| Title |
Prescribing Trends in a Glaucoma Clinic and Adherence to EGS Guidelines: A Retrospective, Non-Interventional, Single-Center UK Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12325-017-0593-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Fajgenbaum, Ejaz Ansari |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to determine prescribing trends in a specialist glaucoma clinic in the UK. Specifically, the aims were to determine which drugs were prescribed as first-, second-, and third-line treatment, the persistence of first-, second-, and third-line treatment regimens, and the proportion of treatment decisions conforming to the European Glaucoma Society (EGS) guidelines. A retrospective, non-interventional, single-center, case-note review was performed on a cohort of consecutive patients presenting to a specialist glaucoma clinic for follow-up. Inclusion criteria for the study were (1) a diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, (2) glaucoma management entirely within the unit, and (3) minimum of 2 years of follow-up. A total of 114 case notes met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 71 years (range 40-95 years). Mean length of follow-up was 56 months (range 24-180 months). Prostaglandin analogues (PGA) were the most popular first-line treatment in 73% of patients. As second-line treatment, PGA were again the predominant class, prescribed in 87% of cases, whereas beta-blockers (BB) were prescribed in 70% of cases. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) and alpha-2 agonists (AA) were more popular in third-line regimens. Second-line treatment was introduced at a mean of 28.0 months after first-line treatment (range 1-120 months, 95% CI 22.1-33.9 months). Third-line treatment was introduced at a mean of 22.9 months after second-line treatment (range 1-96 months, 95% CI 17.1-28.8 months). Breaches to EGS guidelines were most common for third-line treatment and included duplication of drug classes. There was a clear hierarchy of PGA as first-line, BB as second-line, while CAI and AA were considered third-line choices. First-line choices were generally in line with EGS guidelines. There was a tendency to breach guidelines by escalating treatment in dual steps rather than single steps (especially in third-line treatment). Combination drops were popular. In third-line treatment there was an increased incidence of prescribing errors. This data is important in terms of informing patients of the expected treatment course, to remind clinicians about best practice, and also to guide comparisons of cost-effectiveness with other treatment modalities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 3% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,356,760
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#1,120
of 2,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,640
of 315,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.