A comparison of the efficacy of latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost in open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Özlem EŞKİ YÜCEL, Nurşen ARITÜRK
4.760 467

Abstract


The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost monotherapies in previously untreated patients with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. This study included thirty-six eyes of 18 patients diagnosed with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) at Ondokuz Mayıs University, Medical Faculty, Department of Ophthalmology. All patients were underwent complete ophthalmic examination. Patients were randomized into 3 groups with six patients; group 1 received latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pharmacia), group 2 received travoprost 0.004% (Travatan, Alcon) and group 3 received bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan, Allergan) monotherapies. First examination was performed at the beginning of the study. Control examinations were performed at the 2, 4, 12 and 24th weeks of the therapy. Efficacy and side effects of these drugs were evaluated on each control visits. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics among treatment groups. Baseline mean intra ocular pressure (IOP) levels were 26.50±3.14 mmHg in group 1, 25.58±3.62 mmHg in group 2 and 24.66±3.62 mmHg in group 3. Mean IOP levels were similar at end of the study between groups and 14.83±2.24 mmHg in group 1, 16.41±4.16 mmHg in group 2 and 16.16±3.53 mmHg in group 3. The most frequent side-effect was conjunctival hyperemia, which was determined in none of the patients in group 1, in 2 eyes in group 2 (16.7%) and 6 eyes in group 3 (50%). There was no statistically significant difference of IOP between latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost monotherapies. The side-effects were fewest in the latanoprost group and the most frequent in the bimatoprost group.

J. Exp. Clin. Med., 2012; 29: S89-S92

Keywords


Primary open angle glaucoma; Ocular hypertension; Latanoprost; Travoprost, Bimatoprost

Full Text:

S89-S92


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5835/jecm.omu.29.s2.008