified for this review, including the proportion of participants with IOP less than 21 mmHg; participant-reported outcomes related to the ease, convenience, and comfort of instillation techniques; physiologic measurements of systemic absorption; escalation of therapy; mean change in visual fields; optic nerve progression; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity; proportion in whom glaucoma developed; quality of life outcomes; or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Neither trial reported data at follow-up times of more than four months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of topical medication instillation techniques for treatment of glaucoma is lacking. It is unclear what, if any, effects instillation techniques have on topical medical therapy for glaucoma.

Aids for eye drop administration

One aspect to eye drop adherence is successful instillation of the drops; however, it is well known that many patients struggle with this task. Difficulties may include aiming their drops, extending their neck, preventing excess drop leakage, avoiding contamination of the bottle tip, and generating enough force to expel a drop from the bottle. Instillation aids are devices that aim to ameliorate one or more of these barriers. We review the literature on instillation aids to describe the options available to patients and to report evaluations of their efficacy. Most instillation aids studied improved objective or subjective outcomes of eye drop instillation, including improved rates of successful administration and increased patient satisfaction compared with standard eye-drop bottles. Although further research is warranted, instillation aids may be an underutilized resource for the many patients who struggle to administer their own eye drops.

A novel eye drop application monitor to assess patient compliance with a prescribed regimen: a pilot study

PURPOSE

To assess the ability of a novel imaging device to allow physicians to personalize therapeutic regimens based on objective patient drop administration data.

METHODS

A novel imaging system was used to record video of the drop technique of subjects in clinic (n=25) or at home (n=17) for 1 week. Video assessment by a reading center was compared with patient reporting and their prescribed regimen with respect to how many drops were applied and how many landed in the eye.

RESULTS

Reading center assessment of both drops dispensed and drops landing in the eye was significantly different from the prescribed regimen in the clinic (Pd=0.005, Pi<0.001, respectively) and at-home arms (Pd=0.003, Pi<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This imaging system is a powerful tool to help physicians tailor patient therapy more accurately, to help researchers evaluate new drop therapies with objective rather than subjective data, and to potentially facilitate better patient training for improved drug delivery.

Mirror-hat device as a drop delivery aid: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel mirror-hat drop delivery aid.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty eyes from 30 subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension attending the glaucoma unit at the Toronto Western Hospital.

METHODS

The mirror-hat device consists of a magnifying mirror attached to a brimmed cap. The aid was provided to subjects who self-administered topical antiglaucoma medications. Drop instillation technique (time taken to instill a drop, number of drops dispensed, drop contact location, and contamination of bottle tip) was evaluated with and without the device. Subjects also completed a survey regarding drop administration and satisfaction with the device.

RESULTS

Subjects were less likely to contaminate the bottle tip by touching their eye/eyelid when using the device than without the device (13% vs 37%, respectively, p = 0.02). Twenty-six subjects (86.7%) indicated they could see the drop using the device versus 12 (40%) who reported they saw the drop without the device (p = 0.0005). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the other outcomes. No predictive factors were associated with improved drop administration technique while using the device including uncorrected near-visual acuity, lens status, and glaucoma severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the mirror-hat aid is associated with significantly less bottle-tip contamination and better visualization of the drop than without the device; however, the device did not help to reduce time, number of drops, or accuracy when administering eye drops.

Eye drop instillation technique in patients with glaucoma

AIMS

To evaluate the technique of eye drop instillation in patients with glaucoma and assess factors associated with a good technique.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study of 85 participants using self-administered topical medication for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Patients were asked to demonstrate how they normally instil eye drops using a 5-ml bottle of sterile artificial tear solution. The procedure was recorded and assessed by two masked graders. Whether the patient had been previously shown how to instil drops, the number of eye medications used, and self-perceived difficulty of using drops were also recorded. Univariable logistic regression was performed to relate each variable to drop technique and variables with P<0.2 were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

54.1% (46/85) of patients had a poor drop technique, 11.8% (10/85) missed the eye, 15.3% (13/85) touched the tip of the bottle to the bulbar conjunctiva or cornea, and 27.1% (23/85) touched the eyelid or lashes with the bottle tip. 81.2% (69/85) could not recall being shown how to instil eye drops. In the multivariable model, previous instruction regarding drop instillation technique was significantly associated with good technique (adjusted OR=8.17, 95% CI 2.02-33.05, P=0.003) and increasing age was associated with poor technique (adjusted OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, P=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Education relating to eye drop instillation technique is significantly associated with a patient's ability to instil drops correctly. The assessment of a patient's ability to instil eye drops correctly should be a routine part of the glaucoma examination.

Capturing patients' perspectives of treatment in clinical trials/drug development

The patient's perspective of treatment outcomes is increasingly important to consumers and providers of healthcare. Recent studies have shown that traditional clinical endpoints may not accurately reflect the patient experience with treatment. Often patients' experience of their disease and associated treatment differs from the perspective of their physicians. When implemented with a clear and effective assessment strategy, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to collect data directly from patients in the clinical setting. These data can be applied to a range of outcomes, such as treatment efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. Such information is valuable at various stages of drug development and can be used to understand the patient's perspective of the treatment for evaluating the treatment benefit of new products and to engage patients to make decisions about treatment options and ultimately to support commercialization of pharmaceutical products. Recognizing the value of these data, various regulatory agencies have recently released guidelines on how to best implement these measures in clinical trials to support label claims. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the benefits of collecting PRO data for evaluating the outcomes of treatments in clinical trials, through the product life cycle.