Evidence Hub

Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of ripasudil in uveitic glaucoma, exfoliation glaucoma, and steroid-induced glaucoma patients: ROCK-S, a multicentre historical cohort study

Akiko Futakuchi, T. Morimoto, Yoko Ikeda, H. Tanihara, Toshihiro Inoue, Rock-S Study Group Collaborators

Scientific Reports, 2020

332 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ripasudil for treatment of secondary glaucoma, a historical cohort study was conducted at 18 centres in Japan. Adults (age ≥20 years) who needed additional IOP reduction and received topical 0.4% ripasudil between 2014 and 2018 due to three secondary glaucoma subtypes, including uveitic glaucoma (UG), exfoliation glaucoma (EG) or steroid-induced glaucoma (SG) were assessed for mean IOP change from baseline prior to additional treatment with ripasudil. We further evaluated the IOP change in each glaucoma subtype, baseline characteristics of each cohort, course of uveitis-induced inflammation in UG eyes, and proportion of patients in each cohort with adverse events. In 332 eyes from 332 patients eligible for this study, the mean overall IOP reductions from baseline at 1, 3, and 6 months were −5.86 ± 9.04 mmHg (−19.4 ± 25.1%), −6.18 ± 9.03 mmHg (−20.0 ± 27.1%), and −7.00 ± 8.60 mmHg (−23.4 ± 25.6%), respectively. These changes were all statistically significant. Of 332 eyes, 109 eyes had UG, 181 had EG, and 42 eyes had SG. The IOP-lowering effects of ripasudil in UG and SG were significantly greater than those of EG at every time point. This finding could have been related to higher baseline IOP levels in UG and SG. UG patients exhibited significant decreases in mean cell score of the anterior segment after ripasudil treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. These findings suggest that treatment with ripasudil is a safe and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 332 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free