{"title":"Pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia Using Pilocarpine 1.25% Eye Drops.","authors":"Seyed Abolghasem Mousavi, Zhale Rajavi, Hamideh Sabbaghi, Saeid Abdi, Nafeeseh Montazerin, Bahareh Kheiri, Azadeh Haseli-Mofrad, Kourosh Sheibani, Hemn Baghban Jaldian","doi":"10.18502/jovr.v19i4.14578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the efficiency and safety of pilocarpine eye drop 1.25% analogue (IR- Pilo) in comparison with its original brand-name drug (Vuity).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this non-randomized comparative study, 75 patients with presbyopia aged 40 to 60 years were enrolled. The right eyes of these patients received either IR-Pilo (<i>n</i> = 45) or Vuity (<i>n</i> = 30) and their contralateral eyes served as controls. Refractive errors, distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), near vision, amplitude of accommodation, pupil size, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were measured before and 1 to 2 hours after instillation of the eye drop.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean refractive error was stable, except for a small myopic shift in the Vuity group. There was no significant change in distance BCVA. Near vision improved significantly in both intervention groups (<i>P</i> <math><mo><</mo></math> 0.001) with preference for IR-Pilo (4 vs 2.3). Furthermore, a higher amplitude of accommodation and pupil constriction occurred after instillation of both drops, with a higher effect associated with IR-Pilo. However, IOP did not change significantly post intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IR-Pilo and Vuity eye drops had comparable results; both were effective and led to stable distance vision and improved near vision. Both ophthalmic drugs were safe and none of them were associated with significant adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":16586,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research","volume":"19 4","pages":"468-475"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795009/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v19i4.14578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the efficiency and safety of pilocarpine eye drop 1.25% analogue (IR- Pilo) in comparison with its original brand-name drug (Vuity).
Methods: In this non-randomized comparative study, 75 patients with presbyopia aged 40 to 60 years were enrolled. The right eyes of these patients received either IR-Pilo (n = 45) or Vuity (n = 30) and their contralateral eyes served as controls. Refractive errors, distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), near vision, amplitude of accommodation, pupil size, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were measured before and 1 to 2 hours after instillation of the eye drop.
Results: The mean refractive error was stable, except for a small myopic shift in the Vuity group. There was no significant change in distance BCVA. Near vision improved significantly in both intervention groups (P 0.001) with preference for IR-Pilo (4 vs 2.3). Furthermore, a higher amplitude of accommodation and pupil constriction occurred after instillation of both drops, with a higher effect associated with IR-Pilo. However, IOP did not change significantly post intervention.
Conclusion: IR-Pilo and Vuity eye drops had comparable results; both were effective and led to stable distance vision and improved near vision. Both ophthalmic drugs were safe and none of them were associated with significant adverse effects.