ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of this study is to explore and compare the prevailing practice patterns in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma among subspecialists and general ophthalmologists in India. Materials and Methods: This is an interactive audience response system (ARS) based poll of ophthalmologists attending the annual conference of the Glaucoma Society of India in 2013. Results: The information was obtained from 379 ophthalmologists (146 glaucoma specialists, 54 nonglaucoma subspecialists, and 179 general ophthalmologists). The majority of polled ophthalmologists (236; 62%) had 10 or more years of experience in ophthalmology. The glaucoma specialists differed from nonglaucomatologists in their preference for Goldmann applanation tonometer (P < 0.01), four‑mirror gonioscope (P < 0.01), Humphrey perimeter (P < 0.01), laser peripheral iridotomy in primary angle closure disease (P = 0.03), postiridotomy gonioscopy (P < 0.01), and usage of antifibrotic agents during filtering surgery (P < 0.01). Optical coherence tomography was the most preferred imaging modality and was utilized more often by the subspecialists than general ophthalmologists. The ophthalmologists also differed in their choice of antiglaucoma medications. More glaucoma specialists were performing surgery on children with congenital glaucoma (P < 0.01), implanting glaucoma drainage devices (P < 0.01), and using scientific journals to upgrade knowledge (P = 0.03) than the other ophthalmologists. Conclusions: This poll is the first of its kind in India, in its usage of the ARS, and in comparing the practice patterns of care for glaucoma among subspecialists and general ophthalmologists. It has revealed substantial diversity in a few areas among those who did and did not receive specialty training in glaucoma.
ABSTRACT
Context: Peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS; synechiae anterior to functional trabecular meshwork) formation in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) hampers access to uveoscleral outflow. Thus, the role of bimatoprost in such patients with 360° synechiae was evaluated. Aims: To assess efficacy and safety profile of bimatoprost 0.03% in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in 360° synechial angle-closure glaucoma patients. Settings and Design: This was a prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative, selective analysis, single-center pilot study. Materials and Methods: A total of 23 eyes of 20 Indian chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG) patients with IOP greater than 21 mmHg, 360° PAS and no visual potential in the study eye underwent detailed eye examination. Baseline IOP was measured and YAG peripheral iridotomy was performed for complete angle-closure reconfirmation. Bimatoprost 0.03% was administered for 8 weeks as once-daily evening dose. IOP reduction within treatment group was determined with “paired t-test”. Results: The mean reduction in IOP from baseline to 8 weeks of bimatoprost therapy was 15.3 ± 9.5 mmHg (P < 0.001). The most commonly observed adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (35%). Bimatoprost was well tolerated in the study. Conclusions: In this study, exclusively involving patients with 360° synechial angle-closure glaucoma and no visual potential, bimatoprost 0.03% treatment demonstrated a statistically significant IOP reduction. Hence, it can be inferred that bimatoprost 0.03% is an efficacious treatment modality in this subgroup of patients for reducing IOP.