The use of benzalkonium chloride in topical glaucoma treatment

Abstract

AbstractENGLISH SUMMARY: Glaucoma is a leading cause of the global prevalence of irreversible blindness. The pathogenesis of glaucoma is not entirely known, but the major risk factors include advancing age, genetic predisposition, and increased intraocular pressure (IOP). The only evidence‐based treatment is a lowering of IOP through the use of eye drops, laser procedures, or surgical interventions. Although laser treatment is gaining recognition as a first‐choice treatment option, the most common approach for managing glaucoma is IOP‐lowering eye drops. A major challenge in the treatment is the occurrence of adverse events and poor adherence. In this context, the ocular surface is an area of great concern, as most glaucoma patients have dry eye disease (DED), which is largely caused by eye drops. Preservation with benzalkonium chloride (BAK) is a controversial topic due to its potential role as a significant cause of DED. A systematic review and meta‐analyses investigate potential differences in efficacy and safety between BAK‐preserved and BAK‐free anti‐glaucomatous eye drops (I). Many of the included studies report on ocular surface damage caused by the application of BAK‐preserved eye drops. However, the meta‐analyses addressing hyperemia, number of ocular adverse events, and tear break‐up time did not identify any significant differences. The latter is likely due to varying measurement methods, different endpoints, and study durations. It is, therefore, possible that the large variations between the studies conceal differences in the safety profiles. The efficacy meta‐analysis finds that there are no differences in the IOP‐lowering effect between BAK‐preserved and BAK‐free eye drops, indicating that BAK is not necessary for the effectiveness of eye drops. To promote more homogeneous choices of endpoints and methods when evaluating BAK‐preserved and BAK‐free glaucoma treatments, a Delphi consensus statement was performed. In this study, glaucoma experts and ocular surface disease experts reached consensus on the key factors to consider when designing such studies (II). The hope is to have more studies with comparable endpoints that can systematically show the potentially adverse effects of BAK. The preclinical studies in the current Ph.D. research focus on conjunctival goblet cells (GCs). GCs are important for the ocular surface because they release the mucin MUC5AC, which is an essential component of the inner layer of the tear film. BAK preservation may damage the GCs and result in a low GC density, leading to an unstable tear film and DED. The most commonly used IOP‐lowering drugs are prostaglandin analogs (PGAs). Thus, the conducted studies investigate the effect of PGAs preserved in different ways on GCs. BAK‐preserved latanoprost is cytotoxic to primary cultured human conjunctival GCs and results in a scattered expression of MUC5AC, in contrast to negative controls, where MUC5AC is localized around the cell nucleus (III). Preservative‐free (PF) latanoprost is not cytotoxic and does not affect the MUC5AC expression pattern. Furthermore, BAK‐preserved travoprost is found to be cytotoxic in a time‐dependent manner, while Polyquad®‐preserved travoprost does not affect GC survival at any measured time point (IV). Both Polyquad and BAK induce scattered expression of MUC5AC. The cytotoxicity of BAK‐preserved PGA eye drops is higher compared to the safer profile of PF and Polyquad‐preserved PGA eye drops (V). Additionally, PF latanoprost does not increase the release of the inflammatory markers interleukin (IL)‐6 and IL‐8, unlike BAK‐preserved latanoprost. A review highlights the active and inactive components of IOP‐lowering eye drops (VI). Several preclinical and clinical studies have identified adverse effects of BAK. Although other components, such as the active drug and phosphates, can also cause adverse events, the review clearly states that BAK alone is a major source of decreased tolerability. The conclusion of this thesis is that BAK preservation is unnecessary and harmful to the ocular surface. The preclinical studies demonstrate that GCs die when exposed to BAK. Furthermore, they find that BAK induces a pro‐inflammatory response. The review included in the thesis concludes that BAK should be phased out of eye drops for chronic use. Overall, the inclusion of BAK poses a risk of developing DED and poor adherence, which can ultimately lead to disease progression and blindness.