Previous Article in Journal
Immunotherapy in Ophthalmic Oncology: Current Trends and Future Directions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCTO
Volume 3
Issue 1
10.3390/jcto3010002
jcto-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Ocular and Systemic Side Effects in Glaucoma Pharmacotherapy

by
Xiaole Li
1,
Michael Balas
2 and
David J. Mathew
1,3,*
1
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
2
Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
3
Donald K. Johnson Eye Institute, Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Transl. Ophthalmol. 2025, 3(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto3010002
Submission received: 3 November 2024 / Revised: 9 January 2025 / Accepted: 21 January 2025 / Published: 23 January 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Glaucoma, the second leading cause of irreversible blindness globally, encompasses a heterogeneous group of ocular disorders characterized by the progressive degeneration of retinal ganglion cells. Pharmacotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment, primarily aimed at reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) by decreasing aqueous humor production or enhancing its outflow. The therapeutic classes employed include carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, β-blockers, α-adrenergic agonists, prostaglandin analogs, parasympathomimetics, Rho kinase inhibitors, and hyperosmotic agents. Despite their efficacy, these medications are associated with a range of ocular and systemic side effects, influenced by their mechanisms of action, formulation, and dosage. Ocular adverse effects, such as irritation, dry eye, allergic reactions, and infections, are common, while systemic absorption may lead to more severe outcomes, including organ dysfunction, exacerbation of comorbid conditions, or life-threatening cardiovascular events. Given these potential risks, it is critical for clinicians to understand and monitor these adverse effects as they significantly affect patient adherence, quality of life, and treatment outcomes. Ongoing research is essential to develop novel therapeutic regimens, agents, or delivery methods that minimize side effects and improve compliance. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice may further enhance the assessment of treatment impact, facilitating more tailored and effective management of glaucoma.

1. Introduction

Glaucoma encompasses a heterogenous group of ocular diseases characterized by progressive optic neuropathy, resulting from the degeneration of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and nerve fiber layers in the retina [1,2]. Although elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is neither required for diagnosis nor present in all patients with glaucoma, first-line, evidence-based management for glaucoma typically involves IOP-lowering medications [3]. Glaucoma can be classified into two major types: primary or secondary, which can be further subdivided into open-angle or closed-angle glaucoma [4]. In 2013, an estimated 64.3 million people aged 40–80 years globally were affected with glaucoma, with a projection of 111.8 million by 2040 [5]. Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), the most common type of glaucoma, was estimated to affect 57.5 million people worldwide [6].
Globally, glaucoma is the second leading cause of vision loss and irreversible blindness [4]. Risk factors of glaucoma include demographic factors like age, gender, race, smoking, and genetics and non-demographic factors such as thin cornea, low perfusion pressure, and pseudoexfoliation [4,7,8,9]. Since glaucoma is an insidious disease that can be challenging to diagnosis, many patients are untreated until irreversible vision loss occurs [4]. A meta-analysis found that undetected glaucoma was highly prevalent globally, with more than half of all cases undetected on average prior to diagnosis in their respective study [10].
Halting the progression of disease and maintaining vision as well as quality of life are key aspects for managing glaucoma. Multiple randomized control trials have demonstrated that lowering IOP slows down disease progression, and this practice has been a staple of clinical practice management for many years [11]. Various therapeutic classes of medications are used; each with a different mechanism of action for lowering IOP.
The standard of care for targeted IOP reduction should be achieved with the fewest medications and minimum adverse effects [3]. Yet, most IOP-lowering medications often have undesirable adverse effects despite their effectiveness [12]. These could range from ocular complications like dry eye, irritation, or infection, to more serious systemic events like organ failure, allergic reactions, or exacerbation of comorbidities [3,12,13]. Unbearable adverse effects, among other factors, are a significant threat to medical adherence, a long-standing challenge in glaucoma management. Uncontrolled glaucoma due to drop usage can subsequently lead to the development of new ocular issues, further complicating its management and deteriorating patients’ quality of life. Therefore, the goal of this review is to highlight and summarize all ocular and systemic adverse effects of glaucoma pharmacotherapy, with an emphasis on why they occur and how to minimize them. This review can serve as a guide for clinicians to best tailor management based on individual patients and ensure greater adherence and overall better patient outcomes.

2. Pharmacological Treatment of Glaucoma

IOP is primarily maintained by the balance between aqueous humor production and its outflow facility. Any disruption in this equilibrium can lead to an alteration in IOP [3]. Accordingly, glaucoma pharmacotherapies are broadly categorized based on their mechanisms of action: agents that reduce aqueous humor production and those that enhance its outflow.

2.1. Therapeutic Classes That Reduce Aqueous Inflow

2.1.1. Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors (CAIs)

Carbonic anhydrase (CA) is an enzyme that regulates the active secretion of bicarbonate ions into the anterior chamber of the eye. The osmotic gradient created by this active secretion leads to water movement into the anterior chamber via aquaporins, enhancing aqueous humor formation [14,15]. Consequently, this enzyme became an early target in investigational therapies for IOP control [16].
CAIs are available in oral and topical formulations. Oral agents like acetazolamide, though capable of reducing IOP by up to 35%, are often reserved for refractory glaucoma due to their more serious adverse effect profile [12]. In contrast, newer topical formulations, such as dorzolamide and brinzolamide, selectively inhibit the CA isoform in ciliary epithelium (type II) [17,18,19]. These topical agents, though less potent than their systemic counterparts, offer a preferable adverse event profile. Topical CAIs are typically administered two to three times daily, either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents [3]. The ocular and systemic adverse reactions to CAIs are summarized in Table 1.

2.1.2. Βeta (β)-Blockers

Initially developed as systemic agents, β-blockers were incidentally discovered to lower IOP in glaucoma patients, leading to the development of the first topical β-blocker, timolol maleate [3,72,73]. Despite its effectiveness, timolol’s undesirable side effect profile prompted the development of second-generation β-blockers, including betaxolol, carteolol, metipranolol, and others [74,75,76,77,78]. Beta-blockers reduce IOP by lowering aqueous humor production through the reduction in cAMP levels [73,79,80]. Although abundant β2-adrenergic receptors are present in the ciliary processes, the specific β-receptor involved in aqueous humor production remains unclear [3,13]. For instance, betaxolol, a β1-specific blocker, demonstrated similar efficacy of IOP reduction as the non-selective β-blockers [74].
Long-term β-blocker therapy may lead to diminished efficacy over time, a phenomenon known as “long-term drift” [81]. This gradual upward shift in IOP is hypothesized to result from increased expression and density of β-receptors on cell membranes in response to constant long-term blockade [82].
Various topical medications of β-blockers were developed over the years. Generally, ocular adverse effects are relatively infrequent in β-blockers and are often shared by different agents, with ranging frequencies and degrees of severity [13].

2.1.3. Alpha (α)-Adrenergic Agonists

These agents can be categorized into selective (α2) and non-selective (α1 and α2) receptor agonists [12]. Selective α-agonists like brimonidine and apraclonidine act selectively on α2 receptors, thereby decreasing intracellular cAMP [83]. This mechanism decreases aqueous inflow and enhances uveoscleral outflow (the drainage of aqueous humor from the ciliary body and partially through supraciliary space and across the sclera), partly through prostaglandin activation [84,85]. To date, apraclonidine is particularly effective for controlling IOP spikes post-laser procedures but is less suitable for chronic glaucoma due to rapid tachyphylaxis [86,87,88]. Alternatively, brimonidine tartrate 0.2% twice daily is a widely used agent for chronic glaucoma. It has demonstrated comparable efficacy as timolol 0.5% twice daily [89]. IOP reduction at peak and trough IOP can reach 6 mmHg after 2–3 h and 4 mmHg after 10–14 h, respectively [90,91,92].
On the other hand, epinephrine and dipivefrine stimulate both α1- and α2-adrenergic receptors, resulting in vasoconstriction and reduced blood flow to the ciliary muscles [93]. Since the ciliary body is critical for aqueous humor production, α-agonists reduce aqueous production thus decreasing IOP [94].

2.2. Therapeutic Classes That Increase Outflow

2.2.1. Prostaglandin Analogs (PGAs)

PGAs primarily enhance uveoscleral outflow, along with a modest increase in trabecular facility and aqueous production [95]. Proposed mechanisms of PGAs involve inducing ciliary muscle relaxation and remodeling of the extracellular matrix of the trabecular meshwork [95]. Collectively, these mechanisms result in a ~30% reduction in IOP [96]. Latanoprost, a PGA dosed once daily, has shown efficacy superior to β-blockers with fewer side effects [96]. Subsequent developments in this class include bimatoprost, travoprost, and tafluprost [12,96,97].

2.2.2. Parasympathomimetics

Being one of the first agents developed for glaucoma, parasympathomimetics held a colorful history. Physostigmine, derived from the Calabar bean, was the first agent of this class and found to induce pupil constriction [98]. Pilocarpine, a less toxic derivative, was later used for glaucoma as it widens the spaces between corneoscleral trabeculae and distends the endothelial meshwork [99]. However, this effect seems to be modulated by age, ciliary body contraction, and initial configuration of the angle [100]. To date, pilocarpine remains a viable option in the acute management of angle-closure glaucoma, though it is ineffective in ischemic or atonic pupils [101].
Parasympathomimetics have two major subtypes, direct-acting and indirect-acting parasympathomimetics [12]. The former includes drugs like pilocarpine and carbachol, which directly stimulate cholinergic receptors. The latter includes agents like physostigmine and echothiophate, which inhibit acetylcholinesterase enzyme at the synapse, thereby increasing acetylcholine concentrations available to act on receptors. Through actions on the parasympathetic system, these agents stimulate ciliary muscle contraction and open the trabecular meshwork, thereby increasing aqueous flow [12].

2.2.3. Rho Kinase Inhibitors

Rho kinase inhibitors, a recent addition to glaucoma therapy, work by modifying cell morphology, disrupting actin microfilament bundles, and impairing focal adhesion formation networks in the trabecular meshwork covering the inner wall of Schlemm’s canal. This, along with induced relaxation of ciliary muscle, is thought to increase trabecular outflow facility and lower IOP [102,103]. Recently approved medications include Netarsudil in the United States and Europe, as well as Ripasudil in Japan [3]. Clinical trials have illustrated that while Rho kinase inhibitors provide modest IOP reduction as a monotherapy, their efficacy is improved when combined with other agents like latanoprost (Netarsudil/Latanoprost fixed-dose combination), a combination recently approved by the FDA [3,104,105].

2.2.4. Hyperosmotic Agents

Hyperosmotic agents, such as mannitol and glycerol, increase serum osmolarity when absorbed or administered into the blood. This change increases the osmolarity gradient between the vitreous and blood, causing an efflux of fluid and reduction in vitreous volume [3]. Since IOP is positively linked with the vitreous volume, reduced volume results in a subsequent IOP reduction. However, the vitreous becomes more hypertonic over time (as water leaves) while the hyperosmotic agent is cleared from the blood [106]. This change may reverse the osmotic gradient, resulting in water backflow into the vitreous and an IOP rebound. Mannitol and oral glycerol are commonly used agents in this class. Mannitol, typically administered intravenously as a 20% solution, does not cross the blood–brain barrier or enter the eye [3]. It can thus be used for acute angle-closure crises unresponsive to other topical therapies or oral CAIs, such as acetazolamide.

3. Ocular Side Effects of Glaucoma Medications

A comprehensive summary of the ocular side effects of each therapeutic class is presented in Table 1.

3.1. Therapeutic Classes That Reduce Aqueous Inflow

3.1.1. Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitor (CAIs)

Oral CAIs, such as methazolamide, are associated with cases of adverse events including color vision changes, bilateral transient myopia, angle-closure glaucoma, and choroidal detachment [107,108]. Color vision changes may be due to the inhibition of CA activity in the retina, which may cause dysfunction in the red- and green-sensitive cone photoreceptors or in capillary endothelial cells that help regulate pH and bicarbonate ions in the retinal extracellular space critical for light sensitivity [107]. The other complications are hypothesized to result from an idiosyncratic reaction to sulfur-containing methazolamide [108]. However, with the development of newer topical CAIs that have an improved safety profile, the use of oral acetazolamide and methazolamide is much rarer and has reduced by 95% [21].
Dorzolamide, the most studied topical CAI, is linked to a range of ocular symptoms, including a stinging or burning sensation (12%), reddening or burning sensation of the eye (12%), blurred vision (9%), pruritus/itching (9%), and tearing (7%) in Phase III trials [19]. These effects are likely due to the drug’s acidic pH (~5.5) [20]. Comparatively, brinzolamide, with a more neutral pH (~7.5), is less likely to cause burning or stinging (3%) but may more frequently induce blurred vision. Additionally, despite containing sulfa, topical CAIs were not shown to induce more allergic reactions in patients with sulfa allergies compared to those with who do not have sulfa-related allergies [109]. Though rare, topical CAIs may also trigger local hyperemia (potentially due to local vasodilation), corneal decompensation, and contact dermatitis [110,111,112].

3.1.2. Βeta (β)-Blockers

Objective side effects may include allergic reactions on the eyelids, the conjunctiva, and rarely the cornea [113]. These include allergic blepharoconjunctivitis, conjunctival hyperemia, punctate keratopathy. In one study involving 467 patients, 15 patients (3.2%) were found to have peri-orbital dermatitis, 8 patients (1.7%) had eyelid and conjunctival infections of the eyelids, and 4 patients (0.9%) had punctate keratitis [113]. Another national 3-month surveillance in the Netherlands found similar findings: of the 34 patients who experienced ocular side effects, 44% experienced peri-orbital dermatitis or blepharitis, 23% had blepharoconjunctivitis or peri-orbital dermatitis combined with conjunctivitis or conjunctival hyperemia, 21% had conjunctivitis or conjunctival hyperemia, and 12% had punctate keratitis [113]. These adverse reactions can be attributed to hypersensitivity reactions to either the preservative (e.g., benzalkonium chloride) or the β-blocker agent itself [114]. For instance, 6% of patients with conjunctivitis or contact dermatitis were found to be sensitized with benzalkonium chloride [115,116]. Contact hypersensitivity was also reported for all β-blockers except for carteolol [116,117].
Early animal studies have implicated the role of β-adrenergic receptors in reduced tear production, specifically β-receptors [118]. This relationship prompted the investigation of dry eyes in patients using β-blockers. In an early human study of 63 patients, the symptom of dry eye was reported in 11% of patients [32]. A more recent case–control study found a significantly increased odds ratio of dry eyes symptom patients with glaucoma using β-blockers [33].
Subjective side effects may include a burning or stinging sensation on instillation (in up to 30–40% of patients), eye pain or discomfort, foreign body sensation, itchiness, and blurred vision [13,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. These side effects are likely associated with the membrane-stabilizing (local anesthetic) property of β-blockers, as well as the different vehicles, pHs, and concentrations of β-blockers [13,35].
Given the membrane stabilizing properties of β-blockers, they may act as local anesthetics in the cornea at high concentrations [35].

3.1.3. Alpha (α)-Adrenergic Agonists

The incidence of allergic reactions associated with brimonidine is relatively high, affecting up to 26% of patients [36,37]. This agent was reported to cause allergic conjunctivitis in at least 10% of patients within one year and occasionally cause a granulomatous anterior uveitis and granulomatous papillary conjunctivitis [119,120]. Such ocular allergy usually appears within two weeks of treatment [36]. Follicular conjunctivitis can occur in 10–12% of patients taking brimonidine within the first year, which were frequently associated with the loss of IOP control [44]. Patients are encouraged to report the onset of redness to their ophthalmologists promptly so their treatment dosing could be adjusted. The newer formulation, brimonidine tartrate 0.15%, is formulated with purite as the preservative and has demonstrated a lower risk of allergic reactions [3,121].
Additionally, brimonidine is associated with several other ocular side effects, including blurry vision (6.3–22.2%), a burning or stinging sensation (14.6–28.1%), conjunctival hyperemia (5.9–30.3%), lid erythema (10.4%), photophobia (4.2–11.3%), and ocular pruritus (12.2–12.5%) [38,39,40]. Rebound hyperemia after treatment discontinuation can commonly occur as α-adrenergic agonists are potent vasoconstrictors [37].
Apraclonidine is particularly known for causing follicular conjunctivitis and contact dermatitis (48%) due to its high oxidative potential [122]. Therefore, the high-risk of allergic reactions made this agent unsuitable for long-term therapy [37,86].
Non-selective agonists may cause intolerable side effects such as irritation, pupillary dilation, hyperemia, follicular conjunctivitis, adrenochrome deposits [45]. In a study assessing the long-term safety of topical epinephrine in patients with glaucoma, 80% of patients discontinued the study prematurely due to these side effects [46]. Pupillary dilation occurs due to the contraction of the iris dilators, which are stimulated by α receptor activation [45]. Aphakic or pseudophakic eyes receiving non-selective agonists are also at increased risk of cystoid macular edema [47,48].

3.2. Therapeutic Classes That Increase Outflow

3.2.1. Prostaglandin Analogs (PGAs)

Rare cases of serious adverse effects were also reported for PGAs, including anterior uveitis (4.9–6.4%) and the reactivation of herpetic simplex keratitis (HSK) given their pro-inflammatory property [49,50]. For this reason, PGAs are relatively contraindicated in patients with inflammatory glaucoma as they may aggregate anterior uveitis and cystoid macular edema. Although early case reports and animal studies have reported the reactivation of HSK after PGA use, a review of claims record of 93,869 glaucoma patients revealed only 0.44% of patients with any HSK event [51,52]. This rate is comparable to the general population and did not correlate with PGA therapy. Furthermore, there are also considerable efforts exploring the relationship between PGA use with pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (CME) [3]. While co-existing potential risk factors make it difficult to ascertain a causative relationship, it is recommended to exercise caution when considering PGA prescriptions for patients with risk factors for CME [53]. Finally, benzalkonium chloride, a preservative used in some PGAs, may cause side effects such as conjunctival hyperemia and superficial punctate keratitis [54].
There is an array of less severe ocular adverse events linked with the use of PGAs, including lash growth, periocular skin pigmentation (1.5–2.9%), iris pigmentation changes (7–30%), conjunctival hyperemia (5% to 68%), and peri-orbitopathy [44,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Hyperemia associated with PGAs is caused by the vasodilation of the conjunctival vessels, stimulated by nitric oxide and neuropeptides [123]. Hyperemia typically occurs within the first week of therapy and gradually decrease over time [44]. The variation in incidence of hyperemia among different PGAs is reflective of their chemical structures. It can be found in as many as 50% of patients using travoprost and as few as 5% of patients using latanoprost [123]. Therefore, clinicians may consider initiating treatment with latanoprost or switching patients experiencing conjunctival hyperemia to latanoprost [124]. Reversible eyelash changes, including increased length, thickness, and number, may be associated with the agent’s ability to enhance growth and hypertrophy in resting follicles through vasodilation in perifollicular vessels [125,126,127]. The degree of eyelash growth varies among PGAs, ranging from 0 to 25% for latanoprost, 3–36% for bimatoprost, and 0.7–52% for travoprost [128,129,130,131,132].
Furthermore, these drugs are capable of increasing melanin granule formation by increasing transcription and activity of tyrosinase, leading to permanent iris color changes [61,62,63]. Similarly, the darkening of periocular skin was also described [57,128]. Furthermore, PGAs were reported to induce periocular peri-orbitopathy, termed prostaglandin-associated peri-orbitopathy (PAP). This is a notable constellation of clinical and cosmetic changes, such as flattening of the lower eyelid bags (FLEB), superior sulcus deepening, orbital fat atrophy, ptosis, and dermatochalasis [133,134,135]}. These changes can occur as early as within one month of starting PGA treatment [55]. The prevalence may be as high as over 40% of patients treated over 3 months and more than 60% of patients after 6 months of therapy [136,137]. Although not fully elucidated, the mechanism of PAP could be linked to the PGF2α-induced suppression of adipogenesis and the inhibition of preadipocyte proliferation and adipocyte differentiation [138,139,140]. The presence of severe PAP was found to be associated with worse success rate in patients undergoing glaucoma surgeries such as trabeculectomy [141]. The preoperative presence of severe PAP worsens the 1-year success rate of LEC in patients with POAG.
Allergic reactions are relatively rare, reported in 1% of adult patients [142,143].

3.2.2. Parasympathomimetics

The activation of cholinergic M3 receptors by pilocarpine constricts pupillary sphincter and ciliary muscles, leading to miosis (most common side effect), ciliary muscle spasm (induced myopia/accommodative spasm), and brow ache [144,145]. Possible retinal detachment and cataractogenesis were reported with pilocarpine use previously, though it is difficult to conclude the actual risk as the evidence is limited from early studies [3,145]. Carbachol may also cause transient stinging and burning upon instillation [146].

3.2.3. Rho Kinase Inhibitors

The most prevalent adverse event associated with their vasodilatory property is conjunctival hyperemia, which was observed in more than 50% of patients in RCTs [70,71]. Approximately 20% of patients also experienced corneal verticillata, instillation site pain, and conjunctival hemorrhages (due to vasodilation). Additionally, conjunctival hemorrhage was reported, but it was not dose-dependent [147].

4. Systemic Side Effects of Glaucoma Medications

A comprehensive summary of the systemic side effects of each medication class is presented in Table 1.

4.1. Therapeutic Classes That Reduce Aqueous Inflow

4.1.1. Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors (CAIs)

The risk of severe adverse reaction is relatively low and comparable for oral and topical CAIs. In a matched longitudinal cohort study of 128,942 patients, the absolute risk of severe complication of either Stevens–Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, or aplastic anemia was 2.08 per 1000 patients for topical CAIs and 2.9 per 1000 patients for oral CAIs [23].
Epstein et al. first presented a symptom complex commonly reported by patients taking acetazolamide or methazolamide. Of 92 patients, 44 (47.8%) experienced general malaise, weight loss, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, depression, and loss of libido [24]. Given this, up to one-third of these glaucoma patients discontinued their CAI treatment despite its clinical efficacy [24]. Although the mechanism of these side effects has not been fully elucidated, it is mostly likely linked to the metabolic acidosis, as well as possible gastrointestinal and neuronal inhibition of CA induced by CAIs [21].
Multi-organ adverse events of oral CAIs were comprehensively explored previously [12]. In short, some of its prominent side effects include gastrointestinal (electrolyte imbalance, kidney stone formation, and urine alkalinization [148]), neurological (include paresthesia, dysgeusia, depression, loss of libido, tinnitus, and fatigue [24,149,150]), and hematologic (blood dyscrasias, aplastic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and agranulocytosis [151]) adverse reactions.
Interestingly, an analysis of human urine found that, in contrast to acetazolamide, which was excreted unchanged renally, only a quarter of methazolamide was excreted unchanged. Additionally, unlike acetazolamide, methazolamide was neither secreted nor concentrated by the kidney. Hence, at equal threshold doses, it produces less acidosis and renal effects like kidney stones than acetazolamide [152].
While oral CAIs are dosed in hundreds of mg daily (10–15 mg/kg), topical CAIs are administered in extremely small amounts by weight (∼0.05 mg/kg) such that their systemic absorption is minimal-to-none [21]. Several studies have observed no biochemical changes suggestive of systemic CA inhibition from topical CAIs, ranging from four week to two-years [153,154,155]. Hence, the most common systemic side effect of topical CAIs was a transient bitter or metallic taste, reported in approximately 25% of patients [19,20,21,22]. This side effect is caused by the drug-laden lachrymal fluid draining into the oropharynx, resulting in the inhibition of the CA enzyme found in saliva (CA VI) and taste buds (CA II and CA VI) [19,156]. Infrequently recorded systemic side effects include nausea, fatigue, headache, skin rashes, paresthesia, and urolithiasis [19]. However, their association with topical CAI use remains unclear given the minimal systemic concentration.

4.1.2. Βeta (β)-Blockers

Despite the low dosage of topical β-blockers, it is possible that their systemic concentration is still significant enough to cause noticeable side effects, especially since they bypass hepatic metabolism [13]. Systemic adverse effects are caused by unintentional actions on β-receptors in other organs, such as β1-receptors in the heart and β2-receptors in the lungs [13]. Additionally, lipophilic β-blockers like timolol may also cross the blood–brain barrier, further exerting actions on β-receptors in the brain [157,158]. Consequently, long-term use of β-blockers can be associated with a wide range of multi-organ adverse events.
Cardiovascular side effects by blocking β1-receptors in the heart may include bradycardia, arrhythmia, heart failure, syncope, angina, myocardial infarction, palpitation, and sudden death [25,26,34,159,160,161]. Between September 1978 and December 1985, the FDA documented 247 reports of severe cardiovascular events attributable to timolol, resulting in 13 deaths [34]. It also found that arrythmia (55%) was the most common side effect, followed by syncope (13%), heart failure (9%), palpitations (4%), and angina (3%) [34].
Topical β-blocker may also act on β2-receptors in the respiratory system. Notable respiratory adverse reactions were increased bronchospasm-related events, among which the most severe reactions are asthma exacerbation and chronic obstructive airway disease [162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169]. Such events are especially high-risk for patients with pre-existing respiratory illnesses like asthma and can lead to fetal status asthmaticus [170,171]. Nelson et al. recorded 227 cases of respiratory adverse events attributable to timolol during an 8-year period between September 1978 and December 1985. Bronchospasm-related reactions (58%) were the most common, followed by dyspnea (29%), apnea (4%), respiratory distress (3%), and respiratory failure (2%) [34].
Newer, more cardioselective β1-blockers, such as betaxolol, are designed to mitigate these respiratory complications relative to non-selective agents like timolol [13,27]. Nevertheless, clinicians should remain cautious prescribing these agents to patients with respiratory disease as these cardioselective agents do not entirely eliminate the risk of respiratory complications since they may still act on β2-receptors.
Due to the lipophilicity of most β-blockers, they readily cross the blood–brain barrier, capable of inducing neurological symptoms [172]. These neurological adverse events include depression, decreased libido, anxiety, nausea, lethargy, emotional lability or irritability, and anorexia [26,173,174,175,176]. It is important to note that most of these events were associated with timolol maleate, the earliest topical β-blocker approved for use. Given that these symptoms could be easily overlooked, physicians should remain vigilant when inquiring about adverse reactions.
Finally, the onset of adverse reactions may range from immediately upon instillation to many years after initial treatment [177]. Among 318 adverse events examined in one study, 23% occurred on the first day of therapy while 33% occurred after one week of treatment [34].
Therefore, given their potential serious systemic adverse effects, β-blockers should be prescribed with caution [3]. However, with over 20 years of use, they remain a valuable member of the management toolkit for glaucoma, either used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents.

4.1.3. Alpha (α)-Adrenergic Agonists

Brimonidine may bind to different subtypes of α-2 adrenoreceptors in non-ocular organ systems, producing unintentional effects. Given its lipophilicity, it crosses readily through the blood–brain barrier, inducing fatigue/drowsiness (2.7–19.9%), sedation, and analgesic effects through central stimulation of the α2A and α2C receptors [38,39,40,41]. Pre-synaptic α2A activation may lower blood pressure through the inhibition of norepinephrine release and sympathetic outflow, associated with headache (4.3–19%) or dizziness (2.1%) [38,39,40,42]. Decreased norepinephrine release may also contribute to dry mouth (5.3–33%) [38,39,40,43]. In addition to its impact on the central nervous system, brimonidine is also associated with hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory symptoms [39,86].
Apraclonidine, a non-selective agonist, has reduced the risk of the above systemic adverse effects as it does not readily cross the blood–brain barrier [178].
Epinephrine may bind to α receptors in the cardiovascular system, elevating the risk of benign ventricular extrasystoles, severe hypertensive reactions, and myocardial infarction [179,180]. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled hyperthyroidism as it elevates the risk of a hypertensive crisis [181]. Dipivefrine, a prodrug of epinephrine, has less adverse effects than epinephrine [182].

4.2. Therapeutic Classes Which Increase Outflow

4.2.1. Prostaglandin Analogs (PGAs)

Topical prostaglandins usually have desirable adverse effect profiles and minimal systemic side effects due to their rapid half-life of elimination and low frequency of dosing (once-per-day) [12].
Generally, the impact of PGAs on cardiovascular and respiratory systems is relatively minimal; however, patients with pre-existing comorbidity or risk factors may still be vulnerable. Prostaglandin F2α analogs like latanoprost activate the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and may thus elevate blood pressure [183]. Case reports of hypertensive events were reported in elderly patients [65,184]. Additionally, since these analogs are derivations of arachidonic acid via the cyclooxygenase pathway, they may induce bronchospasm and exacerbate asthma (predominantly latanoprost) like β-blockers [185,186]. In a Japanese database study of adverse drug event reports, prostaglandin F2α analogs were positively associated with asthma (7 cases of 713 reports), and its combined therapy with β-blocker (5 cases of 90 reports) further elevated such association [186].
Other minor side effects include muscle/joint aches and migraines (likely due to prostaglandins’ role in mediating pain receptors) (0.13%), rhinitis (0.26%), and non-ocular skin pigmentation (0.13%) [65,66,67,68].

4.2.2. Parasympathomimetics

Direct-acting parasympathomimetics such as pilocarpine and carbachol are associated with a broad spectrum of adverse effects due to their non-selective interaction with cholinergic receptors across various systems including the central nervous, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, respiratory systems, and the central nervous [12]. This risk is elevated due to the frequent dosing of pilocarpine (four times per day), which may induce cardiovascular (bradycardia, arrhythmia, hypotension, flushing, and angina pectoris), central nervous system (headache, dizziness, somnolence), gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, salivation, diarrhea, urinary incontinence), and respiratory (cough, dyspnea, asthma exacerbation, pulmonary edema) adverse events [12]. Pilocarpine use could also exacerbate symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions given its cholinergic activity [187]. In addition to sharing all of these adverse reactions, carbachol can also activate nicotinic receptors, leading to central nervous system (lethargy, seizure, coma, central respiratory depression), sympathetic nervous system (tachycardia), and neuromuscular (muscle weakness, fasciculations, and paralysis) adverse events [188].
Indirect-acting parasympathomimetics, such as physostigmine (a reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor) and echothiopate (an irreversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor), are less commonly used topically because of their associated adverse effects [12]. Physostigmine can cause hypersalivation (9%), seizure (0.61%), vomiting (4.2%), abdominal cramps, bradycardia (0.35%), and arrhythmia (0.04%) due to the accumulation of synaptic acetylcholine at nicotinic and muscarinic receptors [69]. Echothiopate is linked with a similar range of adverse reactions via the same mechanisms [189,190].

4.2.3. Rho Kinase Inhibitors

Currently, no clinically significant systemic adverse events were reported for Rho kinase inhibitors since they were approved for clinical use in 2017 [191].

4.2.4. Hyperosmotic Agents

Systemic adverse events related to mannitol use include dry mouth, volume depletion, and cardiac effects (tachycardiac, hypotension, heart failure exacerbation), gastrointestinal events (nausea, vomiting), renal events (metabolic acidosis, urinary retention, acute kidney injury, peripheral edema), subdural hematoma, and anaphylactic reactions [192,193,194,195,196,197]. Therefore, extra vigilance is warranted for mannitol use in patients with pre-existing heart failure, known hypersensitivity to mannitol, active intracranial bleeding, pulmonary edema or vascular congestion, severe hypovolemia, electrolyte imbalance, and anuria [197].
In addition to these events, glycerol may also cause nausea and vomiting due to its unpalatable sweet taste [197]. Patients with diabetes should receive the alternative, isosorbide, over glycerol to prevent ketoacidosis and hyperglycemic events [198].

5. Discussion

In this review, we conducted a comprehensive examination of the ocular and systemic side effects associated with all major classes of glaucoma pharmacotherapy, with the goal of serving as a toolkit in clinical settings. Notably, several undesirable ocular effects are shared across different drug classes. Discomfort upon instillation, including symptoms such as stinging, burning, itching, tearing, and blurred vision, are frequently reported with all classes of glaucoma medications, which may be partly due to the added preservatives [13,19,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,38,39,40,44,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Additionally, ocular allergic reactions, which may necessitate discontinuation in severe cases, commonly present as allergic conjunctivitis, granulomatous papillary conjunctivitis, or punctate keratopathy. These hypersensitivity reactions are particularly prevalent with brimonidine (up to 26%) and β-blockers but are rarely associated with PGAs [36,37,54,109,113]. Similarly, hyperemia due to vasodilation is observed across several drug classes, including PGAs (5% to 68%), Rho kinase inhibitors (up to 50%), and brimonidine (5.9–30.3%), although it is less common with CAIs [36,37,44,70,71,110,111,112]. Another notable side effect, miosis, often occurs in medications that target the iris dilator or pupillary sphincter, such as non-selective α-agonists and parasympathomimetics [45,144,145].
Beyond ocular effects, systemic side effects arise when glaucoma medications are absorbed into systemic circulation, leading to off-target effects on other organ systems. Lipophilic drugs can cross the blood–brain barrier, resulting in neurological adverse effects such as depression, decreased libido, lethargy, and irritability. This is most frequently reported with β-blockers, followed by α-agonists (2.7–19.9%) and direct-acting parasympathomimetics like pilocarpine and carbachol [12,26,38,39,40,41,173,174,175,176]. Furthermore, drugs that modulate the sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous systems, or affect blood osmolarity, may increase the risk of cardiovascular complications. These include β-blockers (55%), non-selective adrenergic agents, parasympathomimetics, and hyperosmotic agents [25,26,34,159,160,161,179,180,192,193,194,195,196,197]. Consequently, such medications should be prescribed with caution in patients with underlying cardiovascular conditions. Respiratory complications may occur with β-blockers (58%), parasympathomimetics, and, to a lesser extent, PGAs [12,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,186]. Gastrointestinal side effects, such as vomiting and diarrhea, are more common with parasympathomimetics, oral CAIs (47.8%), and hyperosmotic [12,148,192,193,194,195,196,197].
The diverse side effect profiles of glaucoma medications are largely dictated by their specific mechanisms of action, formulations, preservatives, concentrations, and routes of administration. The below classes are ranked by their benefit–risk ratio, starting with the most efficacious and safest.
Among available options, topical PGAs, the first-line treatment, offer a favorable balance between efficacy, once-daily dosing, and safety [96]. As PGAs are associated with minimal systemic side effects, they can be prescribed across a wide range of patient population, making them a favorable medication choice to start for most patients with glaucoma. However, they should be used cautiously in patients with inflammatory glaucoma [49,50]. PGAs are known to cause several ocular side effects, including irreversible iris hyperpigmentation, peri-orbitopathy, reversible eyelash growth, and transient conjunctival hyperemia [44,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Proper education on the correct instillation technique may help reduce risk and severity of these side effects. Spilling of prostaglandin eye drops out of the conjunctival sac and onto the eyelid increases risks of eyelid pigmentation and blepharitis [124]. Therefore, educating patients on proper face washing and timing of administration (after face washing and before bathing) is recommended. Additionally, physicians could consider prescribing latanoprost as the first medication for patients as it imposes the lowest risk of conjunctival hyperemia [124]. However, it is important to educate patients that while most glaucoma medications can be stored safely at room temperature (under 25–30 °C), latanoprost must be refrigerated (2–7 °C) prior to being opened [199].
Beta-blockers are comparable to PGAs for their efficacy in IOP reduction. However, β-blockers are associated with a greater risk of systemic adverse reactions, which may also be life-threatening [34]. Thus, while PGAs can safely be prescribed for most patients, the use of β-blockers should be prescribed with caution in individuals with cardiovascular (e.g., heart failure, sinus bradycardia, atrioventricular block) or respiratory (e.g., asthma, bronchospasms, chronic obstructive lung disease) comorbidities, especially in elderly patients [3]. Despite these contraindications, β-blockers may be a viable alternative for patients who cannot tolerate or are contraindicated to PGAs. Several strategies should be employed to minimize systemic side effects of topical β-blockers [13]. First, inquire about the patient’s history of any possible cardiorespiratory disease and exclude patients at high-risk of adverse events. Second, to minimize the systemic adverse reactions of β-blockers, their systemic absorption needs to be reduced. Therefore, for a particular drug formulation, patients should be started with the lower dose and be educated on the techniques that minimize systematic absorption [124]. This can be achieved by instructing the patient to close their eyes and gently press on the lacrimal duct for 5 min after drop instillation. These two techniques were shown to reduce the systemic concentration of timolol maleate by 65% and 67%, respectively [200]. Third, the rate of corneal epithelium disorders differs among β-blockers. By switching patients who suffer from corneal epithelium disorder from one β-blocker to the other, it is often possible to reduce corneal damage while stabilizing IOP control. Finally, engage in informative discussions with patients and their families regarding risks of systemic problems and the importance of active disclosure and stopping the medication when they occur [13].
For patients unable to tolerate long-term β-blocker therapy, topical CAIs present a viable alternative [3]. Topical CAIs are known to produce minimal systemic side effects aside from a transient bitter taste [19,20,21,22]. Oral CAIs, however, are reserved for acute glaucomatous attacks due to their significant side effect profiles [12]. CAIs should also be avoided if patients have serious nephropathy.
Similarly to CAIs, α-agonists hold a valuable place in both chronic (e.g., brimonidine) and acute (e.g., apraclonidine) glaucoma management; their side effects are mainly related to off-target stimulation of α-agonist receptors and rebound hyperemia may occur after medication discontinuation [37]. Notably, they tend to have the highest risk of ocular allergic reactions [36,37]. As α-agonists (e.g., dipivefrine) dilate pupils, this may result in photophobia and blurry vision. Therefore, to best assess patients’ tolerability prior to prescription, it is advisable to administer a test drop in the clinic and observe the patient for adverse reactions.
Next, side effects of parasympathomimetics, either direct or indirect, can be attributed to their off-target stimulation of non-ocular cholinergic receptors [12]. Most prominent are neurological and cardiac symptoms described previously, but other parasympathetic responses like hypersalivation and neuromuscular effects like muscle weakness, fasciculations, and paralysis can also occur [188]. Due to these intolerable and severe systemic side effects, these agents are rarely used in practice now.
As one of the newest agents, Rho kinase inhibitors have shown promising results in clinical trials [3,104,105]. The most common ocular side effect patients should be aware of is conjunctival hyperemia [70,71]. So far, there are no known systemic side effects related to topical Rho kinase inhibitors. Despite modest efficacy as a monotherapy, they may hold value as an adjunct to first-line therapy.
Finally, the use of hyperosmotic agents should only be limited to acute glaucoma attacks, and they present several systemic side effects related to volume depletion and electrolyte imbalance attributable to their hyperosmotic effects [3,106]. Therefore, they should be avoided in patients with heart failure, pulmonary edema, and electrolyte abnormality [12].
It is evident that side effects—whether mild or severe—can significantly impact medication adherence, patient quality of life, and overall treatment outcomes. Long-term compliance with glaucoma medications remains a challenge, with fewer than half of patients adhering to their prescribed therapy beyond one year [201]. There are multiple factors that can influence patient compliance, with medication side effects being one of the most predominant [202,203,204,205,206]. Interestingly, some studies have shown that sensations such as stinging or burning may paradoxically improve adherence, as patients perceive them as indicators of drug activity. Hyperemia, however, was the most commonly reported side effect and it was consistently associated with reduced adherence and higher rates of discontinuation [207].
Beyond compliance, side effects often contribute to a diminished quality of life, particularly in patients experiencing long-term use. For instance, in a survey by Nordmann et al., nearly two-thirds of patients reported at least one local side effect, with significant associations between medication side effects and reduced vision-related quality of life, as well as treatment dissatisfaction [208]. Similarly, Quaranta et al. also studied how adverse effects like hyperemia, blurred vision, and a stinging/burning sensation can negatively interfere with patients’ environmental and social aspects of life, leading to greater patient dissatisfaction with therapy [209]. When asked what aspects of their glaucoma management patients would be willing to pay extra for, patients wished for reduced side effects, such as eye drops that did not cause blurred vision, drowsiness, or stinging/tearing [210]. Collectively, these factors could significantly impact the overall treatment outcome, leading to subsequent vision loss and permanent optic neuropathy [202]. However, the subjective nature of non-compliance and diminished quality of life can make these issues difficult to assess in routine practice. Integrating patient-reported outcomes into clinical practice may offer a valuable approach to monitoring medication adherence, assessing quality of life, and identifying individualized barriers to effective treatment [206].
Recognizing the importance of minimizing side effects in glaucoma management, ongoing research has focused on exploring novel drug classes and innovative treatment strategies that could enhance future therapeutic approaches. Notably, combination therapies involving PGAs have shown considerable promise. Recent trials have demonstrated that a combination of Netarsudil 0.02% and latanoprost 0.005% provides greater and more sustained IOP reduction than either agent used alone [211]. Similarly, latanoprostene bunod, a fixed combination of latanoprost and a nitric oxide-donating moiety, has demonstrated superior IOP reduction compared to timolol 0.5%, alongside a favorable safety profile [212,213]. This combination exerts its therapeutic effects via dual mechanisms, acting on both prostaglandin receptors and nitric oxide synthase to enhance aqueous humor outflow and lower IOP [214]. Through the activation of guanylyl cyclase and cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling pathways, nitric oxide causes relaxation of the cytoskeleton of the trabecular meshwork, increasing outflow and decreasing IOP. Through phase 1–3 trials, the most common side effects were associated with PGAs, such as conjunctival hyperemia (5.9–17.7%), eye lash growth (16.2%), and iris hyperpigmentation, with no known systemic adverse effects reported [215,216]. In addition to combination therapies, novel agents such as prostanoid receptor agonists (DE-117 and ONO-9054) targeting new pathways in prostaglandin signaling are being investigated [217,218,219,220]. If approved, these agents may become viable options for patients with uncontrolled IOP on prostaglandins. Based on existing clinical trial results, both agents have shown greater IOP reduction than latanoprost.
There are several strategies to minimize adverse effects experienced by patients. First, education on adverse reactions with patients is key [124]. Patients may often make their own decision to discontinue glaucoma medications at home due to side effects, particularly when hyperemia conjunctiva, corneal epithelium disorder, and blurry vision occur. With sufficient education, patients could better differentiate between minor side effects (which do not warrant medication discontinuation) and significant side effects (which they should reach out for help with) [124]. Additionally, education on proper medication administration may help lower the incidence of adverse reactions. If patients administer too many drops within a short duration, the risk of adverse event and severity increases without gaining additional therapeutic effects [124]. Second, therapeutic-specific adverse events may be alleviated by switching medications within class or across classes. For instance, patients who experience conjunctival hyperemia with a PGA should be switched to latanoprost as it imposes the lowest risk of conjunctival hyperemia from the class [124]. Third, considerable interest was dedicated to preservative-free formulations of glaucoma medications. Benzalkonium chloride (BAK), a preservative widely used in glaucoma medications, was linked to significant ocular surface toxicity, including conjunctival hyperemia and superficial punctate keratitis [54]. Furthermore, increased preoperative use of eye drops preserved with BAK was found to increase the prevalence of further glaucoma surgery and it was also a risk factor for earlier surgical failures, further complicating management [221,222]. When these adverse reactions develop, switching patients to eye drops with preservatives other than benzalkonium chloride or drops without preservatives is beneficial [223]. To illustrate, 42.9% patients, maintaining stable IOP, showed improvements in corneal epithelium disorder when latanoprost with benzalkonium chloride were switched to latanoprost without preservatives [224]. Alternatively, simply reducing the concentration of BAK is often effective for ocular surface improvements, particularly when the incidence of eye disorder incidence is concentration dependent on BAK [124]. This could be achieved by lowering the number of drops patients use, such as switching to a fixed-combination therapy. Overall, preservative-free formulations, such as those of tafluprost and latanoprost, hold promise for reducing ocular surface irritation, particularly in patients with pre-existing ocular surface disease, such as dry eye disease or contact-lens wearers [225]. However, further research is necessary to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of these preservative-free alternatives, especially in formulations containing multiple active ingredients [222,226,227].
This review has several limitations. First, no formal critical appraisal of the included studies was conducted. As a result, the quality and risk of bias of the evidence were not assessed, which may impact the strength of the conclusions drawn. Second, the selection of articles may have introduced potential selection bias as the inclusion process relied on the authors’ judgment and was not guided by pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, the search strategy, while comprehensive, was not systematic, and some relevant studies may have been missed due to database selection, search term limitations, or the exclusion of gray literature. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this review.

6. Conclusions

This comprehensive review has outlined the major ocular and systemic side effects associated with all major pharmacotherapies used in glaucoma. Notable ocular side effects such as instillation discomfort, hyperemia, allergic conjunctivitis, and miosis are frequently encountered across multiple drug classes. Systemic side effects, though less common, warrant additional vigilance when using β-blockers and parasympathomimetics, as these may potentially lead to severe cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological complications in high-risk individuals. The burden of side effects can significantly affect patient adherence to therapy, often resulting in suboptimal treatment outcomes, decreased quality of life, and ultimately contributing to the progression of glaucoma and permanent vision loss. PGAs, with their favorable balance of efficacy, convenience, and safety, remain the gold standard for first-line therapy, although they too come with their own set of unique ocular side effects including permanent iris hyperpigmentation, eyelash growth, and peri-orbitopathy. Ultimately, the choice of glaucoma medication(s) should be tailored to each unique patient’s IOP requirements, past medical history, and preference to maximize efficacy and adherence while minimizing the risk of complications.
Future research efforts should prioritize the development of preservative-free agents, combination regimens, and novel agents or delivery systems. Advancements in drug design that limit systemic absorption, target specific ocular pathways, and mitigate local side effects have the potential to improve both adherence and patient outcomes. Combination therapies, such as those incorporating PGAs with novel agents like nitric oxide-donating compounds, offer promise for enhanced IOP control while reducing polypharmacy. Additionally, preservative-free formulations are crucial for minimizing ocular surface toxicity, especially in patients with pre-existing ocular surface disease. Patient management should also evolve to integrate routine assessments of adherence and quality of life through patient-reported outcomes. Such strategies will enable clinicians to tailor treatment to individual needs, enhancing long-term efficacy and satisfaction. With ongoing innovation and a deeper understanding of patient-specific factors, future glaucoma therapies hold the potential to be safer, more effective, and more widely tolerated, significantly alleviating the global burden of this vision-threatening disease.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.J.M., M.B. and X.L.; methodology, D.J.M., M.B. and X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, D.J.M., X.L. and M.B.; supervision, D.J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Weinreb, R.N.; Leung, C.K.S.; Crowston, J.G.; Medeiros, F.A.; Friedman, D.S.; Wiggs, J.L.; Martin, K.R. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2016, 2, 16067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Casson, R.J.; Chidlow, G.; Wood, J.P.; Crowston, J.G.; Goldberg, I. Definition of glaucoma: Clinical and experimental concepts. Clin. Experiment. Ophthalmol. 2012, 40, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Casson, R.J. Medical therapy for glaucoma: A review. Clin. Experiment. Ophthalmol. 2022, 50, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allison, K.; Patel, D.; Alabi, O. Epidemiology of Glaucoma: The Past, Present, and Predictions for the Future. Cureus 2020, 12, e11686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tham, Y.-C.; Li, X.; Wong, T.Y.; Quigley, H.A.; Aung, T.; Cheng, C.-Y. Global Prevalence of Glaucoma and Projections of Glaucoma Burden through 2040. Ophthalmology 2014, 121, 2081–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wiggs, J.L.; Pasquale, L.R. Genetics of glaucoma. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2017, 26, R21–R27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Plateroti, P.; Plateroti, A.M.; Abdolrahimzadeh, S.; Scuderi, G. Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome and Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma: A Review of the Literature with Updates on Surgical Management. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 2015, 370371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caprioli, J.; Coleman, A.L. Blood Pressure, Perfusion Pressure, and Glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2010, 149, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Congdon, N.G.; Broman, A.T.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Grover, D.; Quigley, H.A. Central Corneal Thickness and Corneal Hysteresis Associated with Glaucoma Damage. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 141, 868–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Soh, Z.; Yu, M.; Betzler, B.K.; Majithia, S.; Thakur, S.; Tham, Y.C.; Wong, T.Y.; Aung, T.; Friedman, D.S.; Cheng, C.-Y. The Global Extent of Undetected Glaucoma in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2021, 128, 1393–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Weinreb, R.N.; Aung, T.; Medeiros, F.A. The Pathophysiology and Treatment of Glaucoma. JAMA 2014, 311, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Arbabi, A.; Bao, X.; Shalaby, W.S.; Razeghinejad, R. Systemic side effects of glaucoma medications. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2022, 105, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Akingbehin, T.Y.; Raj, P.S. Ophthalmic Topical Beta Blockers: Review of Ocular and Systemic Adverse Effects. J. Toxicol.Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 1990, 9, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Becker, B. Carbonic anhydrase and the formation of aqueous humor. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1959, 47, 342–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Green, K.; Pederson, J.E. Contribution of secretion and filtration to aqueous humor formation. Am. J. Physiol. 1972, 222, 1218–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Becker, B. Decrease in intraocular pressure in man by a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, diamox; a preliminary report. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1954, 37, 13–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, R.F.; Serle, J.B.; Podos, S.M.; Sugrue, M.F. MK-507 (L-671,152), a topically active carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, reduces aqueous humor production in monkeys. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1991, 109, 1297–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DeSantis, L. Preclinical overview of brinzolamide. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2000, 44 (Suppl. 2), S119–S129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sugrue, M.F. Pharmacological and ocular hypotensive properties of topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2000, 19, 87–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Supuran, C.T.; Scozzafava, A. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and their therapeutic potential. Expert. Opin. Ther. Pat. 2000, 10, 575–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Swenson, E.R. Safety of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2014, 13, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pfeiffer, N. Dorzolamide: Development and clinical application of a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1997, 42, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Popovic, M.M.; Schlenker, M.B.; Thiruchelvam, D.; Redelmeier, D.A. Serious Adverse Events of Oral and Topical Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022, 140, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Epstein, D.L.; Grant, W.M. Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitor Side Effects: Serum Chemical Analysis. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1977, 95, 1378–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. McMahon, C.D.; Shaffer, R.N.; Hoskins, H.D., Jr.; Hetherington, J., Jr. Adverse effects experienced by patients taking timolol. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1979, 88, 736–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Van Buskirk, E.M. Adverse reactions from timolol administration. Ophthalmology 1980, 87, 447–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zimmerman, T.J.; Leader, B.J.; Golob, D.S. Potential side effects of timolol therapy in the treatment of glaucoma. Ann. Ophthalmol. 1981, 13, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Van Buskirk, E.M. Corneal anesthesia after timolol maleate therapy. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1979, 88, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bonomi, L.; Zavarise, G.; Noya, E.; Michieletto, S. Effects of timolol maleate on tear flow in human eyes. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch. Klin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 1980, 213, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Scoville, B.; Mueller, B.; White, B.G.; Krieglstein, G.K. A double-masked comparison of carteolol and timolol in ocular hypertension. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1988, 105, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Berry, D.P., Jr.; Van Buskirk, E.M.; Shields, M.B. Betaxolol and timolol. A comparison of efficacy and side effects. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1984, 102, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nielsen, N.V.; Eriksen, J.S. Timolol transitory manifestations of dry eyes in long term treatment. Acta Ophthalmol. Copenh. 1979, 57, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chen, H.-Y.; Lin, C.-L.; Tsai, Y.-Y.; Kao, C.-H. Association between Glaucoma Medication Usage and Dry Eye in Taiwan. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2015, 92, e227–e232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Nelson, W.L.; Fraunfelder, F.T.; Sills, J.M.; Arrowsmith, J.B.; Kuritsky, J.N. Adverse respiratory and cardiovascular events attributed to timolol ophthalmic solution, 1978–1985. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1986, 102, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gary, D.N.; Irving, H.L. The toxicity of topical ophthalmic beta blockers. J. Toxicol. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 1987, 6, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Blondeau, P.; Rousseau, J.A. Allergic reactions to brimonidine in patients treated for glaucoma. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2002, 37, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. David, R. Brimonidine (Alphagan): A clinical profile four years after launch. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 11 (Suppl. 2), S72–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Melamed, S.; David, R. Ongoing clinical assessment of the safety profile and efficacy of brimonidine compared with timolol: Year-three results. Clin. Ther. 2000, 22, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kampik, A.; Arias-Puente, A.; O’Brart, D.P.; Vuori, M.L. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of latanoprost and brimonidine therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: A randomized observer-masked multicenter study. J. Glaucoma 2002, 11, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schuman, J.S.; Horwitz, B.; Choplin, N.T.; David, R.; Albracht, D.; Chen, K. A 1-Year Study of Brimonidine Twice Daily in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension: A Controlled, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1997, 115, 847–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buerkle, H.; Yaksh, T.L. Pharmacological evidence for different alpha 2-adrenergic receptor sites mediating analgesia and sedation in the rat. Br. J. Anaesth. 1998, 81, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Philipp, M.; Brede, M.; Hein, L. Physiological significance of alpha(2)-adrenergic receptor subtype diversity: One receptor is not enough. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2002, 283, R287–R295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Samuels, E.R.; Szabadi, E. Functional neuroanatomy of the noradrenergic locus coeruleus: Its roles in the regulation of arousal and autonomic function part II: Physiological and pharmacological manipulations and pathological alterations of locus coeruleus activity in humans. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2008, 6, 254–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cantor, L.B.; Spaeth, G.L. Side effects of glaucoma medications. PA Med. 1985, 88, 58–60. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Arthur, S.; Cantor, L.B. Update on the role of alpha-agonists in glaucoma management. Exp. Eye Res. 2011, 93, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Becker, B.; Morton, W.R. Topical epinephrine in glaucoma suspects. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1966, 62, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Schuman, J.S. Short- and long-term safety of glaucoma drugs. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2002, 1, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Schuman, J.S. Antiglaucoma medications: A review of safety and tolerability issues related to their use. Clin. Ther. 2000, 22, 167–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Warwar, R.E.; Bullock, J.D.; Ballal, D. Cystoid macular edema and anterior uveitis associated with latanoprost use. Experience and incidence in a retrospective review of 94 patients. Ophthalmology 1998, 105, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Alm, A.; Grierson, I.; Shields, M.B. Side Effects Associated with Prostaglandin Analog Therapy. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2008, 53, S93–S105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bean, G.; Reardon, G.; Zimmerman, T.J. Association between ocular herpes simplex virus and topical ocular hypotensive therapy. J. Glaucoma 2004, 13, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kaufman, H.E.; Varnell, E.D.; Thompson, H.W. Latanoprost increases the severity and recurrence of herpetic keratitis in the rabbit. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 127, 531–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Holló, G.; Aung, T.; Cantor, L.B.; Aihara, M. Cystoid macular edema related to cataract surgery and topical prostaglandin analogs: Mechanism, diagnosis, and management. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2020, 65, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pisella, P.J.; Debbasch, C.; Hamard, P.; Creuzot-Garcher, C.; Rat, P.; Brignole, F.; Baudouin, C. Conjunctival proinflammatory and proapoptotic effects of latanoprost and preserved and unpreserved timolol: An ex vivo and in vitro study. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004, 45, 1360–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kucukevcilioglu, M.; Bayer, A.; Uysal, Y.; Altinsoy, H.I. Prostaglandin associated periorbitopathy in patients using bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2014, 42, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. European Glaucoma Society. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition—Chapter 2: Classification and terminology Supported by the EGS Foundation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 73–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Herndon, L.W.; Robert, D.W.; Wand, M.; Asrani, S. Increased periocular pigmentation with ocular hypotensive lipid use in African Americans. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 135, 713–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Osborne, S.A.; Montgomery, D.M.; Morris, D.; McKay, I.C. Alphagan allergy may increase the propensity for multiple eye-drop allergy. Eye 2005, 19, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Perry, C.M.; McGavin, J.K.; Culy, C.R.; Ibbotson, T. Latanoprost: An update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 2003, 20, 597–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Stjernschantz, J.; Ocklind, A.; Wentzel, P.; Lake, S.; Hu, D.N. Latanoprost-induced increase of tyrosinase transcription in iridial melanocytes. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2000, 78, 618–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Drago, F.; Marino, A.; La Manna, C. alpha-Methyl-p-tyrosine inhibits latanoprost-induced melanogenesis in vitro. Exp. Eye Res. 1999, 68, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kashiwagi, K.; Tsukamoto, K.; Suzuki, M.; Tsukahara, S. Effects of isopropyl unoprostone and latanoprost on melanogenesis in mouse epidermal melanocytes. J. Glaucoma 2002, 11, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Stjernschantz, J.W.; Albert, D.M.; Hu, D.N.; Drago, F.; Wistrand, P.J. Mechanism and clinical significance of prostaglandin-induced iris pigmentation. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2002, 47 (Suppl. 1), S162–S175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Aptel, F.; Cucherat, M.; Denis, P. Efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin analogs: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J. Glaucoma 2008, 17, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Rajan, M.S.; Syam, P.; Liu, C. Systemic side effects of topical latanoprost. Eye 2003, 17, 442–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Chen, R.; Yang, K.; Zheng, Z.; Ong, M.L.; Wang, N.L.; Zhan, S.Y. Meta-analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Latanoprost Monotherapy in Patients with Angle-closure Glaucoma. J. Glaucoma 2016, 25, e134–e144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Novack, G.D.; O’Donnell, M.J.; Molloy, D.W. New glaucoma medications in the geriatric population: Efficacy and safety. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2002, 50, 956–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Konstas, A.G.; Katsimbris, J.M.; Lallos, N.; Boukaras, G.P.; Jenkins, J.N.; Stewart, W.C. Latanoprost 0.005% versus bimatoprost 0.03% in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 2005, 112, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Arens, A.M.; Kearney, T. Adverse Effects of Physostigmine. J. Med. Toxicol. 2019, 15, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Moshirfar, M.; Parker, L.; Birdsong, O.C.; Ronquillo, Y.C.; Hofstedt, D.; Shah, T.J.; Gomez, A.T.; Hoopes, P.C.S. Use of Rho kinase Inhibitors in Ophthalmology: A Review of the Literature. Med. Hypothesis Discov. Innov. Ophthalmol. 2018, 7, 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lin, J.B.; Harris, J.M.; Baldwin, G.; Goss, D.; Margeta, M.A. Ocular effects of Rho kinase (ROCK) inhibition: A systematic review. Eye 2024, 38, 3418–3428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Phillips, C.I.; Howitt, G.; Rowlands, D.J. Propranolol as ocular hypotensive agent. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1967, 51, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Coakes, R.L.; Brubaker, R.F. The mechanism of timolol in lowering intraocular pressure. In the normal eye. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1978, 96, 2045–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Berrospi, A.R.; Leibowitz, H.M. Betaxolol. A new beta-adrenergic blocking agent for treatment of glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1982, 100, 943–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Kitazawa, Y.; Azuma, I.; Takase, M.; Komemushi, S. Ocular hypotensive effects of carteolol hydrochloride in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. A double-masked cross-over study for the determination of concentrations optimal for the clinical use (author’s transl). Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1981, 85, 798–804. [Google Scholar]
  76. Berson, F.G.; Epstein, D.L.; Partamian, L.G.; Cinotti, A.; Cohen, H.; Fries, P.; David, R.; Gurion, B.; Duzman, E.; Novack, G.D.; et al. Levobunolol: A beta-adrenoceptor antagonist effective in the long-term treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1985, 92, 1271–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Andréasson, S.; Jensen, K.M. Effect of pindolol on intraocular pressure in glaucoma: Pilot study and a randomised comparison with timolol. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1983, 67, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kitazawa, Y.; Horie, T.; Shirato, S. Ocular and Systemic Effects of new Beta-blocking Agents, Carteolol and Befunolol. In Medikamentöse Glaukomtherapie; J.F. Bergmann-Verlag: Munich, Germany, 1982; pp. 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sears, M.L. Regulation of Aqueous Flow by the Adenylate Cyclase Receptor Complex in the Ciliary Epithelium. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1985, 100, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Shim, M.S.; Kim, K.Y.; Ju, W.K. Role of cyclic AMP in the eye with glaucoma. BMB Rep. 2017, 50, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Brubaker, R.F.; Nagataki, S.; Bourne, W.M. Effect of chronically administered timolol on aqueous humor flow in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1982, 89, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Boger, W.P., 3rd. Shortterm “escape” and longterm “drift.” The dissipation effects of the beta adrenergic blocking agents. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1983, 28, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mittag, T.W.; Tormay, A. Drug responses of adenylate cyclase in iris-ciliary body determined by adenine labelling. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1985, 26, 396–399. [Google Scholar]
  84. Toris, C.B.; Gleason, M.L.; Camras, C.B.; Yablonski, M.E. Effects of brimonidine on aqueous humor dynamics in human eyes. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1995, 113, 1514–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Alm, A.; Nilsson, S.F.E. Uveoscleral outflow—A review. Exp. Eye Res. 2009, 88, 760–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Yüksel, N.; Karabaş, L.; Altintaş, O.; Yildirim, Y.; Cağlar, Y. A comparison of the short-term hypotensive effects and side effects of unilateral brimonidine and apraclonidine in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica 2002, 216, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Sodhi, P.K.; Verma, L.; Ratan, J. Dermatological side effects of brimonidine: A report of three cases. J. Dermatol. 2003, 30, 697–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Robin, A.L.; Coleman, A.L. Apraclonidine hydrochloride: An evaluation of plasma concentrations, and a comparison of its intraocular pressure lowering and cardiovascular effects to timolol maleate. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1990, 88, 149–159. [Google Scholar]
  89. Katz, L.J. Brimonidine tartrate 0.2% twice daily vs timolol 0.5% twice daily: 1-year results in glaucoma patients. Brimonidine Study Group. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 127, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Adkins, J.C.; Balfour, J.A. Brimonidine. A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical potential in the management of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 1998, 12, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Cantor, L.B. Brimonidine in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2006, 2, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Walters, T.R. Development and use of brimonidine in treating acute and chronic elevations of intraocular pressure: A review of safety, efficacy, dose response, and dosing studies. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1996, 41 (Suppl. 1), S19–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Docherty, J.R. Subtypes of functional alpha1-adrenoceptor. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010, 67, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Goel, M.; Picciani, R.G.; Lee, R.K.; Bhattacharya, S.K. Aqueous humor dynamics: A review. Open Ophthalmol. J. 2010, 4, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Toris, C.B.; Gabelt, B.T.; Kaufman, P.L. Update on the mechanism of action of topical prostaglandins for intraocular pressure reduction. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2008, 53 (Suppl 1), S107–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Lin, L.; Zhao, Y.J.; Chew, P.T.; Sng, C.C.; Wong, H.T.; Yip, L.W.; Wu, T.S.; Bautista, D.; Teng, M.; Khoo, A.L.; et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of topical prostaglandin analogues for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ann. Pharmacother. 2014, 48, 1585–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hoy, S.M. Latanoprostene Bunod Ophthalmic Solution 0.024%: A Review in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension. Drugs 2018, 78, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Robb, G.L. The Ordeal Poisons of Madagascar and Africa. Bot. Mus. Leaflets 1957, 17, 265–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Grierson, I.; Lee, W.R.; Abraham, S. Effects of pilocarpine on the morphology of the human outflow apparatus. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1978, 62, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kobayashi, H.; Kobayashi, K.; Kiryu, J.; Kondo, T. Ultrasound biomicroscopic analysis of the effect of pilocarpine on the anterior chamber angle. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 1997, 235, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Ganias, F.; Mapstone, R. Miotics in closed-angle glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1975, 59, 205–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Grierson, I.; Lee, W.R. Pressure-induced changes in the ultrastructure of the endothelium lining Schlemm’s canal. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1975, 80, 863–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Honjo, M.; Tanihara, H.; Inatani, M.; Kido, N.; Sawamura, T.; Yue, B.Y.J.T.; Narumiya, S.; Honda, Y. Effects of Rho-Associated Protein Kinase Inhibitor Y-27632 on Intraocular Pressure and Outflow Facility. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2001, 42, 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  104. Tanna, A.P.; Johnson, M. Rho Kinase Inhibitors as a Novel Treatment for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, 1741–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Asrani, S.; Robin, A.L.; Serle, J.B.; Lewis, R.A.; Usner, D.W.; Kopczynski, C.C.; Heah, T. Netarsudil/Latanoprost Fixed-Dose Combination for Elevated Intraocular Pressure: Three-Month Data from a Randomized Phase 3 Trial. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 207, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kolker, A.E. Hyperosmotic agents in glaucoma. Investig. Ophthalmol. 1970, 9, 418–423. [Google Scholar]
  107. Widengård, I.; Mandahl, A.; Törnquist, P.; Wistrand, P.J. Colour vision and side-effects during treatment with methazolamide. Eye 1995, 9 Pt 1, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kwon, S.J.; Park, D.H.; Shin, J.P. Bilateral transient myopia, angle-closure glaucoma, and choroidal detachment induced by methazolamide. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 2012, 56, 515–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Guedes, G.B.; Karan, A.; Mayer, H.R.; Shields, M.B. Evaluation of Adverse Events in Self-Reported Sulfa-Allergic Patients Using Topical Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013, 29, 456–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Holdiness, M.R. Contact dermatitis to topical drugs for glaucoma. Am. J. Contact Dermat. 2001, 12, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lee, S.-J.; Kim, M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by dorzolamide eyedrops. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015, 9, 575–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Konowal, A.; Morrison, J.C.; Brown, S.V.L.; Cooke, D.L.; Maguire, L.J.; Verdier, D.V.; Fraunfelder, F.T.; Dennis, R.F.; Epstein, R.J. Irreversible corneal decompensation in patients treated with topical dorzolamide. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 127, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. van Beek, L.M.; de Keizer, R.J.; Polak, B.C.; Elzenaar, P.R.; van Haeringen, N.J.; Kijlstra, A. Incidence of ocular side effects of topical beta blockers in the Netherlands. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000, 84, 856–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Herbst, R.A.; Maibach, H.I. Contact dermatitis caused by allergy to ophthalmics: An update. Contact Dermat. 1992, 27, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Rudzki, E.; Kecik, T.; Rebandel, P.; Portacha, L.; Pauk, M. Frequency of contact sensitivity to drugs and preservatives in patients with conjunctivitis. Contact Dermat. 1995, 33, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Perrenoud, D.; Bircher, A.; Hunziker, T.; Suter, H.; Bruckner-Tuderman, L.; Stäger, J.; Thürlimann, W.; Schmid, P.; Suard, A.; Hunziker, N. Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermat. 1994, 30, 276–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. O’Donnell, B.F.; Foulds, I.S. Contact allergy to beta-blocking agents in ophthalmic preparations. Contact Dermat. 1993, 28, 121–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Petounis, A.D.; Akritopoulos, P. Influence of topical and systemic β-blockers on tear production. Int. Ophthalmol. 1989, 13, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Byles, D.B.; Frith, P.; Salmon, J.F. Anterior uveitis as a side effect of topical brimonidine. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2000, 130, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Nguyen, E.V.; Azar, D.; Papalkar, D.; McCluskey, P. Brimonidine-induced Anterior Uveitis and Conjunctivitis: Clinical and Histologic Features. J. Glaucoma 2008, 17, 40–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Katz, L.J. Twelve-month evaluation of brimonidine-purite versus brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J. Glaucoma 2002, 11, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Feibel, R.M. High Incidence of Topical Allergic Reactions to 1% Apraclonidine. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1995, 113, 1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Feldman, R.M. Conjunctival Hyperemia and the Use of Topical Prostaglandins in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2003, 19, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Inoue, K. Managing adverse effects of glaucoma medications. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2014, 8, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. O’Toole, L.; Cahill, M.; O’Brien, C. Eyelid hypertrichosis associated with latanoprost is reversible. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 11, 377–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Bearden, W.; Anderson, R. Trichiasis associated with prostaglandin analog use. Ophthalmic Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2004, 20, 320–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Uno, H.; Zimbric, M.L.; Albert, D.M.; Stjernschantz, J. Effect of latanoprost on hair growth in the bald scalp of the stump-tailed macacque: A pilot study. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2002, 82, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Parrish, R.K.; Palmberg, P.; Sheu, W.P. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: A 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 135, 688–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Alm, A.; Schoenfelder, J.; McDermott, J. A 5-year, multicenter, open-label, safety study of adjunctive latanoprost therapy for glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004, 122, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Netland, P.A.; Landry, T.; Sullivan, E.K.; Andrew, R.; Silver, L.; Weiner, A.; Mallick, S.; Dickerson, J.; Bergamini, M.V.W.; Robertson, S.M.; et al. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 132, 472–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Brandt, J.D.; VanDenburgh, A.M.; Chen, K.; Whitcup, S.M. Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP: A 3-month clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2001, 108, 1023–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Sherwood, M.; Brandt, J. Six-Month Comparison of Bimatoprost Once-Daily and Twice-Daily with Timolol Twice-Daily in Patients with Elevated Intraocular Pressure. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2001, 45, S361–S368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Aihara, M.; Shirato, S.; Sakata, R. Incidence of deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus after switching from latanoprost to bimatoprost. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 55, 600–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Nakakura, S.; Terao, E.; Fujisawa, Y.; Tabuchi, H.; Kiuchi, Y. Changes in Prostaglandin-associated Periorbital Syndrome After Switch from Conventional Prostaglandin F2α Treatment to Omidenepag Isopropyl in 11 Consecutive Patients. J. Glaucoma 2020, 29, 326–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Shah, M.; Lee, G.; Lefebvre, D.R.; Kronberg, B.; Loomis, S.; Brauner, S.C.; Turalba, A.; Rhee, D.J.; Freitag, S.K.; Pasquale, L.R. A cross-sectional survey of the association between bilateral topical prostaglandin analogue use and ocular adnexal features. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Patradul, C.; Tantisevi, V.; Manassakorn, A. Factors Related to Prostaglandin-Associated Periorbitopathy in Glaucoma Patients. Asia Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 6, 238–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Manju, M.; Pauly, M. Prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy: A prospective study in Indian eyes. Kerala J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 32, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Taketani, Y.; Yamagishi, R.; Fujishiro, T.; Igarashi, M.; Sakata, R.; Aihara, M. Activation of the prostanoid FP receptor inhibits adipogenesis leading to deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus in prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 1269–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Choi, H.Y.; Lee, J.E.; Lee, J.W.; Park, H.J.; Lee, J.E.; Jung, J.H. In Vitro Study of Antiadipogenic Profile of Latanoprost, Travoprost, Bimatoprost, and Tafluprost in Human Orbital Preadiopocytes. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 28, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Seibold, L.K.; Ammar, D.A.; Kahook, M.Y. Acute effects of glaucoma medications and benzalkonium chloride on pre-adipocyte proliferation and adipocyte cytotoxicity in vitro. Curr. Eye Res. 2013, 38, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ishida, A.; Miki, T.; Naito, T.; Ichioka, S.; Takayanagi, Y.; Tanito, M. Surgical Results of Trabeculectomy among Groups Stratified by Prostaglandin-Associated Periorbitopathy Severity. Ophthalmology 2023, 130, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Guenoun, J.M.; Baudouin, C.; Rat, P.; Pauly, A.; Warnet, J.M.; Brignole-Baudouin, F. In vitro study of inflammatory potential and toxicity profile of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost in conjunctiva-derived epithelial cells. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005, 46, 2444–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jerstad, K.M.; Warshaw, E. Allergic contact dermatitis to latanoprost. Am. J. Contact Dermat. 2002, 13, 39–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Saxena, R.; Prakash, J.A.I.; Mathur, P.; Gupta, S.K. Pharmacotherapy of Glaucoma. Indian. J. Pharmacol. 2002, 34, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  145. Zimmerman, T.J.; Wheeler, T.M. Miotics: Side effects and ways to avoid them. Ophthalmology 1982, 89, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Costagliola, C.; dell’Omo, R.; Romano, M.R.; Rinaldi, M.; Zeppa, L.; Parmeggiani, F. Pharmacotherapy of intraocular pressure: Part I. Parasympathomimetic, sympathomimetic and sympatholytics. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2009, 10, 2663–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Tanihara, H.; Inoue, T.; Yamamoto, T.; Kuwayama, Y.; Abe, H.; Araie, M. Phase 2 randomized clinical study of a Rho kinase inhibitor, K-115, in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 156, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Gupta, S.A.V. Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557736/ (accessed on 23 August 2024).
  149. Lichter, P.R.; Newman, L.P.; Wheeler, N.C.; Beall, O.V. Patient tolerance to carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1978, 85, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Wall, M.; McDermott, M.P.; Kieburtz, K.D.; Corbett, J.J.; Feldon, S.E.; Friedman, D.I.; Katz, D.M.; Keltner, J.L.; Schron, E.B.; Kupersmith, M.J. Effect of acetazolamide on visual function in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and mild visual loss: The idiopathic intracranial hypertension treatment trial. JAMA 2014, 311, 1641–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Fraunfelder, F.T.; Meyer, S.M.; Bagby, G.C., Jr.; Dreis, M.W. Hematologic reactions to carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1985, 100, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Maren, T.H.; Haywood, J.R.; Chapman, S.K.; Zimmerman, T.J. The pharmacology of methazolamide in relation to the treatment of glaucoma. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1977, 16, 730–742. [Google Scholar]
  153. Maren, T.H.; Conroy, C.W.; Wynns, G.C.; Levy, N.S. Ocular Absorption, Blood Levels, and Excretion of Dorzolamide, a Topically Active Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitor. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 1997, 13, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Wilkerson, M.; Cyrlin, M.; Lippa, E.A.; Esposito, D.; Deasy, D.; Panebianco, D.; Fazio, R.; Yablonski, M.; Shields, M.B. Four-Week Safety and Efficacy Study of Dorzolamide, a Novel, Active Topical Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitor. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993, 111, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Strahlman, E.; Tipping, R.; Vogel, R. The Dorzolamide Dose-Response Study, G. A Six-week Dose-response Study of the Ocular Hypotensive Effect of Dorzolamide with a One-year Extension. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1996, 122, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Maren, T.H. Carbonic anhydrase: Chemistry, physiology, and inhibition. Physiol. Rev. 1967, 47, 595–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Denet, A.R.; Ucakar, B.; Préat, V. Transdermal delivery of timolol and atenolol using electroporation and iontophoresis in combination: A mechanistic approach. Pharm. Res. 2003, 20, 1946–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. McAinsh, J.; Cruickshank, J.M. Beta-blockers and central nervous system side effects. Pharmacol. Ther. 1990, 46, 163–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Wilson, R.P.; Spaeth, G.L.; Poryzees, E. The place of timolol in the practice of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1980, 87, 451–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Britman, N.A. Cardiac effects of topical timolol. N. Engl. J. Med. 1979, 300, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Ros, F.E.; Dake, C.L. Timolol eye drops: Bradycardia or tachycardia? Doc. Ophthalmol. 1980, 48, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Jones, F.L., Jr.; Ekberg, N.L. Exacerbation of asthma by timolol. N. Engl. J. Med. 1979, 301, 270. [Google Scholar]
  163. Ahmad, S. Cardiopulmonary effects of timolol eyedrops. Lancet 1979, 2, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Guzman, C.A. Exacerbation of bronchorrhea induced by topical timolol. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1980, 121, 899–900. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  165. Jones, F.L.; Ekberg, N.L. Exacerbation of obstructive airway disease by timolol. JAMA 1980, 244, 2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Noyes, J.H.; Chervinsky, P. Case report: Exacerbation of asthma by timolol. Ann. Allergy 1980, 45, 301. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  167. Charan, N.B.; Lakshminarayan, S. Pulmonary effects of topical timolol. Arch. Intern. Med. 1980, 140, 843–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Schoene, R.B.; Martin, T.R.; Charan, N.B.; French, C.L. Timolol-induced bronchospasm in asthmatic bronchitis. JAMA 1981, 245, 1460–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Nelson, W.L.; Kuritsky, J.N. Early postmarketing surveillance of betaxolol hydrochloride, September 1985-September 1986. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1987, 103, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Tattersfield, A.E. Beta adrenoceptor antagonists and respiratory disease. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 1986, 8 (Suppl. 4), S35–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Fraunfelder, F.T.; Barker, A.F. Respiratory effects of timolol. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984, 311, 1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Cojocariu, S.A.; Maștaleru, A.; Sascău, R.A.; Stătescu, C.; Mitu, F.; Leon-Constantin, M.M. Neuropsychiatric Consequences of Lipophilic Beta-Blockers. Medicina 2021, 57, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Fraunfelder, F.T. Ocular beta-blockers and systemic effects. Arch. Intern. Med. 1986, 146, 1073–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Westsmith, R.A.; Abernethy, R.E. Detachment of retina with use of diisopropyl fluorophosphate (fluropryl) in treatment of glaucoma. AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 1954, 52, 779–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Fraunfelder, F.T.; Meyer, S.M. Sexual dysfunction secondary to topical ophthalmic timolol. JAMA 1985, 253, 3092–3093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Cohen, J.B. A comparative study of the central nervous system effects of betaxolol vs timolol. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1989, 107, 633–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Treseder, A.S.; Thomas, T.P. Sinus arrest due to timolol eye drops. Br. J. Clin. Pract. 1986, 40, 256–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Farkouh, A.; Frigo, P.; Czejka, M. Systemic side effects of eye drops: A pharmacokinetic perspective. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2016, 10, 2433–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Everitt, D.E.; Avorn, J. Systemic effects of medications used to treat glaucoma. Ann. Intern. Med. 1990, 112, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Fraunfelder, F.T.; Scafidi, A.F. Possible adverse effects from topical ocular 10% phenylephrine. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1978, 85, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Little, J.W. Thyroid disorders. Part I: Hyperthyroidism. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 101, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Kerr, C.R.; Hass, I.; Drance, S.M.; Walters, M.B.; Schulzer, M. Cardiovascular effects of epinephrine and dipivalyl epinephrine applied topically to the eye in patients with glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1982, 66, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Yu, Y.; Lucitt, M.B.; Stubbe, J.; Cheng, Y.; Friis, U.G.; Hansen, P.B.; Jensen, B.L.; Smyth, E.M.; FitzGerald, G.A. Prostaglandin F2alpha elevates blood pressure and promotes atherosclerosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 7985–7990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Peak, A.S.; Sutton, B.M. Systemic adverse effects associated with topically applied latanoprost. Ann. Pharmacother. 1998, 32, 504–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Lee, K.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, T.H. The Biology of Prostaglandins and Their Role as a Target for Allergic Airway Disease Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Ohyama, K.; Sugiura, M. Evaluation of the Association between Topical Prostaglandin F2α Analogs and Asthma Using the JADER Database: Comparison with β-Blockers. Yakugaku Zasshi 2018, 138, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Reyes, P.F.; Dwyer, B.A.; Schwartzman, R.J.; Sacchetti, T. Mental status changes induced by eye drops in dementia of the Alzheimer type. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1987, 50, 113–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Pakala, R.S.; Brown, K.N.; Preuss, C.V. Cholinergic Medications; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538163/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  189. Becker, B.; Gage, T. Demecarium bromide and echothiophate iodide in chronic glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1960, 63, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Pratt-Johnson, J.A.; Drance, S.M.; Innes, R. Comparison between pilocarpine and echothiophate for chronic simple glaucoma. A comparison between 4 per cent pilocarpine and 0.06 per cent echothiophate iodine in the diurnal management of chronic simple glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1964, 72, 485–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Dang, Y. Rho-Kinase Inhibitors as Emerging Targets for Glaucoma Therapy. Ophthalmol. Ther. 2023, 12, 2943–2957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Sambhara, D.; Aref, A.A. Glaucoma management: Relative value and place in therapy of available drug treatments. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2014, 5, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Domaingue, C.M.; Nye, D.H. Hypotensive effect of mannitol administered rapidly. Anaesth. Intensive Care 1985, 13, 134–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Tsai, S.F.; Shu, K.H. Mannitol-induced acute renal failure. Clin. Nephrol. 2010, 74, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Spaeth, G.L.; Spaeth, E.B.; Spaeth, P.G.; Lucier, A.C. Anaphylactic reaction to mannitol. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1967, 78, 583–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Park, J.; Kwak, Y.; Kim, C.H.; Lee, Y.; Choi, Y.J.; Kang, D.H.; Ohk, B. Intraoperative Mannitol Administration Increases the Risk of Postoperative Chronic Subdural Hemorrhage After Unruptured Aneurysm Surgery. World Neurosurg. 2019, 127, e919–e924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Tenny, S.; Patel, R.; Thorell, W. Mannitol; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470392/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  198. Murray, D. Emergency management: Angle-closure glaucoma. Community Eye Health 2018, 31, 64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  199. Novack, G.D.; Evans, R. Commercially available ocular hypotensive products: Preservative concentration, stability, storage, and in-life utilization. J. Glaucoma 2001, 10, 483–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Zimmerman, T.J.; Kooner, K.S.; Kandarakis, A.S.; Ziegler, L.P. Improving the therapeutic index of topically applied ocular drugs. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1984, 102, 551–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Schwartz, G.F.; Quigley, H.A. Adherence and Persistence with Glaucoma Therapy. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2008, 53, S57–S68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Stein, J.D.; Khawaja, A.P.; Weizer, J.S. Glaucoma in Adults—Screening, Diagnosis, and Management: A Review. JAMA 2021, 325, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Movahedinejad, T.; Adib-Hajbaghery, M. Adherence to treatment in patients with open-angle glaucoma and its related factors. Electron. Physician 2016, 8, 2954–2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Tsai, J.C.; McClure, C.A.; Ramos, S.E.; Schlundt, D.G.; Pichert, J.W. Compliance barriers in glaucoma: A systematic classification. J. Glaucoma 2003, 12, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Patel, S.C.; Spaeth, G.L. Compliance in patients prescribed eyedrops for glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995, 26, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Wolfram, C.; Stahlberg, E.; Pfeiffer, N. Patient-Reported Nonadherence with Glaucoma Therapy. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 35, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Friedman, D.S.; Hahn, S.R.; Gelb, L.; Tan, J.; Shah, S.N.; Kim, E.E.; Zimmerman, T.J.; Quigley, H.A. Doctor-patient communication, health-related beliefs, and adherence in glaucoma results from the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 1320–1327.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Nordmann, J.-P.; Auzanneau, N.; Ricard, S.; Berdeaux, G. Vision related quality of life and topical glaucoma treatment side effects. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2003, 1, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Quaranta, L.; Riva, I.; Gerardi, C.; Oddone, F.; Floriano, I.; Konstas, A.G.P. Quality of Life in Glaucoma: A Review of the Literature. Adv. Ther. 2016, 33, 959–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Odberg, T.; Jakobsen, J.E.; Hultgren, S.J.; Halseide, R. The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2001, 79, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Lewis, R.A.; Levy, B.; Ramirez, N.; Kopczynski, C.C.; Usner, D.W.; Novack, G.D. Fixed-dose combination of AR-13324 and latanoprost: A double-masked, 28-day, randomised, controlled study in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 100, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Medeiros, F.A.; Martin, K.R.; Peace, J.; Scassellati Sforzolini, B.; Vittitow, J.L.; Weinreb, R.N. Comparison of Latanoprostene Bunod 0.024% and Timolol Maleate 0.5% in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: The LUNAR Study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 168, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Weinreb, R.N.; Scassellati Sforzolini, B.; Vittitow, J.; Liebmann, J. Latanoprostene Bunod 0.024% versus Timolol Maleate 0.5% in Subjects with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: The APOLLO Study. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Jiang, Y.; Ondeck, C. A Review of New Medications and Future Directions of Medical Therapies in Glaucoma. Semin. Ophthalmol. 2020, 35, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Weinreb, R.N.; Liebmann, J.M.; Martin, K.R.; Kaufman, P.L.; Vittitow, J.L. Latanoprostene Bunod 0.024% in Subjects With Open-angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: Pooled Phase 3 Study Findings. J. Glaucoma 2018, 27, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Kawase, K.; Vittitow, J.L.; Weinreb, R.N.; Araie, M. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Latanoprostene Bunod 0.024% in Japanese Subjects with Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: The JUPITER Study. Adv. Ther. 2016, 33, 1612–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Wang, J.W.; Woodward, D.F.; Stamer, W.D. Differential effects of prostaglandin E2-sensitive receptors on contractility of human ocular cells that regulate conventional outflow. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013, 54, 4782–4790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Kalouche, G.; Beguier, F.; Bakria, M.; Melik-Parsadaniantz, S.; Leriche, C.; Debeir, T.; Rostène, W.; Baudouin, C.; Vigé, X. Activation of Prostaglandin FP and EP2 Receptors Differently Modulates Myofibroblast Transition in a Model of Adult Primary Human Trabecular Meshwork Cells. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016, 57, 1816–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Schlötzer-Schrehardt, U.; Zenkel, M.; Nüsing, R.M. Expression and localization of FP and EP prostanoid receptor subtypes in human ocular tissues. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002, 43, 1475–1487. [Google Scholar]
  220. Miller Ellis, E.; Berlin, M.S.; Ward, C.L.; Sharpe, J.A.; Jamil, A.; Harris, A. Ocular hypotensive effect of the novel EP3/FP agonist ONO-9054 versus Xalatan: Results of a 28-day, double-masked, randomised study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 796–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Chamard, C.; Larrieu, S.; Baudouin, C.; Bron, A.; Villain, M.; Daien, V. Preservative-free versus preserved glaucoma eye drops and occurrence of glaucoma surgery. A retrospective study based on the French national health insurance information system, 2008–2016. Acta Ophthalmol. Copenh. 2020, 98, e876–e881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Boimer, C.; Birt, C.M. Preservative exposure and surgical outcomes in glaucoma patients: The PESO study. J. Glaucoma 2013, 22, 730–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Rosin, L.M.; Bell, N.P. Preservative toxicity in glaucoma medication: Clinical evaluation of benzalkonium chloride-free 0.5% timolol eye drops. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2013, 7, 2131–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Inoue, K.; Masumoto, M.; Wakakura, M.; Tomita, G. Ocular hypotensive effects and safety of latanoprost without benzalkonium hydrochloride. Atarashii Ganka 2011, 28, 1635–1639. [Google Scholar]
  225. Zimmerman, T.J.; Hahn, S.R.; Gelb, L.; Tan, H.; Kim, E.E. The impact of ocular adverse effects in patients treated with topical prostaglandin analogs: Changes in prescription patterns and patient persistence. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 25, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Konstas, A.G.; Boboridis, K.G.; Kapis, P.; Marinopoulos, K.; Voudouragkaki, I.C.; Panayiotou, D.; Mikropoulos, D.G.; Pagkalidou, E.; Haidich, A.B.; Katsanos, A.; et al. 24-Hour Efficacy and Ocular Surface Health with Preservative-Free Tafluprost Alone and in Conjunction with Preservative-Free Dorzolamide/Timolol Fixed Combination in Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients Insufficiently Controlled with Preserved Latanoprost Monotherapy. Adv. Ther. 2017, 34, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Konstas, A.G.; Holló, G. Preservative-free tafluprost/timolol fixed combination: A new opportunity in the treatment of glaucoma. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2016, 17, 1271–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Reported ocular and systemic adverse side effects of therapeutic classes of glaucoma pharmacotherapy.
Table 1. Reported ocular and systemic adverse side effects of therapeutic classes of glaucoma pharmacotherapy.
Therapeutic ClassOcular Side EffectsSystemic Side EffectsClinical Recommendations
Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs)Oral: Color vision changes, bilateral transient myopia, angle-closure glaucoma, and choroidal detachment
Topical: Stinging sensation (12%), reddening or burning sensation of the eye (12%), blurred vision (9%), pruritus/itching (9%), and tearing (7%) [20]
Rarely: Hyperemia, corneal decompensation, and contact dermatitis		Topical:
- Stevens–Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis or aplastic anemia (0.208%)
- Transient bitter or metallic taste (25%) [19,20,21,22]
- Rarely: nausea, fatigue, headache, skin rashes, paresthesia, and urolithiasis
Oral:
- Stevens–Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis or aplastic anemia (0.29%) [23]
- Symptom complex (47.8%): general malaise, weight loss, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, depression, and loss of libido [24]		Second-line;
Safety profile: topical > oral.
Efficacy: topical < oral
Avoid in patients with serious nephropathy.
Βeta (β) blockers-Allergic blepharoconjunctivitis, conjunctival hyperemia, punctate keratopathy (due to allergic reactions to benzalkonium chloride or β-blocker)
- Burning or stinging sensation on instillation (~30–40% of patients), eye pain or discomfort, foreign body sensation, itchiness, and blurred vision [13,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]
- Dry eye (11%) (due to reduced tear production) [32,33]		- Cardiovascular: arrythmia (55%), syncope (13%), heart failure (9%), palpitations (4%), and angina (3%) [34]
- Respiratory: bronchospasm-related reactions (58%) such as asthma exacerbation and chronic obstructive airways; dyspnea (29%), apnea (4%), respiratory distress (3%), and respiratory failure (2%) [34]
- Neurological: depression, decreased libido, anxiety, nausea, lethargy, emotional lability or irritability, and anorexia		First-line; may be chosen if PGAs are contraindicated or not well-tolerated.
Avoid in patients with cardiovascular (e.g., heart failure, sinus bradycardia, atrioventricular block) or respiratory (e.g., asthma, bronchospasms, chronic obstructive lung disease) comorbidities, especially in elderly patients.
Alpha-adrenergic agonistBrimonidine:
- Blurry vision (6.3–22.2%), burning sensation (14.6–28.1%), conjunctival hyperemia (5.9–30.3%), lid erythema (10.4%), photophobia (4.2–11.3%), and ocular pruritus (12.2–12.5%) [30,31,35]
- High-risk of allergic reactions (up to 26%) [36,37]
Apraclonidine:
- Follicular conjunctivitis and contact dermatitis (due to high oxidative potential)
Non-selective agonists:
- Irritation, pupillary dilation, hyperemia, follicular conjunctivitis, adrenochrome deposits		Brimonidine:
- Fatigue/drowsiness (2.7–19.9%), sedation, and analgesic effects [38,39,40,41]
- Reduced blood pressure, headache (4.3–19%) or dizziness (2.1%), and dry mouth (5.3–33%) [38,39,40,42,43]
Apraclonidine:
- Does not readily cross blood–brain barrier.
Epinephrine:
- Cardiovascular: increased risk of benign ventricular extrasystoles, severe hypertensive reactions, and myocardial infarction		Second-line;
Valuable in both chronic (Brimonidine) and acute (Apraclonidine) glaucoma management;
highest risk of allergic reactions, which may warrant medical discontinual and switching.
Prostaglandin analogs (PGAs)- Lash growth, periocular skin pigmentation (1.5–2.9%), iris pigmentation changes (7–30%), conjunctival hyperemia (5% to 68%), and peri-orbitopathy [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]
- Extent of lash grow:
0–25% (latanoprost)
3–36% (bimatoprost)
0.7–52% (travoprost) [44,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]
- Anterior uveitis (4.9–6.4%) and reactivation of herpetic simplex keratitis (0.44%) [49,50,51,52,53,54]		- May elevate risk of asthma exacerbation (0.98%)
- Muscle/join aches and migraines (0.13%), rhinitis (0.26%), and non-ocular skin pigmentation (0.13%) [65,66,67,68].		First-line;
An excellent choice as the first glaucoma medication for a wide range of patient populations.
Exert caution when treating inflammatory glaucoma: risk of anterior uveitis and cystoid macular edema.
ParasympathomimeticsDirect-acting:
- Miosis, ciliary muscle spasm, and brow ache		Direct-acting:
- Cardiovascular: bradycardia, arrhythmia, hypotension, flushing, and angina pectoris
- Central nervous system: headache, dizziness, somnolence
- Gastrointestinal: nausea, vomiting, salivation, diarrhea, urinary incontinence
- Respiratory: cough, dyspnea, asthma exacerbation, pulmonary edema
- Alzheimer’s disease exacerbation
Indirect-acting: hypersalivation (9%), seizure (0.61%), vomiting (4.2%), abdominal cramps, bradycardia (0.35%), and arrhythmia (0.04%) [69]		Rarely used in practice now due to undesirable benefit to harm ratio.
Rho kinase inhibitors- Conjunctival hyperemia (>50% of patients for Netarsudil) [70,71]
- Corneal verticillate, instillation site pain, and conjunctival hemorrhages 		Newer agents with promising efficacy and safety profile. May serve as a meaningful adjunct to first-line therapy.
Hyperosmotic agents - Dry mouth, volume depletion, and cardiac effects (tachycardiac, hypotension, worsened heart failure)
- Gastrointestinal events (nausea, vomiting)
- Renal events (metabolic acidosis, urinary retention, acute kidney injury, peripheral edema)
- Subdural hematoma
- Anaphylactic reactions		Limited to acute glaucoma attacks.
Should be avoided in patients with heart failure, pulmonary edema, electrolyte imbalance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, X.; Balas, M.; Mathew, D.J. A Review of Ocular and Systemic Side Effects in Glaucoma Pharmacotherapy. J. Clin. Transl. Ophthalmol. 2025, 3, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto3010002

AMA Style

Li X, Balas M, Mathew DJ. A Review of Ocular and Systemic Side Effects in Glaucoma Pharmacotherapy. Journal of Clinical & Translational Ophthalmology. 2025; 3(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto3010002

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xiaole, Michael Balas, and David J. Mathew. 2025. "A Review of Ocular and Systemic Side Effects in Glaucoma Pharmacotherapy" Journal of Clinical & Translational Ophthalmology 3, no. 1: 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto3010002

APA Style

Li, X., Balas, M., & Mathew, D. J. (2025). A Review of Ocular and Systemic Side Effects in Glaucoma Pharmacotherapy. Journal of Clinical & Translational Ophthalmology, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto3010002

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop