Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 711
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 57  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 76-77

Author's reply


1 LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Sadhuram Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
3 Silome Eye Hospital, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Madanpally, Andhra Pradesh, India
4 Prime Medical Center, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Date of Web Publication12-Dec-2008

Correspondence Address:
Rajul S Parikh
Bomabay City Eye Institute and Research Center, 5 Babulnath Road, Mumbai
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.44508

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Parikh RS, Parikh SR, Navin S, Arun E, Thomas R. Author's reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2009;57:76-7

How to cite this URL:
Parikh RS, Parikh SR, Navin S, Arun E, Thomas R. Author's reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2009 [cited 2019 Oct 21];57:76-7. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2009/57/1/76/44508

Dear Editor,

We thank Bansal et al. , [1] for their interest in our "practical approach" to medical management of glaucoma and their valid comments. We too agree with their conclusion that "prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are an important part of the armamentarium in modern medical therapy of most cases of chronic angle closure glaucoma (CACG)." As far as we can gather from a re-read, we never implied that PGA should not be used in angle closure glaucoma. In fact in the "initiation of medication" section we clearly stated that "In an ideal world (not considering cost), we would like to use a prostaglandin analogue in most glaucoma patients as a first line". [2] The authors mentioned the lack of references for some of our statements: that (and more) was dictated by the word limit for the journal. Additionally, while references can usually be found to support most of our biases, their validity is a different issue entirely. [3],[4]

To clarify our statements:

  1. We stated that "the effect of PGA is inversely proportional to degree of closed angle. The effect of PGA in a totally closed angle is minimal." In our limited experience PG analogues do not reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in totally (synecially) closed angles as much as in open or partially open angles. As this statement was based on our (admittedly anecdotal) experience (which obviously differs from the anecdotal experience of our colleagues), perhaps we should have used "seems" instead of "is." We are aware of the articles referred to by the authors but do feel they are not definitive either. And while we were part of and agree that the association of international glalucoma societies (AIGS) consensus states that it appears that degree of synechia does not affect the ability of IOP reduction, a consensus has a certain place in evidential hierarchy and "appears" is the key word.
  2. "If a patient is on pilocarpine for whatever reason, the effect of PGA on IOP reduction is minimal and other medication (drugs which work on cilliary body) should be used." To agree, or disagree, we should define minimal. From a practical standpoint we feel that the (approximately) 1-2 mm Hg of IOP reduction obtained in such cases may not be clinically significant and we would prefer to try another drug first. [5]


Finally, specialists are known to disagree about details, more so when the evidence is not definitive. Our article was intended for comprehensive ophthalmologists as a practical guide to the medical management of glaucoma; we hope that the lack of major objections indicates some (albeit unstated) support for the objective, the philosophy and principles enunciated.

 
  References Top

1.
Bansal A, Fenerty CH. Practical approach to medical management of glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 2009;57:75-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Parikh RS, Parikh SR, Navin S, Arun E, Thomas R. Practical approach to medical management of glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 2008;56:218-25.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Reigelman RK. Studying a study and testing a test. How to read the medical evidence. Philadelphia: Liipincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 16-166.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine. New York: Little, Brown and Co.; 1991. p. 187-248.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Higginbotham EJ, Diestelhorst M, Pfeiffer N, Rouland JF, Alm A. The efficacy and safety of unfixed and fixed combinations of latanoprost and other antiglaucoma medications. Surv Ophthalmol 2002;47:S133-40.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1253    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded116    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal