pmc logo imageJournal ListSearchpmc logo image
Logo of brjopthalJournal URL: redirect3.cgi?&&auth=0pgM8R0uNdMfDlkgsBFI1lxaOVNe_5tPkX2pCk5Gm&reftype=publisher&artid=1043387&article-id=1043387&iid=114150&issue-id=114150&jid=152&journal-id=152&FROM=Article|Banner&TO=Publisher|Other|N%2FA&rendering-type=normal&&http://bjo.bmjjournals.com
Br J Ophthalmol. 1979 January; 63(1): 52–55.
PMCID: PMC1043387
Evaluation of a 5% guanethidine and 0.5% adrenaline mixture (Ganda 5.05) and of a 3% guanethidine and 0.5% adrenaline mixture (Ganda 3.05) in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma.
J Romano and G Patterson
Abstract
A trial of a mixture of guanethidine 5% and adrenaline 0.5% (Ganda 5.05) and of guanethidine 3% and adrenaline 0.5% (Ganda 3.05) was conducted on 90 eyes in 53 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The cases fell into 5 groups: untreated cases, cases on pilocarpine 1%, on pilocarpine 2%, on pilocarpine 2 to 4% and adrenaline 1%, and on separate guanethidine 5% and adrenaline 1%. Baseline pressures and average pressures on the previous treatment were established. Substitution with Ganda 3.05 or 5.05 was started, and the patients attended 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months from the start of the trial. Applanation tonometry was carried out at the same time of day. The pupil was measured, ptosis and superficial punctate corneal staining were looked for and evaluated, and the patients were questioned for symptoms of side effects and acceptability. All the eyes that had previously been treated with pilocarpine 1% or 2% presented significantly lower intraocular pressures on Ganda 3.05. The patients on pilocarpine 4% and adrenaline 1% also had lower intraocular pressures on Ganda 5.05, but the significance was less, and the patients on separate guanethidine and adrenaline had a small but not statistically significant drop in pressure. Ptosis and discomfort were evaluated on a subjective scale. Patient acceptability was good. The trial was interrupted in 5 cases for various reasons. Tachyphylaxis and tolerance to the mixtures were not observed in this series.
Full text
Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (585K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Anselmi, P; Bron, AJ; Maurice, DM. Action of drugs on the aqueous flow in man measured by fluorophotometry. Exp Eye Res. 1968 Oct;7(4):487–496. [PubMed]
  • CASTREN, JA; POHJOLA, S. Guanethidine and aqueous humor dynamics. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1962;40:358–361. [PubMed]
  • Crombie, AL. Adrenergic supersensitization as a therapeutic tool in glaucoma. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1974 Jul;94(2):570–572. [PubMed]
  • Gloster, J. Guanethidine and glaucoma. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1974 Jul;94(2):573–577. [PubMed]
  • Nagasubramanian, S; Tripathi, RC; Poinoosawmy, D; Gloster, J. Low centration guanethidine and adrenaline therapy of glaucoma. A preliminary report. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1976 Apr;96(1):179–183. [PubMed]
  • Paterson, GD; Paterson, G. Drug therapy of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1972 Mar;56(3):288–294. [PubMed]
  • Romano, J. Use of guanethidine 5% and adrenaline 1% in the treatment of severe open angle glaucoma. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1977 Apr;97(1):196–201. [PubMed]
  • Roth, JA. Guanethidine and adrenaline used in combination in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1973 Jul;57(7):507–510. [PubMed]