Association Between Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Exposure and Intraocular Pressure Change: GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Intraocular Pressure Change

This study evaluates the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists on intraocular pressure (IOP). Retrospective clinical cohort study. The University of California Health Data Warehouse was queried for patients exposed to GLP-1R agonists or other oral antidiabetics. A total of 1247 glaucoma surgery and treatment naïve eyes of 626 patientson GLP-1R agonists and 1083 glaucoma surgery and treatment naïve eyes of 547 patients on other oral antidiabetics were included. Index date was defined as the date of first exposure to the medication. Eyes with at least one pre-exposure and one post-exposure tonometry records within 365 days of the index date were included. Clinical and laboratory data were extracted. Eyes were excluded upon exposure to glaucoma hypotensive medication or glaucoma surgery. The primary outcome measure was ∆IOP after exposure, which was analyzed using a paired t test and generalized estimating equations (GEE) RESULTS: The median age was 66.2 years [IQR = 18.3]; 607 (51.7%) were female, and 667 (56.9%) were Caucasian. Median pre-exposure IOP, hemoglobin A1c, and body mass index were 15.2 mm Hg [IQR = 3.8], 7.5 [IQR = 2.4], and 29.8 [IQR = 9.4], respectively. A total of 776 individuals (66.1%) had diabetes, with the median number of active oral antidiabetics being 1.0 [IQR = 1.0], and 441 (37.5%) being insulin users. Several pre-exposure characteristics differed between the groups. The mean ∆IOP was -0.4 ± 2.8 mm Hg (paired t test P < .001) and -0.2 ± 3.3 mm Hg (paired t test P = .297) in the GLP-1R agonist and other antidiabetics groups, respectively. Pre-exposure IOP was the only independent predictor of ΔIOP in multivariable GEE. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Although GLP-1R agonists were significantly associated with a decrease in IOP in the paired analysis, they were not associated with ΔIOP in multivariable GEE. Moreover, the difference in ΔIOP between the two groups was small.