OphSourceHomeJournal CollectionOphSource ShopEvents
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 114, Issue 4, Pages 653-657 (April 2007)


View previous. 10 of 48 View next.

Efficacy and Safety of Latanoprost versus Travoprost in Exfoliative Glaucoma Patients

Anastasios G.P. Konstas, MD, PhD1, Vassilios P. Kozobolis, MD2, Ioannis E. Katsimpris, MD3, Kostantinos Boboridis, MD1, Stavrenia Koukoula, MD2, Jessica N. Jenkins, BS4, William C. Stewart, MD45Corresponding Author Informationemail address

Received 18 April 2006; accepted 4 July 2006. published online 30 December 2006.

Objective

To evaluate 24-hour intraocular pressure (IOP) efficacy of latanoprost versus travoprost, each given every evening, in exfoliative glaucoma patients.

Design

Prospective, observer-masked, crossover comparison.

Participants

Forty patients with exfoliation glaucoma.

Methods

Patients with a pressure of >24 mmHg were randomized to latanoprost or travoprost for an 8-week treatment period after a 6-week medicine-free period. Patients were then switched to the opposite treatment for the second period. At untreated baseline and at the end of each treatment period the IOP was measured at 6 am, 10 am, 2 pm, 6 pm, 10 pm, and 2 am.

Main Outcome Measure

Diurnal IOP.

Results

The mean 24-hour IOP was 25.1±2.5 mmHg at baseline, 17.8±2.1 mmHg on latanoprost, and 17.3±2.2 mmHg on travoprost (P = 0.001). Individual time points were similar between treatments, except at 6 pm when travoprost provided lower IOP (16.7±2.6 vs 17.9±2.5 mmHg, P<0.001). Adverse events showed more conjunctival hyperemia with travoprost (n = 15) than latanoprost (n = 6; P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Latanoprost and travoprost both significantly reduce the 24-hour IOP from baseline in exfoliative glaucoma, but travoprost may demonstrate a greater hypotensive efficacy in the late afternoon.

1 Glaucoma Unit, Department of Ophthalmology, A University, Thessaloniki, Greece.

2 Department of Ophthalmology, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

3 Department of Ophthalmology, Agios Andreas Hospital, Patras, Greece.

4 Pharmaceutical Research Network, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina.

5 School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to William C. Stewart, MD, Pharmaceutical Research Network, LLC, 1 Southpark Circle, Suite 110, Charleston, SC 29407.

 Manuscript no. 2006-442.

 This clinical trial received no outside financial support from any public or private funding organization. None of the authors had any proprietary interest in the products mentioned in the article.

PII: S0161-6420(06)01270-X

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.064


View previous. 10 of 48 View next.