Ocular Surface Tolerability of Prostaglandin Analogs and Prostamides in Patients with Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension
Introduction There has been increased attention on the potential impact of the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK) on the ocular surface. This study compared the ocular surface tolerability of once-daily bimatoprost 0.01% and latanoprost 0.005% (both preserved with 0.02% BAK), and travoprost 0....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Advances in therapy 2013-03, Vol.30 (3), p.260-270 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
There has been increased attention on the potential impact of the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK) on the ocular surface. This study compared the ocular surface tolerability of once-daily bimatoprost 0.01% and latanoprost 0.005% (both preserved with 0.02% BAK), and travoprost 0.004% preserved with sofZia™.
Methods
A randomized, multicenter (15 sites), investigator-masked study enrolled patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had received latanoprost monotherapy for at least 1 month. Patients were randomized to oncedaily bimatoprost (
n
= 56), travoprost (
n
= 53), or latanoprost (
n
= 55) monotherapy for 3 months. Follow-up visits were at weeks 1, 4, and 12. The primary outcome measure was physician-graded conjunctival hyperemia (scale 0 to 3) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included corneal staining (scale 0 to 3) and tear break-up time (TBUT).
Results
There were no significant differences in mean (standard deviation [SD]) outcome measures including conjunctival hyperemia (bimatoprost: 0.48 [0.52], travoprost: 0.49 [0.52], latanoprost: 0.51 [0.54]), corneal staining (bimatoprost: 0.31 [0.49], travoprost: 0.25 [0.46], latanoprost: 0.24 [0.45]), or TBUT (bimatoprost: 9.7 s [6.1], travoprost: 9.5 s [5.8], latanoprost: 9.8 s [5.0]) among subjects at latanoprost-treated baseline (
P
≥ 0.664). At week 12, there were no significant differences in conjunctival hyperemia (bimatoprost: 0.42 [0.48], travoprost: 0.46 [0.44], latanoprost: 0.44 [0.57]), corneal staining (bimatoprost: 0.31 [0.45], travoprost: 0.32 [0.48], latanoprost: 0.22 [0.30]), or TBUT (bimatoprost: 9.7 s [5.7], travoprost 9.7 s [5.0], latanoprost: 9.3 s [4.0]) among the treatment groups (
P
≥ 0.379). At week 1, there was a statistically significant among-group difference in mean change from baseline in hyperemia (+0.04, bimatoprost; +0.20, travoprost; 0.00, latanoprost;
P
= 0.018). There were no statistically significant among-group differences in mean corneal staining, mean TBUT, or change from baseline at any visit.
Conclusions
Despite preservative differences, there were no significant differences in objective clinical measures of ocular surface tolerability after 3 months of treatment with bimatoprost (with 0.02% BAK), travoprost (with sofZia), and latanoprost (with 0.02% BAK). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0741-238X 1865-8652 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s12325-013-0014-7 |