An upright eyedrop bottle: Accuracy, usage of excess drops, and contamination compared to a conventional bottle

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Isaiah J Davies, Duke University; Ninita H Brown, Metrolina Nephrology Associates; Joanne C Wen, University of Washington; Sandra Sstinnett, Duke University; Kelsey Kubelick, Emory University; Roma P Patel, University of California Davis Health System Eye Center; Kristin L Benokraitis, EG-GILERO; Latoya Greene, Duke University; Curry Cheek, Duke University; Kelly W Muir, Duke University
• Language: English
• Date: 2016-07-28
• Publisher: Dove Medical Press Limited
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2016 Davies et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S104751
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Clinical Ophthalmology
• Volume: 10
• Start Page: 1411
• End Page: 1417
• Grant/Funding Information: Dr Muir receives salary support from a VA HSR&D Career Development Award.; This work was funded in part by 1R43EY022515-01A1 (PI: Mosler).
• Keywords: compliance; medical devices; glaucoma
• Research Categories: Engineering, Biomedical

Abstract

Purpose: This study tested the feasibility of using an upright eyedrop bottle (UEB), a device designed to assist patients with eyedrop placement without reclining their head. Patients and methods: Experienced eyedrop users were enrolled who answered “yes” to the question, “Do you ever have trouble getting your eyedrops in?” After being shown a multimedia presentation and answering a questionnaire regarding eyedrop usage, participants were observed instilling eyedrops. Participants were instructed to instill a single eyedrop in each eye with both a standard bottle and the UEB. They repeated this process three times. With each trial, the amount of time taken to instill drops was recorded, as well as whether a drop landed in the eye (accuracy), if excess drops were used, and if the bottle tip was contaminated. Results: Forty participants were enrolled, with an average age of 72.4±8.9 years; the majority were females (24 females). Thirty-four participants had been using eyedrops for at least 1 year. The time required to instill eyedrops was significantly less with the UEB in the second and third trials. There was no difference in accuracy between the conventional bottle and the UEB in the left or right eye in any trials. Significantly more participants used excess number of drops while using the conventional bottle in both the left and right eyes in all three trials. The bottle tip was never contaminated with the UEB. Depending on the trial and the eye, the conventional bottle was contaminated by between 42% and 53% of participants. Conclusion: The UEB has the potential to assist patients with eyedrop placement. Although there was no difference in accuracy between the UEB and the conventional bottle, the UEB was associated with less use of excess drops and less contamination of the bottle tip, compared to the conventional bottle.