Exploring the Experience of Living with and Managing Presbyopia
- PMID: 35678617
- DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001913
Exploring the Experience of Living with and Managing Presbyopia
Abstract
Significance: Presbyopia typically occurs around 40 years of age and affects approximately one-quarter of the global population. Up to October 2021, there were no approved pharmacotherapies for presbyopia, and common treatments, such as glasses, can have disadvantages for individuals' health-related quality of life.
Purpose: This study aimed to document the experience of living with and managing presbyopia, identify perspectives on treatment options, and determine whether there is an unmet need in the treatment landscape.
Methods: Coded transcripts of concept elicitation (CE; n = 20) and cognitive debriefing (n = 20) interviews with presbyopic individuals, originally conducted for development of patient-reported outcome instruments, were reanalyzed to identify salient concepts describing participants' experiences with presbyopia treatments. Qualitative ranking exercises assessed participants' preferences for a potential pharmacotherapy vs. existing treatments.
Results: Because most concepts were identified with the CE interviews, data reflect CE findings unless otherwise noted. Average age across CE/cognitive debriefing interviews was 49.4 years; a vast majority of participants used glasses for presbyopia treatment. Four themes related to treatment with glasses were identified with the interviews: inconvenience during daily activities, negative physical sensations around the eyes/head, limitations, and undesirable impacts on daily life (e.g., psychosocial). Most commonly, participants reported inconveniences related to forgetting glasses and psychosocial impacts (e.g., feeling/looking older). Strained/tired eyes and limited ability to see at varying distances were also reported. Among participants with near-vision glasses who provided data, two-thirds expressed interest in alternative treatments. In addition, almost three-quarters of the participants ranked hypothetical eye drops as their first or second preferred option, vs. reading glasses, contact lenses, magnifying glasses, and surgery.
Conclusions: This study explored the experience of living with and managing presbyopia and identified limitations and negative impacts of current treatments. Pharmacological development (e.g., eye drops) may fulfill an unmet need in the presbyopia treatment landscape.
Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Optometry.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL). The sponsor participated in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, project administration, and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.
Similar articles
-
Living with presbyopia: experiences from a virtual roundtable dialogue among impacted individuals and healthcare professionals.BMC Ophthalmol. 2022 May 5;22(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02432-9. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022. PMID: 35513787 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed for use with individuals with phakic presbyopia, including the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire-presbyopia (NAVQ-P) and the near vision correction independence (NVCI) instrument.J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Oct 23;5(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00379-x. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021. PMID: 34689253 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical feasibility of pinhole glasses in presbyopia.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019 Mar;29(2):133-140. doi: 10.1177/1120672118810999. Epub 2018 Nov 21. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019. PMID: 30460857
-
[TREATMENTS FOR PRESBYOPIA].Harefuah. 2022 Jul;161(7):448-453. Harefuah. 2022. PMID: 35833432 Review. Hebrew.
-
Impact of Presbyopia and Its Correction in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2018 Nov-Dec;7(6):370-374. doi: 10.22608/APO.2018449. Epub 2018 Dec 7. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2018. PMID: 30523677 Review.
Cited by
-
Understanding Perspectives on Presbyopia and Use of Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% Twice Daily from Participants of the Phase 3 VIRGO Study.Ophthalmol Ther. 2024 Jun;13(6):1723-1742. doi: 10.1007/s40123-024-00935-w. Epub 2024 Apr 25. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024. PMID: 38662193 Free PMC article.
-
Prevalence of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies and age-related changes in binocular vision among middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review.BMC Ophthalmol. 2025 Aug 11;25(1):452. doi: 10.1186/s12886-025-04275-6. BMC Ophthalmol. 2025. PMID: 40790191 Free PMC article.
-
Combinations of Pilocarpine and Oxymetazoline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia: Two Randomized Phase 2 Studies.Ophthalmol Sci. 2021 Oct 2;1(4):100065. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100065. eCollection 2021 Dec. Ophthalmol Sci. 2021. PMID: 36246939 Free PMC article.
-
In Vitro and In-Eye Comparison of Commercial Pilocarpine Ophthalmic Solution and an Optimized, Reformulated Pilocarpine for Presbyopia Treatment.Ophthalmol Ther. 2022 Apr;11(2):869-879. doi: 10.1007/s40123-022-00482-2. Epub 2022 Mar 2. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022. PMID: 35235173 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Davidson RS, Dhaliwal D, Hamilton DR, et al. Surgical Correction of Presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:920–30.
-
- Gil-Cazorla R, Shah S, Naroo SA. A Review of the Surgical Options for the Correction of Presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:62–70.
-
- Renna A, Alió JL, Vejarano LF. Pharmacological Treatments of Presbyopia: A Review of Modern Perspectives. Eye Vis (Lond) 2017;4:3.
-
- Goertz AD, Stewart WC, Burns WR, et al. Review of the Impact of Presbyopia on Quality of Life in the Developing and Developed World. Acta Ophthalmol 2014;92:497–500.
-
- American Optometric Association (AOA). Optometric Clinical Practice Guideline—Care of the Patient with Presbyopia. 2011. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170830030348/https://www.aoa.org/documents... . Accessed June 21, 2022.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources