Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Glaucoma / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Many glaucoma patients don't take medication properly, Journal of Ophthalmology

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Norman - 08 Jun 2005 03:07 GMT
Very interesting....

Many glaucoma patients don't take medication properly, Journal of Ophthalmology
02 May 2005

A study that appears in the May edition of Ophthalmology, the clinical journal
of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, shows that as many as 47 percent of
patients receiving glaucoma therapy do not comply with their doctor's prescribed
medicine regimen. This is in startling contrast to the 90 percent of doctors who
believe that their patients are following the prescribed treatment.

"Non-adherence to the glaucoma therapy is probably what causes patients to go
blind," said Alan L. Robin, M.D., author of the study and Academy member. "Cost
of medications, multiple medications, confusing instructions all contribute to a
patient's non-compliance to their therapy."

Dr. Robin refers to a 2003 Harris poll that illustrates this emerging health
concern:

-- One-third of patients surveyed took their medications less often than
directed
-- One-quarter delayed refilling prescriptions
-- One-fifth failed to fill prescriptions
-- One-fifth stopped taking a medication sooner than prescribed

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that worldwide, fifty percent of
patients take medications improperly, at a global cost of more than $100 billion
in resulting hospital admissions and lost productivity.

Dr. Robin's study compares medication refill rates for two groups of glaucoma
patients. The first group takes a single medication for one year without needing
a second medication to control intraocular pressure. The second group takes the
same single glaucoma medication for one year, but then a second glaucoma
medication is added for an additional year. As soon as a second medication is
added, approximately one-half of the second group delayed refilling
prescriptions of the first medication by 5 days or more, and 22 percent waited
an additional 15 days or more to pick up their pills.

"Non-compliance is a bigger problem then we imagined, and glaucoma therapy is
only the tip of the iceberg," added Dr. Robin. "It becomes a life-and-death
situation for doctors to educate and motivate their patients on their therapy
and with glaucoma; this may lead to visual disability and blindness."

Dr. Robin's study suggests that eye diseases including glaucoma are one of the
five conditions at the bottom of the medical condition adherence list. The four
other ailments include renal and pulmonary diseases, diabetes, and sleep
disorders.

Dr. Robin is an associate professor at both the Johns Hopkins University Schools
of Medicine and Public Health. To schedule an interview with Dr. Robin, or to
request a copy of the study titled "Does Adjunctive Glaucoma Therapy Affect
Adherence to the Initial Primary Therapy?" please contact the Academy's media
relations department at 415-561-8534, or at media@aao.org.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology is the world's largest association of eye
physicians and surgeons--Eye M.D.s--with more than 27,000 members. To find an
Eye M.D. in your area, visit the Academy's Web site at http://www.aao.org.

Contact: Media Relations
media@aao.org
415-561-8534
American Academy of Ophthalmology
http://www.aao.org

- ---
Norman
Please reply via group. E-mail ID does not exist.
Sherry - 08 Jun 2005 16:21 GMT
> Very interesting....
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Norman
> Please reply via group. E-mail ID does not exist.

Not at all surprising.  Glaucoma meds are expensive, they don't make
you "feel better" and in many cases do affect the user systemically so
they can feel *worse*.  If there are multiple drops and/or several
instillations per day, it can be cumbersome and time consuming and it's
easy for the patient to lose track of which drops to use when or just
plain forget.  I have always found middle-of-the-day dosing of anything
the hardest to remember.

Medication compliance has long been a problem with glaucoma patients.

Sherry
eyeguyrc@aol.com - 13 Jun 2005 01:22 GMT
Absolutely, Sherry.  You hit the nail on the head.  This is nothing
new.  Studies on patient complaince have been done before, and they
always show that patients seldom use ocular medications as directed.
We don't need to rehash all of the obvious reasons,  but there is no
doubt that many patients in this country lose vision as a result of not
taking their meds.  But what can you do?  How many millions of
Americans smoke even though they are well aware that they are putting
their health at serious risk?  Well here it isn't ones health...it's
their eyesight.  Also, they are not using something that will cause
vision loss, but avoiding the use of something.  It really isn't too
surprising.
--Rick Cohn, MD
Tom - 13 Jul 2005 06:30 GMT
> Very interesting....
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> Norman
> Please reply via group. E-mail ID does not exist.

This study worries me in that I think eye patients are
taking their meds and the data is not showing the
expected prevention of glaucoma.  Hence instead
of questioning the efficacy of the medication, the
assumption is made that patients are not taking their
meds.

In a drug business with big bucks on the line for
the drug companies, one needs to look at all this
with a jaded eye.

The more so since there are no studies on marijuana
drops and further no studies that I have yet been
posted to this group regarding vitamin C.

Also why arent these glaucoma studies posted
to the web?
Dennis - 13 Jul 2005 23:42 GMT
> This study worries me in that I think eye patients are
> taking their meds and the data is not showing the
> expected prevention of glaucoma.  Hence instead
> of questioning the efficacy of the medication, the
> assumption is made that patients are not taking their
> meds.

Heee's back!!

The study cleary shows that non-compliance is a bigger problem than
previously thought. You of course, ignore everything and state that
because "YOU" think differently, the study must be a big lie. The study
documents that although other studies show that in a "real life" patient
enviorment that drops are not as effective as they are thought to be, the
reason appears to be that in "real life", patients are not as compliant
as the other studies assumed they were.

You turn this result on it's head and bold as brass outright LIE and say
the study makes an "assumption" that patients are non-compliant because
YOU believe they are part of the conspiracy to cover up YOUR belief that
medications are ineffective.

Where can we go to start to worship at the altar of TOM the OMNIPOTENT
LIAR?

> In a drug business with big bucks on the line for
> the drug companies, one needs to look at all this
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Also why arent these glaucoma studies posted
> to the web?

You have ignored every previous posting on the uselessness of marijuana
that has been pointed out to you in the past. You are the Otis troll
(sci.med.vision) of alt.support.glaucoma, although you do manage to go
away for awhile, which he doesn't.

Now you are adding Vitamin C to the mix. All the studies referenced in
the quick Google search I just did were 10 - 20 years old, and almost all
of them only indicated (observational, not causual) that Vitamin C users
had less risk of glaucoma. Only one or two studies used massive DAILY
(5,000 to 20,000 milligrams) to lower pressures. The dose was whatever
was needed to give you constant diarrhea (known as the bowel tolerance
limit).

That is almost as practical as needing to take enough marijuana to remain
constantly stoned to be effective, to which you have flippantly replied
that that was better than taking "dangerous" drops.

Exactly how hard did you try to find studies on the internet anyways? Or
did you just make that statement up as well?

Dennis (Glaucoma, Type 2 Diabetes, Kidney Transplant 1995)
Tom - 13 Jul 2005 06:32 GMT
> Very interesting....
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> Norman
> Please reply via group. E-mail ID does not exist.

This study worries me in that I think eye patients are
taking their meds and the data is not showing the
expected prevention of glaucoma.  Hence instead
of questioning the efficacy of the medication, the
assumption is made that patients are not taking their
meds.

In a drug business with big bucks on the line for
the drug companies, one needs to look at all this
with a jaded eye.

The more so since there are no studies on marijuana
drops and further no studies that I have yet been
posted to this group regarding vitamin C.

Also why arent these glaucoma studies posted
to the web?
Tom - 13 Jul 2005 06:32 GMT
> Very interesting....
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> Norman
> Please reply via group. E-mail ID does not exist.

This study worries me in that I think eye patients are
taking their meds and the data is not showing the
expected prevention of glaucoma.  Hence instead
of questioning the efficacy of the medication, the
assumption is made that patients are not taking their
meds.

In a drug business with big bucks on the line for
the drug companies, one needs to look at all this
with a jaded eye.

The more so since there are no studies on marijuana
drops and further no studies that I have yet been
posted to this group regarding vitamin C.

Also why arent these glaucoma studies posted
to the web?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.