Adherence to Medication in Glaucoma Patients Could Improve the Visual Field

Reinne Natali Christine; Gilbert Simanjuntak; Silphia Novelyn

doi:10.56741/IISTR.jphs.002025

Authors

Reinne Natali Christine
reinne.christine@uki.ac.id
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Gilbert Simanjuntak Universitas Kristen Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9680-0605
Silphia Novelyn Universitas Kristen Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9520-9469

Keywords:

Glaucoma, Intraocular Pressure, Medication Adherence, MMAS-8, Visual Field

Abstract

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Medical therapy aims to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) and prevent optic nerve damage, but its effectiveness depends on medication adherence. This study assessed medication adherence among glaucoma patients and examined its association with visual field outcomes after at least six months of medical therapy at Universitas Kristen Indonesia General Hospital in 2024. An observational analytic cross-sectional design was used. Medication adherence was measured once using the Indonesian Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8), while visual field outcomes were evaluated retrospectively by comparing baseline and most recent 24-2 automated perimetry results from medical records. Eligible patients had received anti-glaucoma medication for ≥6 months, had at least two reliable perimetry examinations, and had not undergone glaucoma surgery. Fifty-one patients were included; 76.5% were female, with a mean age of 42.23 ± 21.4 years. Most had mild-to-moderate glaucoma, normal visual acuity, and baseline IOP within the normal range. Latanoprost was the most prescribed medication. Mean IOP decreased in both eyes after treatment, while mean deviation improved from −7.69 ± 6.88 to −6.55 ± 7.77 dB in the right eye and from −6.87 ± 5.90 to −6.63 ± 5.70 dB in the left eye. Medication adherence was significantly associated with visual field quality (p = 0.001). Adherent patients more frequently showed mild-to-moderate visual field loss, whereas non-adherent patients had a higher proportion of advanced loss. Higher adherence was associated with better visual field preservation, underscoring the importance of patient education and regular follow-up in glaucoma management.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Reinne Natali Christine, Universitas Kristen Indonesia

is a lecturer in the Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Christian University of Indonesia, Jakarta. She is also a practicing ophthalmologist. She is a member of the Indonesian Medical Association (IDI). Her professional interests include ophthalmology and clinical research. She is actively involved in academic research and community service programs. (email: reine.christine@uki.ac.id).

Gilbert Simanjuntak, Universitas Kristen Indonesia

is a Professor of Ophthalmology in the Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Christian University of Indonesia, Jakarta. He is also a practicing ophthalmologist. He is a member of the Indonesian Medical Association (IDI). His professional interests include ophthalmology and clinical research. He is actively involved in academic research and community service programs. (email: gilbert.simanjuntak@uki.ac.id).

Silphia Novelyn, Universitas Kristen Indonesia

is a lecturer in the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Christian University of Indonesia, Jakarta. She is a member of the Indonesian Medical Association (IDI). Her professional interests include anatomy and biomedical research. She is actively involved in academic research and community service programs. (email: silphia.novelyn@uki.ac.id).

References

K. Singh, P. Bhushan, D. Mishra, K. Kaur, B. Gurnani, A. Singh, and S. Pandey, “Assessment of optic disk by disk damage likelihood scale staging using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography in diagnosing primary open-angle glaucoma,” Indian J. Ophthalmol., vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 4152–4157, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1113_22.

J. D. Steinmetz et al., “Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: The Right to Sight: An analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study,” Lancet Glob. Health, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. e144–e160, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7.

World Health Organization, “Eye care, vision impairment and blindness,” World Health Organization. Accessed: Sep. 4, 2026.

World Health Organization, “Blindness and vision impairment,” World Health Organization, Feb. 10, 2026. Accessed: Sep. 4, 2026.

Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia, Pusat Data dan Informasi, “Situasi glaukoma di Indonesia,” InfoDATIN, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019.

Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia, Pusat Data dan Informasi, Situasi Balita Pendek. Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia, 2016.

A.-C. Zaharia, O.-M. Dumitrescu, M. Radu, and R.-E. Rogoz, “Adherence to therapy in glaucoma treatment—A review,” J. Pers. Med., vol. 12, no. 4, Art. no. 514, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/jpm12040514.

P. A. Newman-Casey, L. M. Niziol, B. W. Gillespie, N. K. Janz, P. R. Lichter, and D. C. Musch, “The association between medication adherence and visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 477–483, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.022.

Y.-H. Shu et al., “Topical medication adherence and visual field progression in open-angle glaucoma: Analysis of a large US health care system,” J. Glaucoma, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1047–1055, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001943.

J. H. Kang, W. C. Willett, B. A. Rosner, E. Buys, J. L. Wiggs, and L. R. Pasquale, “Association of dietary nitrate intake with primary open-angle glaucoma: A prospective analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study,” JAMA Ophthalmol., vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 294–303, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.5601.

J. Y. Lee et al., “Relationship between anthropometric parameters and open angle glaucoma: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 5, Art. no. e0176894, May 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176894.

M. Rizk, A. Grise-Dulac, and D. Gatinel, “Glaucoma in women: What do we know so far—A systematic review,” AJO Int., vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 100013, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ajoint.2024.100013.

K. M. Madjedi et al., “The association of female reproductive factors with glaucoma and related traits: A systematic review,” Ophthalmol. Glaucoma, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 628–647, Nov.–Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2022.06.003.

R. Amalia, “Karakteristik pasien glaukoma di RSPUH periode 2022,” undergraduate thesis, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia, 2023.

C. A. Shardi, “Hubungan jenis kelamin dengan kejadian miopia pada mahasiswa kedokteran: Studi observasional mahasiswa Kedokteran Universitas Islam Sultan Agung,” undergraduate thesis, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Semarang, Indonesia, 2024.

S. Andole and S. Senthil, “Ocular surface disease and anti-glaucoma medications: Various features, diagnosis, and management guidelines,” Semin. Ophthalmol., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 158–166, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1080/08820538.2022.2094714.

R. P. Akhpa, “Prevalensi penderita glaukoma sekunder di Klinik Mata Puspa Seruni periode November–Desember 2022,” diploma thesis, Universitas Bakti Tunas Husada, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia, 2023.

E. Mardalena and F. Feriyani, “Prevalensi pasien glaukoma dengan diabetes mellitus tipe 2 di Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Dr. Zainoel Abidin Banda Aceh,” J. Sains Riset, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 532–538, 2021, doi: 10.47647/jsr.v11i3.783.

S. Bedrood, J. Berdahl, A. Sheybani, and I. P. Singh, “Alternatives to topical glaucoma medication for glaucoma management,” Clin. Ophthalmol., vol. 17, pp. 3899–3913, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S439457.

J. Mallick, L. Devi, P. K. Malik, and J. Mallick, “Update on normal tension glaucoma,” J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 204–208, 2016, doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.183914.

D. Y. L. Leung and C. C. Tham, “Normal-tension glaucoma: Current concepts and approaches—A review,” Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 247–259, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1111/ceo.14043.

H. E. Killer and A. Pircher, “Normal tension glaucoma: Review of current understanding and mechanisms of the pathogenesis,” Eye, vol. 32, pp. 924–930, 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41433-018-0042-2.

D. Kamal and R. Hitchings, “Normal tension glaucoma—A practical approach,” Br. J. Ophthalmol., vol. 82, no. 7, pp. 835–840, Jul. 1998, doi: 10.1136/bjo.82.7.835.

A. Arbabi, X. Bao, W. S. Shalaby, and R. Razeghinejad, “Systemic side effects of glaucoma medications,” Clin. Exp. Optom., vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 157–165, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/08164622.2021.1964331.

A. Erras, B. Shahrvini, R. N. Weinreb, and S. L. Baxter, “Review of glaucoma medication adherence monitoring in the digital health era,” Br. J. Ophthalmol., vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 153–159, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317918.

K. Tripathy, P. Patel, and R. Geetha, “Latanoprost,” in StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL, USA: StatPearls Publishing, updated Feb. 28, 2024. Accessed: Sep. 4, 2026.

B. Abaidoo, K. P. Mashige, P. Govender-Poonsamy, N. N. Tagoe, V. A. Essuman, and S. Y. Adam, “Glaucoma disease-specific adherence measurement tools validated for measuring adherence to glaucoma medications: A systematic review,” Health Sci. Rep., vol. 8, no. 2, Art. no. e70427, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1002/hsr2.70427.

L. Quaranta, A. Novella, M. Tettamanti, L. Pasina, R. N. Weinreb, and A. Nobili, “Adherence and persistence to medical therapy in glaucoma: An overview,” Ophthalmol. Ther., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2227–2240, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00730-z.

C. Baudouin et al., “Adherence and persistence on prostaglandin analogues for glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Am. J. Ophthalmol., vol. 275, pp. 99–113, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2025.03.025.

A. Ha, M. Jang, S. R. Shim, C. Y. Kim, I. B. Chang, and Y. K. Kim, “Interventions for glaucoma medication adherence improvement: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Ophthalmology, vol. 129, no. 11, pp. 1294–1304, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.06.025.

T. M. Atey, W. Shibeshi, A. T. Giorgis, and S. W. Asgedom, “The impact of adherence and instillation proficiency of topical glaucoma medications on intraocular pressure,” J. Ophthalmol., vol. 2017, Art. no. 1683430, 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/1683430.

S. L. Mansberger, C. R. Sheppler, T. M. McClure, C. L. Vanalstine, I. L. Swanson, Z. Stoumbos, and W. E. Lambert, “Psychometrics of a new questionnaire to assess glaucoma adherence: The Glaucoma Treatment Compliance Assessment Tool (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis),” Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc., vol. 111, pp. 1–16, 2013.

K. L. Buehne, J. A. Rosdahl, and K. W. Muir, “Aiding adherence to glaucoma medications: A systematic review,” Semin. Ophthalmol., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 313–323, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1080/08820538.2021.1963788.

K. Kvarnström, A. Westerholm, M. Airaksinen, and H. Liira, “Factors contributing to medication adherence in patients with a chronic condition: A scoping review of qualitative research,” Pharmaceutics, vol. 13, no. 7, Art. no. 1100, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13071100.

D. Bott, A. Subramanian, D. Edgar, J. G. Lawrenson, and P. Campbell, “Barriers and enablers to medication adherence in glaucoma: A systematic review of modifiable factors using the Theoretical Domains Framework,” Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 96–114, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1111/opo.13245.

S. G. Moore, G. Richter, and B. S. Modjtahedi, “Factors affecting glaucoma medication adherence and interventions to improve adherence: A narrative review,” Ophthalmol. Ther., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2863–2880, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00797-8.