Latest / Glaucoma, Vision & Longevity: Supplements & Science / Can One Tiny Glaucoma Implant Replace Years of Eye Drops? New Randomized iDose TR Results

Transcript

Can One Tiny Glaucoma Implant Replace Years of Eye Drops? New Randomized iDose TR Results · Glaucoma, Vision & Longevity: Supplements & Science

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Can one tiny glaucoma implant replace years of eye drops?
• 0:04
  SPEAKER_00: New randomized IDose TR results.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_00: A small randomized trial reported a sizable pressure reduction when eyedose TR was added to cataract surgery.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_00: At three months, the combination group's average daytime eye pressure fell by 11.1 mm of mercury, compared with 7.4 millimeters after cataract surgery alone.
• 0:24
  SPEAKER_00: The company reported difference between groups was 3.6 millimeters of mercury.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_00: That comparison is the key result.
• 0:31
  SPEAKER_00: Because both groups had cataract surgery, it estimates the extra-term reduction associated with adding IDOS TR in this trial setting.
• 0:40
  SPEAKER_00: But the public results are only a top-line report.
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_00: They do not provide the starting pressures, final average pressures, confidence intervals, responder percentages, or enough detail to separate the effect of cataract surgery from medication washout and other baseline changes.
• 0:56
  SPEAKER_00: Nor do they show whether the additional reduction lasts one or three years.
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_00: Bottom line, IDose TR may reduce the need for daily drops for some people.
• 1:07
  SPEAKER_00: The new trial supports an additional pressure-lowering effect at three months, but it does not yet show that an implant every few years can replace all drops or postpone laser or glaucoma surgery over the long term.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_00: The phase four results were announced on October 9, 2026.
• 1:24
  SPEAKER_00: As of October 15, 2026, the results were available as a company-released top line report, not a full peer-reviewed publication.
• 1:32
  SPEAKER_00: Glaucos BusinessWire Release.
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: What GLK 101-04 tested.
• 1:37
  SPEAKER_00: GLK 101-04 was a phase four trial comparing IDOS TR implant or in cataract surgery with cataract surgery alone.
• 1:45
  SPEAKER_00: The official trial registry number is NCT 06848946.
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: Clinical Trials.gov record.
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_00: For the full table, please open this article on VisualFieldtest.com.
• 1:57
  SPEAKER_00: The public registry gives only a limited account of eligibility.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_00: It lists active corneal inflammation or swelling and certain retinal disorders as exclusions.
• 2:06
  SPEAKER_00: It does not report the trial's glaucoma severity distribution, baseline visual field damage, or the prior laser and surgery history of the participants in the top line announcement.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_00: Clinical Trials.gov record.
• 2:19
  SPEAKER_00: What is not public yet?
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: The top line release and registry do not provide the following information for GLK 101-04.
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_00: Medicated starting pressure and unmedicated starting pressure.
• 2:31
  SPEAKER_00: Whether pressure-lowering medicines were washed out before baseline, and if so, how?
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_00: How many participants used one or more glaucoma medicines before the trial?
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_00: Detailed prior treatment history, such as selective laser trabeculoplasty or earlier glaucoma surgery.
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_00: How many participants had mild, moderate, or advanced glaucoma?
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_00: The group's final average pressure at month 3.
• 2:56
  SPEAKER_00: Exact responder rates at reductions of 20, 30%, or 40%.
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_00: The percentages reaching pressure thresholds of 18, 15, 12, or 10 mm of mercury.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_00: The treatment differences confidence interval or standard deviation.
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_00: A related earlier study of IDOS TR used pressure-lowering medicine washout, but that does not establish that GLK 10104 used the same rules.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_00: The new trial's own public information is insufficient to confirm washout or reconstruct its baseline pressure.
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_00: Earlier IDOS TR Phase 3 report.
• 3:30
  SPEAKER_00: What the three-month results do and do not tell us, the company reported mean daytime pressure reductions from baseline of 11.1 mm of mercury with IDose TR plus cataract surgery, 7.4 mm of mercury with cataract surgery alone, a reported incremental treatment effect of 3.6 mm of mercury with P.0001.
• 3:53
  SPEAKER_00: The release says I dose TR was statistically superior across all prespecified secondary responder analyses, but it does not publish the responder thresholds or the percentage of eyes meeting them.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_00: Glaucos BusinessWire release.
• 4:07
  SPEAKER_00: Can we calculate final pressures or percentage reductions?
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_00: No, not from the public numbers.
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_00: A pressure reduction is not the same thing as a final pressure.
• 4:16
  SPEAKER_00: If a group's starting mean pressure were known, its final mean could be estimated by subtracting the reported reduction.
• 4:23
  SPEAKER_00: But GLK 101-04's starting group means have not been reported.
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_00: For the same reason, the percentage reduction cannot be calculated.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: It requires both the absolute decrease and the starting pressure.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_00: The company's reported 3.6 millimeters of mercury is an absolute between group difference, not a percentage reduction.
• 4:45
  SPEAKER_00: The release's rounded reductions, 11.1 and 7.4, subtract to 3.7, while the company reports an incremental difference of 3.6.
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_00: This small mismatch can arise when a treatment difference is calculated from unrounded statistical estimates and the displayed group changes are rounded.
• 5:04
  SPEAKER_00: The release does not provide the unrounded values or analysis details needed to resolve it.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_00: Effect size and confidence intervals.
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_00: The reported 3.6 millimeters of mercury is the available absolute treatment effect.
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_00: Relative to the 7.4 millimeter reduction reported in the surgery alone group, it is about 49% larger.
• 5:26
  SPEAKER_00: That is a descriptive comparison, not a standardized effect size, and not proof that the implant is 49% more effective than cataract surgery in general.
• 5:35
  SPEAKER_00: The release does not provide a confidence interval, standard deviation, or standard error.
• 5:41
  SPEAKER_00: Therefore, neither a confidence interval nor a standardized effect size can be calculated responsibly from the public top line data.
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_00: The reported P has 0.0001 indicates strong statistical evidence of a difference under the trial's analysis, but it does not supply those missing quantities.
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_00: How much came from medication washout, surgery, and IDOS TR?
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_00: The best supported answer is IDOS TR's added effect.
• 6:06
  SPEAKER_00: The randomized comparison suggests about 3.6 millimeters of mercury more reduction at month 3 in the IDOS Plus surgery group than in the surgery alone group.
• 6:17
  SPEAKER_00: Cataract surgery and other shared influences.
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_00: The 7.4 millimeter reduction in the control group occurred after cataract surgery, but it cannot be assigned to surgery alone.
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_00: Medication washout and baseline effects.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: Their contribution cannot be determined because the public report does not disclose whether washout occurred or when baseline was measured in relation to medication use.
• 6:40
  SPEAKER_00: The 7.4 millimeter control group decrease could reflect cataract surgery plus baseline conditions, medication changes, and other influences.
• 6:50
  SPEAKER_00: A trial without a no-surgery group cannot isolate cataract surgery from all other changes.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_00: Research on cataract surgery alone in open angle glaucoma has found a smaller average pressure reduction at 12 months in many studies, although results vary with starting pressure, use of medication washout, and study design.
• 7:10
  SPEAKER_00: Those findings are useful context, but they cannot be used to reassign the components of GLK 101-04's 7.4 millimeter change.
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_00: 2024 Systematic Review.
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_00: Interpretation The 3.6mm between group difference is the most relevant estimate of IDOS TR's added short-term effect in this trial.
• 7:34
  SPEAKER_00: The full 11.1 millimeter reduction should not be described as the implant's effect alone.
• 7:41
  SPEAKER_00: Why an extra 3-4 millimeters of pressure reduction can matter?
• 7:45
  SPEAKER_00: Glaucoma damages the optic nerve and can cause permanent vision loss.
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_00: Lowering eye pressure is the main proven way to slow that damage, but that the pressure target must be chosen for the individual eye.
• 7:57
  SPEAKER_00: A pressure that is adequate for one person may be too high for someone with more damage or faster progression.
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_00: In the early manifest glaucoma trial, each millimeter of mercury of lower pressure during follow-up was associated with roughly a 10% lower risk of progression.
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_00: If that relationship were simply extended to a sustained 3-4 millimeter reduction, it would suggest a potentially meaningful reduction in relative risk.
• 8:24
  SPEAKER_00: But that is a model-based extrapolation.
• 8:27
  SPEAKER_00: Not a finding that I-dose TR itself has reduced visual field progression by a specific percentage.
• 8:33
  SPEAKER_00: The trial tested pressure at three months, not years of vision outcomes.
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_00: Early manifest glaucoma trial analysis.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_00: The collaborative normal tension glaucoma study also found less progression in treated eyes targeted for a 30% pressure reduction than in untreated eyes.
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_00: That study involved a selected group of people with normal tension glaucoma who already had documented progression or other high-risk features.
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_00: Its results cannot be applied mechanically to every person with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
• 9:06
  SPEAKER_00: Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study.
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_00: What it might mean for different pressure targets.
• 9:12
  SPEAKER_00: These are clinical illustrations, not predictions, of the final pressures in GLK 1014.
• 9:19
  SPEAKER_00: The trial has not reported the absolute starting or final group means, and an average group difference does not predict each individual's response.
• 9:27
  SPEAKER_00: For the full table, please open this article on VisualFieldTest.com.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_00: The American Academy of Ophthalmology describes an initial treatment goal of reducing pressure by about 20% to 30% for many patients with primary open angle glaucoma, then adjusting the goal for disease severity and response.
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_00: A target is not a universal threshold, and a three-month pressure result does not replace ongoing checks of optic nerve health and visual fields.
• 9:56
  SPEAKER_00: American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice pattern how IDOS TR compares with other treatments.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_00: There are no head-to-head data from GLK-10104 comparing IDOS TR with the listed drops, selective laser trabeculoplasty, derista, spyglass BIM IOL, or glaucoma surgery performed with cataract surgery.
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_00: Cross-study comparisons are especially uncertain because starting pressures, medication washout, patient selection, and outcome definitions differ.
• 10:26
  SPEAKER_00: For the full table, please open this article on VisualFieldtest.com.
• 10:30
  SPEAKER_00: The American Academy of Ophthalmology groups common prostaglandin medicines as typically reducing pressure by approximately 25% to 33%, while one network meta-analysis estimated average three-month reductions of 4.85 millimeters of mercury for latanoprost and 5.61 for bimatoprost in its studied population.
• 10:51
  SPEAKER_00: These are not estimates of what the same medicines would achieve in the GLK 101-04 participants.
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_00: American Academy of Ophthalmology Guideline Network Meta-analysis of First Line Medicines.
• 11:04
  SPEAKER_00: In the six-year LIT trial, selective laser trabeculoplasty was an effective drop-sparing approach.
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_00: 69.8% of eyes in the laser first group stayed at or below target without medication or surgery.
• 11:16
  SPEAKER_00: This does not prove laser is better than IDOS TR.
• 11:20
  SPEAKER_00: It shows that laser is a meaningful alternative with long-term trial evidence.
• 11:24
  SPEAKER_00: Light six-year results.
• 11:28
  SPEAKER_00: For cataract surgery combined with a microstent, the five-year horizon trial found benefits for hydris over cataract surgery alone in selected patients with mild to moderate open-angle glaucoma.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_00: That is a different procedure in population.
• 11:41
  SPEAKER_00: It should not be interpreted as a direct comparison with IDOS TR.
• 11:45
  SPEAKER_00: Horizon 5-year report?
• 11:47
  SPEAKER_00: Does continuous drug release improve pressure control around the clock?
• 11:52
  SPEAKER_00: The implant is designed to release travoprost continuously, but the new trial does not show that it lowers morning, nighttime, or peak pressure better than daily drops.
• 12:02
  SPEAKER_00: The Food and Drug Administration's prescribing information describes IDOS TR as a titanium implant that continuously releases travoprost into the eye.
• 12:12
  SPEAKER_00: That design removes the need for the patient to remember a daily dose of the implant's medicine, FDA prescribing information.
• 12:20
  SPEAKER_00: However, the GLK 1014 topline reports a mean diurnal pressure result.
• 12:26
  SPEAKER_00: It does not publish a full 24-hour pressure curve, separate morning or nighttime measurements, peak pressure, or pressure fluctuation.
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_00: Therefore, it cannot establish that Idose TR produces lower nocturnal pressure, lower morning pressure, smaller daily swings, or a smoother pressure profile than topical travoprost.
• 12:46
  SPEAKER_00: Daily Travoprost drops themselves have been studied across 24 hours and can lower pressure during both daytime and nighttime periods.
• 12:54
  SPEAKER_00: The implant's continuous release makes more consistent drug exposure plausible, particularly when someone often misses drops, but that is not the same as proof of superior 24-hour pressure control.
• 13:06
  SPEAKER_00: 24-hour travel process study.
• 13:09
  SPEAKER_00: How durable is the treatment?
• 13:11
  SPEAKER_00: Evidence from earlier trials supports the possibility of lasting pressure control, but it comes from standalone implant studies, not from longer-term results of GLK 101-04.
• 13:23
  SPEAKER_00: One-year results in pooled phase 3 trials, the slow release IDOS TR group, had pressure-lowering results that remained non-inferior to twice daily timolol through 12 months.
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_00: At month 12, 81.4% of slow release implant eyes were free of topical pressure-lowering medicines.
• 13:41
  SPEAKER_00: 93.0% were using the same or fewer such medicines than before the study.
• 13:47
  SPEAKER_00: Pooled phase three results.
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_00: Those numbers are in that many trial participants avoided drops for a year after a single implant.
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_00: They do not tell us the medication-free percentage after I dose TR plus cataract surgery in GLK 10104.
• 14:02
  SPEAKER_00: Three-year results.
• 14:03
  SPEAKER_00: In a phase two study, a single slow release implant was associated with pressure reductions through 36 months.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_00: At month 36, 69% of participants in the slow release group were considered well controlled while using the same or fewer topical medicines than at study entry, compared with 45% in the TMALAL group.
• 14:23
  SPEAKER_00: This was a same or fewer medication result, not a report that 69% were completely drop-free.
• 14:30
  SPEAKER_00: Three-year phase two study.
• 14:32
  SPEAKER_00: What is not yet known?
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_00: The three-month GLK 101-4 report does not show whether its 3.6 millimeter incremental difference persists at one year or three years, nor does it establish how many participants in the cataract surgery trial remain free of drops over that period.
• 14:51
  SPEAKER_00: The implant is intended to release drug for up to three years, but intended duration is not a guarantee that an individual will maintain a particular pressure or remain drop-free for three years.
• 15:03
  SPEAKER_00: Ongoing pressure checks and additional treatment may still be needed.
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_00: Can I dose TR be administered again?
• 15:10
  SPEAKER_00: Current United States labeling allows readministration, subject to safety checks and procedural requirements.
• 15:17
  SPEAKER_00: It is not simply a matter of adding another implant while leaving the old one in place.
• 15:22
  SPEAKER_00: The prescribing information instructs the clinician to place the new implant first and then remove the previous implant.
• 15:29
  SPEAKER_00: It also says readminstration is not recommended more than once per year.
• 15:34
  SPEAKER_00: This is a frequency limit, not a recommendation for annual replacement.
• 15:38
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information.
• 15:41
  SPEAKER_00: Before each readmin, clinicians are instructed to measure corneal endothelial cell density.
• 15:47
  SPEAKER_00: The label sets recommended minimum counts based on age and whether the eye still has its natural lens or has undergone cataract surgery.
• 15:55
  SPEAKER_00: For the full table, please open this article on VisualFieldTest.com.
• 16:00
  SPEAKER_00: The label also says to withhold readmin when central corneal endothelial cell loss reaches 10% or more from the relevant baseline after adjustment for age-related loss and the expected effect of prior anterior segment surgery.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_00: Previous implant dislocation is another reason to withhold readministration.
• 16:20
  SPEAKER_00: Corneal endothelial dystrophy and prior corneal transplantation are contraindications.
• 16:25
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_00: A small study has examined the feasibility and safety of exchanging an earlier travoprost implant for a new one.
• 16:35
  SPEAKER_00: That supports the idea that exchange can be performed.
• 16:38
  SPEAKER_00: It is not evidence that repeated treatment remains successful for 10 years or longer.
• 16:43
  SPEAKER_00: Exchange procedure study.
• 16:46
  SPEAKER_00: Safety.
• 16:47
  SPEAKER_00: What patients should know?
• 16:48
  SPEAKER_00: Corneal endothelial cells and corneal complications.
• 16:52
  SPEAKER_00: In the new Phase 4 report, the company said that through three months there were no treatment-related events of corneal endothelial cell loss or cyst macular edema, and no serious corneal adverse events.
• 17:04
  SPEAKER_00: Three months is a short safety window, so this does not settle the risks of repeated use or long-term corneal effects.
• 17:11
  SPEAKER_00: Glaucose BusinessWire release.
• 17:14
  SPEAKER_00: In pooled phase 3 data, average endothelial cell changes at 12 months were small and similar between treatment groups.
• 17:22
  SPEAKER_00: The Food and Drug Administration's review also described a single implant-treated participant with a large cell density loss.
• 17:30
  SPEAKER_00: That participant had multiple possible contributing factors, including a low starting count.
• 17:35
  SPEAKER_00: The safety checks required before readministration reflect the importance of the corneal endothelium over repeated treatment.
• 17:41
  SPEAKER_00: Food and Drug Administration review.
• 17:43
  SPEAKER_00: Inflammation, redness, pressure rises, and other effects.
• 17:47
  SPEAKER_00: The prescribing information lists reported eye-related adverse reactions, including increased eye pressure, irritus, inflammation inside the eye, dry eye, eye pain, redness, visual field changes, and reduced visual acuity.
• 18:02
  SPEAKER_00: The label reports these among the more common reactions in controlled studies.
• 18:06
  SPEAKER_00: The frequency of a side effect in those studies should not be read as a prediction for an individual patient.
• 18:12
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information.
• 18:14
  SPEAKER_00: Implant position.
• 18:16
  SPEAKER_00: The implant is anchored in the eye, and the label warns that it can become displaced.
• 18:22
  SPEAKER_00: Patients need routine follow-up so the clinician can check its position.
• 18:26
  SPEAKER_00: A displaced implant may require surgical removal.
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information.
• 18:39
  SPEAKER_00: The label warns that increased iris pigmentation can occur and is likely to be permanent.
• 18:45
  SPEAKER_00: Macular swelling, including cyst macular edema, has also been reported with travoprost and warrants caution in patients with certain risk factors.
• 18:53
  SPEAKER_00: No periorbital fat atrophy was reported in the pivotal eye dose TR trials, but that is not proof that it can never occur.
• 19:00
  SPEAKER_00: The implant may reduce repeated contact between drops and the eye surface, yet it still delivers a prostaglandin medicine inside the eye.
• 19:08
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information, phase 3 top line safety report.
• 19:13
  SPEAKER_00: Local and systemic exposure.
• 19:15
  SPEAKER_00: An implant delivers travoprost inside the eye over time and avoids the need for daily drops of that medicine.
• 19:22
  SPEAKER_00: A pharmacokinetic study reported plasma travoprost free acid levels below the assay's measurement limit at the tested visits after implantation.
• 19:31
  SPEAKER_00: That means levels were not measurable by that assay at those times.
• 19:35
  SPEAKER_00: It does not prove zero systemic absorption or show that systemic exposure is lower than with correctly used drops.
• 19:42
  SPEAKER_00: FDA prescribing information.
• 19:45
  SPEAKER_00: The likely practical advantage is reduced reliance on daily self-dosing and less repeated exposure of the eye surface to drops.
• 19:53
  SPEAKER_00: That may help people with poor adherence or irritation from topical treatment.
• 19:57
  SPEAKER_00: But the new trial did not directly compare ocular surface disease, systemic exposure, or prostaglandin-related eyelid changes between Idose TR and daily travelpross drops.
• 20:08
  SPEAKER_00: Who might benefit most and who might not?
• 20:11
  SPEAKER_00: Potentially good candidates, Idose TR may be most attractive to people who frequently miss doses or find daily drops difficult to manage, have trouble putting drops in because of hand strength, tremor, vision, or memory problems, have eye surface irritation or want to reduce the number of daily medicines, need cataract surgery and are considering a medicine delivering option at the same time, have an individualized pressure target that may be achievable with the implant, with or without other treatments.
• 20:42
  SPEAKER_00: The cataract surgery trial is particularly relevant to people already planning cataract surgery because it directly tested adding IDOS TR to that operation.
• 20:52
  SPEAKER_00: Patients who need extra caution.
• 20:54
  SPEAKER_00: People with advanced or rapidly progressing glaucoma should not assume that IDOS TR alone will reach a low enough pressure.
• 21:02
  SPEAKER_00: GLK101 DASA 4 has not publicly reported its severity mix, final average pressure, or long-term visual field outcomes.
• 21:10
  SPEAKER_00: If an eye needs a pressure near 12 or 10 mm of mercury, a 3.6 mm average add-on at three months may help, but cannot be assumed to be sufficient.
• 21:21
  SPEAKER_00: People with corneal endothelial problems, prior corneal transplantation, certain narrow angle or abnormal angle anatomy, active eye infection, or relevant allergy may be unsuitable or need special caution under the prescribing information.
• 21:36
  SPEAKER_00: A glaucoma specialist must decide whether the likely benefit outweighs procedural and corneal risks.
• 21:43
  SPEAKER_00: How far could the treatment replace drops or postpone surgery?
• 21:46
  SPEAKER_00: FACT GLK 101 04 reported a statistically significant 3.6 millimeter additional mean daytime pressure reduction at three months with Idose TR plus cataract surgery compared with cataract surgery alone.
• 22:00
  SPEAKER_00: Earlier standalone trials found sustained pressure lowering and meaningful medication reduction through one year, with phase two results extending to three years.
• 22:10
  SPEAKER_00: Current United States labeling permits readministration, but requires removal of the prior implant and corneal safety assessment.
• 22:18
  SPEAKER_00: Inference.
• 22:20
  SPEAKER_00: For a patient whose pressure is just above target after cataract surgery, an additional few millimeters of pressure reduction could remove the need for one or more drops or delay escalation.
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_00: That is a reasonable clinical possibility, especially when missed drops are a major problem.
• 22:35
  SPEAKER_00: It depends on the patient's actual pressure, disease course, and response.
• 22:40
  SPEAKER_00: Not yet established, GLK 101-04 has not shown that Idose TR prevents visual field loss over years, delays selective laser trabeculoplasty, MIGs, or filtration surgery, keeps a specified percentage of cataract surgery patients drop-free at one or three years, provides a 3.6mm advantage over cataract surgery alone at 1 or 3 years, can be safely and successfully repeated for 10 years or longer in a known proportion of patients.
• 23:11
  SPEAKER_00: What can be estimated about durability?
• 23:14
  SPEAKER_00: A precise probability that the 3.6mm add-on effect persists at one year cannot be calculated from the publicly released results.
• 23:22
  SPEAKER_00: Earlier standalone trials make continued pressure lowering at one year, and for some patients longer, plausible, but the result cannot be transferred directly to the new cataract surgery trial.
• 23:33
  SPEAKER_00: A numerical probability for persistence of the specific 3.6 millimeter difference would be speculation.
• 23:40
  SPEAKER_00: The best published medication-free benchmark is 81.4% at one year in the slow release phase 3 implant group.
• 23:49
  SPEAKER_00: It is not the medication-free percentage for GLK 101-04.
• 23:54
  SPEAKER_00: At three years, the phase 2 study reported that 69% of the slow release group were well controlled on the same or fewer medicines than before the study.
• 24:04
  SPEAKER_00: That is not the same as being drop-free.
• 24:06
  SPEAKER_00: Pooled phase 3 results, three-year phase 2 study.
• 24:10
  SPEAKER_00: There is no defensible percentage for successful repeated treatment over 10 or more years.
• 24:15
  SPEAKER_00: Repeat implantation is now permitted under labeling and an exchange procedure has been studied, but long-term repeated use outcomes and cumulative corneal safety are not established.
• 24:26
  SPEAKER_00: Could a glaucoma implant every few years replace daily drops?
• 24:31
  SPEAKER_00: For some patients, Idose TR could replace daily travel pross drops for a period and may reduce the overall drop burden.
• 24:38
  SPEAKER_00: It cannot yet be called a proven replacement for years of all glaucoma drops.
• 24:43
  SPEAKER_00: The best candidates are likely to be people who struggle with daily adherence, have difficulty instilling drops or significant drop-related irritation, and need pressure lowering that the implant can realistically provide, especially when they are already having cataract surgery.
• 25:00
  SPEAKER_00: The least suitable candidates are those who need very low pressure, have advanced or progressing damage that demands stronger or more adjustable treatment, or have corneal or eye anatomy risks that make implantation or repeat implantation unsafe.
• 25:16
  SPEAKER_00: The new randomized result is encouraging, about 3.6 millimeters of mercury of additional average pressure lowering at three months beyond the cataract surgery alone group.
• 25:27
  SPEAKER_00: The major unanswered question is whether that advantage remains large and safe over years and whether it keeps individual patients at their own pressure targets without additional drops, laser, or surgery.
• 25:40
  SPEAKER_00: All links to sources are available in the text version of this article.
• 25:44
  SPEAKER_00: You can find the full article at visualfieldtest.com.
• 25:48
  SPEAKER_00: Thanks for listening.
• 25:49
  SPEAKER_00: To check your visual field, click the link at the bottom of this article or visit visualfieldtest.com.