Search

Purpose: To assess the efficiency and safety of pilocarpine eye drop 1.25% analogue (IRPilo) 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.

Abstract Background Uncorrected refractive errors contribute enormously to the burden of avoidable visual impairment worldwide. There is a huge disparity in different parts of the globe in context to spectacle coverage for distance vision. This study was undertaken with objectives of determining prevalence of spectacle coverage, unmet needs and associated factors among adults in a rural community of north India. Methods A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out within selected clusters of Jhajjar district of Haryana. All participants aged > 15 years underwent visual acuity assessment by LogMAR “E” screening chart. Participants with presenting visual acuity 6/12 was computed. These are reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Associated factors with unmet need were determined using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 6910 participants were examined. The current spectacle use was 7.5% (95% Confidence Interval CI: 6.5, 8.7). The spectacle coverage was found in 33.3% (95% CI: 30.0, 36.7) participants among those in need. The unmet need was found in 10.8% of participants (95% CI: 10.1, 11.6). On multivariable analysis, odds of unmet need was associated with age, gender, level of education and marriage status. The most common barrier for refractive correction was lack of perceived need for refraction and its correction. Conclusion There is substantial unmet need for distance vision spectacles in this population. It is imperative that multi-component intervention be implemented to improve spectacle coverage in this rural north Indian setting.