Daily cost of newer glaucoma agents.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the drop characteristics of newer glaucoma medicines compared to timolol solution and timolol gel forming solution (Timoptic-XE, Merck). We evaluated latanoprost 0.005% (2.5 ml bottle), brimonidine 0.2%, apraclonidine 0.5%, dorzolamide 2%, timolol solution 0.5% (5 and 10 ml bottles), and timolol gel forming solution 0.5% (5 ml bottle) in 14 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Each patient placed 10 drops onto an analytical scale (one drop every 10 seconds) for all ten preparations. Patients then attempted to instill 10 drops of a tear replacement solution into their ocular cul-de-sac. Medication bottles were weighed before and after patients dispensed from the bottle and then after the bottle was emptied. Weights were converted to volume using the density of the medicine. A statistical difference existed between groups for mean drop volume with latanoprost having the smallest drop volume (.0273 +/- .004 ml) (P<0.005). All manufacturers filled correctly or overfilled their bottles with product and had <10% of medicine wasted. Patients instilled 77.9% of the tear solution correctly. When dosed according to labeling, latanoprost had the lowest cost of therapy at $0.87 daily compared to the other newly released medications (range $1.05 to $1.40). Latanoprost was more expensive, however, than timolol maleate solution or gel (range $0.45 to $0.54 per day). Latanoprost therapy is less expensive per day than dorzolamide, brimonidine or apraclonidine, but more expensive than timolol maleate. Cost per day could be further reduced by limiting medicine wastage upon instillation, however.     

Corneal and conjunctival changes caused by commonly used glaucoma medications

PURPOSE: To evaluate the extent of epithelial corneal and conjunctival changes associated with prolonged use of topical glaucoma medications. METHODS: Thirty eyes of 15 New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment groups: artificial tears (Refresh Tears, carboxymethyl cellulose 0.5%) BID, brimonidine Purite 0.15% BID, bimatoprost 0.03% QD, dorzolamide 2% BID, timolol maleate 0.5% BID, or latanoprost 0.005% QD for 30 days. Corneal damage was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy and graded on a standard scale by a masked observer. Conjunctival inflammation was evaluated with light microscopy, and inflammatory cells were counted in the epithelium and superficial and deep stroma by a masked observer according to a standard protocol. RESULTS: In the cornea, artificial tears produced significantly less damage than dorzolamide or latanoprost (P = 0.001), and brimonidine Purite produced significantly less damage than dorzolamide, timolol, or latanoprost (P = 0.001). The mean damage scores with bimatoprost were significantly lower than with dorzolamide, timolol, or latanoprost (P = 0.002). In the conjunctiva, the number of inflammatory cells in the epithelium was significantly lower in eyes treated with artificial tears or brimonidine Purite than in eyes treated with timolol or latanoprost (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Although the adverse effects of glaucoma medications on the ocular surface are likely multifactorial, 1-month treatment with glaucoma medications containing higher levels of benzalkonium chloride (BAK) resulted in greater corneal damage and conjunctival cell infiltration than medications preserved with Purite or with lower levels of BAK. Using glaucoma medications with alternative preservatives or low levels of BAK may help preserve ocular health.     

抗青光眼滴眼液每日治疗费用的比较

目的比较我国各种抗青光眼滴眼液的每日费用。设计调查研究。研究对象我国市场上主要的抗青光眼滴眼液 15种。方法选取我国市场上主要的抗青光眼滴眼液16种,每种滴眼液5瓶,分别由5名研究者记录单瓶滴数,计算平均单瓶滴数、单滴药物容量、单瓶滴眼液双眼使用天数和每日费用。主要指标每种滴跟液单瓶双眼使用天数及每日费用。结果抗青光眼滴眼液的单滴药物容量为0．027ml(卢美根)-0．053ml(诚瑞和0．5％真瑞);单瓶价格从5．7元(马来酸噻吗洛尔)到338元(适利达)不等;单瓶滴眼液双眼使用天数从12天(真瑞)到52天(卢美根)。抗青光眼滴眼液双眼同时应用时的每日费用为:适利达 7．51元、苏为坦6.30元、卢美根3．84元、阿法根3．36元、迪立见2．97元、派立明2．83元、2％真瑞2．34元、贝他根2．11元、贝特舒 2．0元、0．5％真瑞1．49元、2％护明1．29元、1％和2％美开朗1．21元、1％护明0．85元、诚瑞0．63元、马来酸噻吗洛尔0．23元。结论我国市场上的抗青光眼滴眼液治疗费用高低悬殊。本研究结果的数据可能对我国青光眼药物治疗费用的预算和选择有参考价值。     

Effect of changing from concomitant timolol pilocarpine to bimatoprost monotherapy on ocular blood flow and IOP in primary chronic angle closure glaucoma.

The aim of the present prospective masked study was to assess the effect of bimatoprost monotherapy on ocular blood flow and intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes of primary chronic angle closure glaucoma patients already on concomitant timolol and pilocarpine. Thirty two patients of bilateral primary chronic angle closure glaucoma (PCACG) on topical timolol 0.5% twice a day and pilocarpine 2% three times daily were switched over to bimatoprost 0.03% once daily in both eyes. Intraocular pressure (IOP) and pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF) were recorded before and after starting bimatoprost and were followed up every four weeks for three months. Bimatoprost had statistically significant (p < 0.05) mean IOP reduction from 19.3 +/- 6.6 to 13.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg (30.5%) and there was improvement from 858 +/- 260 to 1261 +/- 321 microL/min (46.8%) in mean pulsatile ocular blood flow (p < 0.05). Conjunctival hyperemia (32%) was the most common adverse effect of bimatoprost. Bimatoprost 0.03% monotherapy improved ocular blood flow and provided a better diurnal IOP control than concomitant timolol-pilocarpine in eyes with primary chronic angle closure glaucoma and was found to be well tolerated.     

Combined therapy of pilocarpine or latanoprost with timolol versus latanoprost monotherapy

Adjunctive intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering therapy is widely used today, as one-third of all patients being treated for glaucoma need additional therapy to reach and maintain healthy IOPs. Timolol, latanoprost, and pilocarpine are three potent drugs that have been used in combination to reduce IOP. Timolol reduces the production rate of aqueous humor to achieve the IOP decrease. Latanoprost and pilocarpine both affect aqueous outflow, although by different mechanisms. The IOP efficacy of combined therapy with timolol and pilocarpine compared with timolol and latanoprost or with latanoprost alone has been investigated in three multicenter, randomized, clinical trials in Europe. This is a review of those published trials. In 2 of the 3 studies, the additional IOP lowering effect of latanoprost 0.005% administered once daily was compared with pilocarpine 2% administered 3 times daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension currently on monotherapy with timolol 0.5% twice daily. These 6-month studies found that the timolol and latanoprost combination reduced IOP more and was better tolerated with fewer side-effects than the timolol and pilocarpine combination. At 6 months, there was no evidence of long-term drift in IOP with timolol and latanoprost. This combined therapy provides an effective and safe option for lowering IOP in glaucoma patients. These results suggest that the timolol/latanoprost combination is preferable to the timolol/pilocarpine combination not only with regard to side effects but also to the magnitude of IOP reduction. Two of the 3 studies compared latanoprost monotherapy with timolol and pilocarpine combined therapy in patients with POAG, various other glaucomas, or ocular hypertension. Treatment was for 6 weeks or 6 months. In both studies, latanoprost was more effective and better tolerated than the combination of timolol and pilocarpine. These results suggest that latanoprost alone should be tried before the addition of pilocarpine to timolol therapy is considered. The convenience of daily administration of a single drop of latanoprost versus multiple drops of timolol and pilocarpine should improve patient compliance.     

A 6-month randomized clinical trial of bimatoprost 0.03% versus the association of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% in glaucomatous patients

Background New effective hypotensive agents have been recently introduced into clinical practice, but often more than one drug has to be used to prevent further visual field loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.03% compared with the association of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% in open-angle glaucoma patients.Methods In this 6-month, prospective, parallel, randomised, investigator-masked clinical trial, 61 glaucomatous patients treated with timolol 0.5% twice in both eyes were enrolled. The timolol 0.5% was replaced by bimatoprost 0.03% once daily (group I) or by latanoprost 0.005% plus timolol 0.5% (group II). IOP measurements were performed at the baseline visit and at days 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180. Digital colour photography was used to evaluate topical side effects.Results Fifty-six of the 61 patients were included for the intent-to-treat analysis (28 in group I and 28 in group II). Baseline mean IOP was similar in the two groups (p=0.5). Both treatments lowered the mean IOP at every visit significantly compared with the baseline (p<0.01). Comparing the IOP reductions obtained by the two treatments, no significant differences were found at any time during the study. Conjunctival hyperaemia, skin pigmentation and eyelash growth in group I and headache in group II were the most common side effects observed during the study.Conclusions Bimatoprost and the association of latanoprost plus timolol were equally effective in lowering the IOP in glaucomatous patients previously treated with timolol. Latanoprost plus timolol showed a better ocular safety profile.     

Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of latanoprost monotherapy versus latanoprost or pilocarpine in combination with timolol: a randomized, observer-masked multicenter study in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Italian Latanoprost Study Group

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) after adding either latanoprost or pilocarpine to timolol treatment or switching to latanoprost monotherapy in glaucomatous eyes in which IOP was inadequately controlled with timolol. METHODS: This 6-month randomized study comprised 148 patients with primary open-angle or pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, which was inadequately controlled with topical beta-adrenergic antagonists. After a 2- to 4-week run-in period with timolol 0.5% twice daily, patients were assigned in randomized fashion to three study groups: one group received add-on therapy of latanoprost 0.005% once daily, the second group received add-on therapy of pilocarpine 2% three times daily, and the third group switched to latanoprost 0.005% once daily. Mean diurnal IOP was measured at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: At 6 months, 128 patients had completed the study. Diurnal IOP was significantly reduced from baseline in all groups. Adding latanoprost to timolol treatment reduced diurnal IOP by 6.1+/-0.3 mmHg (-28%), adding pilocarpine to timolol treatment reduced diurnal IOP by 4.2+/-0.3 mmHg (-19%), and switching from timolol to latanoprost monotherapy reduced diurnal IOP by 5.5+/-0.3 mmHg (-25%). CONCLUSION: A significantly greater reduction in diurnal IOP was achieved after addition of latanoprost than after addition of pilocarpine in patients in whom IOP was not adequately controlled with timolol alone. Further, the results of this study indicate that a switch to latanoprost monotherapy can be attempted before combination treatment is initiated.     

Topical glaucoma therapy cost in Mexico

Glaucoma is an important cause of irreversible blindness that represents a significant economic burden; most direct costs of glaucoma are drug-related. We calculated the annual cost of some of the most commonly prescribed glaucoma medications in Mexico, according to their average wholesale price (AWP) and dose regimen. Annual costs ranged from USD4.97 for Imot 15 ml (timolol 0.5 %; Laboratorios Sophia) to USD675.39 for Alphagan 5 ml (brimonidine 0.2 %; Allergan, Inc.). β-Blockers were the least expensive glaucoma medications (range USD20.44–55.44). Alphagan 5 ml was 250 % more expensive than other selective α₂-agonists. Of the carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, dorzolamide 2 % was less expensive than brinzolamide 1 % (USD326.91 vs. USD418.96). The annual cost for prostaglandin analogs ranged from USD235.58 for bimatoprost 0.03 % to USD337.78 for latanoprost 0.005 %. Some fixed combinations were less expensive than separate combinations. The average annual cost for all treatments increased by 27.87 ± 10.09 % between 2009 and 2012. Annual glaucoma therapy cost seems to be lower in Mexico than in other countries, due to a lower AWP, especially for some medications made by Mexican laboratories.     

Comparison of the intraocular pressure lowering effect of latanoprost and carteolol-pilocarpine combination in newly diagnosed glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of latanoprost monotherapy versus combined carteolol and pilocarpine therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glaucoma. METHODS: Masked randomized prospective trial. This study included 51 patients (64 eyes) with newly diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The cases were randomly divided into two treatment groups for administration of latanoprost 0.005% once daily, or of carteolol 2% twice daily and pilocarpine 2% twice daily. Mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at baseline, week 2, week 4, and month 3 after the beginning of treatment. Changes in mean IOP from baseline to the 3-month visit were determined by an analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mean diurnal IOP values were 25.1 +/- 3.1 mm Hg and 25.5 +/- 2.5 mm Hg at baseline in the latanoprost monotherapy group and in the carteolol-plus-pilocarpine group, respectively. Diurnal IOP was significantly decreased from baseline to 3 months in both groups (P <.001). At this time point, latanoprost monotherapy had reduced mean diurnal IOP by 7.2 +/- 2.5 mm Hg (28.7%) and carteolol plus pilocarpine had reduced mean diurnal IOP by 7.4 +/- 2.7 mm Hg (29%). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their IOP reduction effect (P =.51). Decreased visual acuity and twilight vision, blurred vision, and headache were more frequent in the carteolol-plus-pilocarpine group than in the latanoprost group (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that latanoprost monotherapy was at least as effective as the carteolol-pilocarpine combination therapy in reducing mean diurnal IOP in newly diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of prostaglandin and prostamide therapy for patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

Background

To determine monthly cost and cost effectiveness of bilateral prostaglandin/prostamide therapy for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients taking bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan^®, Allergan, Inc.), latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan^®, Pfizer, Inc.), or travoprost 0.004% (Travatan^®, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.).

Methods

Drops in five new 2.5-mL bottles were counted and then averaged for each drug. Average retail price was determined by surveys of pharmacies. Drop count, average retail price, average wholesale price, and IOP reduction data were used to compute annual cost, and cost effectiveness (annual cost-per-mm Hg of IOP reduction) of the three drugs.

Results

Drops per 2.5-mL bottle averaged 113 for bimatoprost 0.03%, 84 for latanoprost 0.005%, and 83 for travoprost 0.004%. Average retail cost (2005) per bottle was $69.99 for bimatoprost 0.03%, $61.69 for latanoprost 0.005%, and $66.37 for travoprost 0.004%. The monthly retail cost of bilateral therapy was $37.92 for bimatoprost 0.03%, $44.75 for latanoprost 0.005%, and $49.25 for travoprost 0.004%. Cost effectiveness ranges were $57 to $65 per mm Hg reduction in IOP per year for bimatoprost, 0.03%, $67 to $90 per mm Hg for latanoprost 0.005%, and $74 to $84 per mm Hg for travoprost 0.004%.

Conclusion

Bimatoprost 0.03% had the lowest monthly and annual costs and the greatest cost effectiveness for lowering IOP compared with latanoprost 0.005% and travoprost 0.004%.

     

Latanoprost topical ophthalmic combinations

Latanoprost became the first line therapeutic agent in glaucoma treatment being the best sold worldwide anti-glaucoma medication. When adequate intraocular pressure decrease can not be achieved with latanoprost monotherapy, then its combinations are to be used. Latanoprost combinations are grouped in to non-fixed and fixed variants. Non-fixed combinations mean concomitant therapy,that is giving the two or more medications using different bottles. The medications used for latanoprost non-fixed combinations are represented by timolol 0.5%, pilocarpine 2%, acetazolamide dispensed systemically and locally, dipivefrin 0.1%, unoprostone 0.12% and brimonidine 0.2%. Fixed combinations mean administering the two mixed medications using one single bottle. At the present time there is only one fixed combination of latanoprost i.e. its combination with timolol 0.5% whose trading name is Xalcom.     

A 12-month, randomized, double-masked study comparing latanoprost with timolol in pigmentary glaucoma

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and side effects and the effect on aqueous humor dynamics of 0.005% latanoprost applied topically once daily with 0.5% timolol given twice daily for 12 months to patients with pigmentary glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, clinical study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six patients affected with bilateral pigmentary glaucoma controlled with no more than a single hypotensive medication were enrolled in the study. INTERVENTION: The sample population was randomly divided into 2 age- and gender-matched groups each of 18 patients. Group 1 received 0.005% latanoprost eyedrops once daily and the vehicle (placebo) once daily; group 2 was assigned to timolol 0.5% eyedrops twice daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diurnal curves of intraocular pressure (IOP) were performed on the baseline day and after 0.5, 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment. The IOP measurements were performed at 8:00 AM, 12:00 noon, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM. Outflow facility ("C") was measured on the baseline day and on the last day of the study with a Schiotz electronic tonometer. A two-tailed Student's t test for paired or unpaired data was used for statistical evaluation of differences between treatment and baseline values or between the latanoprost and timolol group. Diurnal IOP measurements were compared hour by hour. Mean values of the two eyes IOP and "C" were used for analysis. RESULTS: Compared with baseline measurements, both latanoprost and timolol caused a significant (P < 0.001) reduction of IOP at each hour of diurnal curve throughout the duration of therapy. Reduction of IOP was 6.0 +/- 4.5 and 5.9 +/- 4.6 with latanoprost and 4.8 +/- 3.0 and 4.6 +/- 3.1 with timolol after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Comparison of mean diurnal measurements with latanoprost and timolol showed a statistical significant (P < 0.001) difference at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean "C" was found to be significantly enhanced (+30%) only in the latanoprost-treated group compared with the baseline (P = 0.017). Mean conjunctival hyperemia was graded at 0.3 in latanoprost-treated eyes and 0.2 in timolol-treated eyes. A remarkable change in iris color was observed in both eyes of 1 of the 18 patients treated with latanoprost and none of the 18 patients who received timolol. Darkening of the peripheral iris stroma was suspected in two patients treated with latanoprost. In the timolol group, heart rate was significantly reduced from 72 +/- 9 at baseline to 67 +/- 10 beats per minute at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies may need to confirm these data on a larger sample and to evaluate the side effect of increased iris pigmentation on long-term follow-up, in patients with pigmentary glaucoma, 0.005% latanoprost taken once daily was well tolerated and more effective in reducing IOP than 0.5% timolol taken twice daily.     

Comparing the Efficacy of Latanoprost (0.005%), Bimatoprost (0.03%), Travoprost (0.004%), and Timolol (0.5%) in the Treatment of Primary Open Angle Glaucoma

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost and timolol in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted at a tertiary-care centre. One hundred and forty patients with newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma were randomly assigned to treatment with latanoprost (0.005%), bimatoprost (0.03%), travoprost (0.004%) or timolol gel (0.5%); 35 patients were assigned to each group. All patients were followed for 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The main outcome measure studied was the change in IOP at week 12 from the baseline values. Safety measures included recording of adverse events.

Results

The mean IOP reduction from baseline at week 12 was significantly more with bimatoprost (8.8 mmHg, 35.9%) than with latanoprost (7.3 mmHg, 29.9%), travoprost (7.6 mmHg, 30.8%) or timolol (6.7 mmHg, 26.6%) (ANOVA and Student''s t-tests, p < 0.001). Among the prostaglandins studied, bimatoprost produced a maximum reduction in IOP (-2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.25 to -3.18) followed by travoprost (-1.27; 95% CI, -0.81 to -1.27) and latanoprost (-1.25; 95% CI, -0.79 to -1.71); these values were significant when compared to timolol at week 12 (Bonferroni test, p < 0.001). Latanoprost and travoprost were comparable in their ability to reduce IOP at each patient visit. Ocular adverse-events were found in almost equal proportion in patients treated with bimatoprost (41.3%) and travoprost (41.9%), with a higher incidence of conjunctival hyperemia (24.1%) seen in the bimatoprost group. Timolol produced a significant drop in heart rate (p < 0.001) at week 12 when compared to the baseline measurements.

Conclusions

Bimatoprost showed greater efficacy when compared to the other prostaglandins, and timolol was the most efficacious at lowering the IOP. Conjunctional hyperemia was mainly seen with bimatoprost. However, the drug was tolerated well and found to be safe.     

Effects of the combination of bimatoprost and latanoprost on intraocular pressure in primary open angle glaucoma: a randomised clinical trial

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the combination of bimatoprost and latanoprost on intraocular pressure (IOP) in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: An open label randomised clinical trial was conducted, which included 18 glaucomatous patients (36 eyes). In the first 4 weeks, latanoprost 0.005% was prescribed for both eyes of the patients and any other antiglaucoma medication was discontinued. In the next 4 weeks (phase 1), bimatoprost 0.03% was combined with latanoprost in one randomly assigned eye (case eye) of each patient. In the next 4 weeks (phase 2), bimatoprost was discontinued in the case eyes, while bimatoprost was substituted for latanoprost in the fellow eye (control eye). The IOP was measured at the end of the first 4 weeks (baseline measurement) and weekly during phases 1 and 2. RESULTS: In the case eyes, the mean IOP increased along the first phase (1.8 mm Hg; p = 0.006) when compared to baseline measurements. The IOP returned to previous values after discontinuation of bimatoprost in phase 2. In the control eyes, the mean IOP did not change throughout the study. CONCLUSION: The combination of bimatoprost and latanoprost in POAG increases the IOP and should not be considered as a therapeutic option.     

Water-drinking test in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma while treated with different topical medications.

OBJECTIVE: Reduction and diurnal stabilization of the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) is the mainstay of treatment for glaucoma. Fluctuations of IOP in glaucomatous patients can also be induced by the osmotic variations caused by water ingestion. Such influence can be studied by means of the water-drinking test (WDT). The aim of this study was to perform the WDT in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) while they were being treated with different IOP-lowering medications, to test the effect of drugs with different mechanisms of action on the ability to maintain a stable IOP. METHODS: A total of 280 POAG patients were enrolled, 40 patients per group for each of the tested medications (timolol, dorzolamide, brinzolamide, travoprost,latanoprost, bimatoprost, and brimonidine). After baseline IOP measurement, all patients underwent WDT (1000 mL of water in 10 min). The IOP was measured at 15-min intervals until the return of IOP to baseline values. The main outcomes measured were mean IOP peak, mean IOP percentage increase, and mean time for returning to baseline IOP value. RESULTS: The highest mean IOP peak was found with timolol, whereas no difference was found among the other drugs. The highest mean IOP percentage increase was found with timolol, whereas bimatoprost showed an IOP percentage increase significantly lower than latanoprost, dorzolamide, and brinzolamide. The duration of IOP increase was shortest for bimatoprost and longest for timolol. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that topical medications that enhance outflow (e.g., bimatoprost, latanoprost, travoprost, and brimonidine) may provide, under stressful conditions such as the WDT, better IOP stabilization than medications that decrease aqueous humor inflow, such as timolol and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors.     

Changes in optic nerve head blood flow induced by the combined therapy of latanoprost and beta blockers

Purpose To assess the effects of combined therapy with latanoprost and beta blockers on optic nerve head (ONH) blood flow in normal‐tension glaucoma (NTG) patients. Methods Intraocular pressure (IOP), ONH blood flow (laser speckle flowgraphy) and blood pressure were measured in 15 eyes of 15 NTG patients (41–76 years old) before treatment or after a 1‐month washout period. Similar measurements were performed at 2 months after the commencement of treatment with latanoprost and at 3 months after the start of combined therapy of latanoprost with 0.5% timolol or 2% carteolol in a crossover study using the envelope method. Measurement was carried out 2–3 hr after the morning application of eyedrops. Results Latanoprost decreased IOP with no significant change in ONH blood flow. Concomitant use of timolol or carteolol further decreased IOP with no significant difference between these two drugs. Only the combined therapy of latanoprost with carteolol significantly (p < 0.01) increased ONH blood flow by approximately 10%, compared to initial levels. There was no significant change in mean blood pressure, ocular perfusion pressure or pulse rate as a result of these therapies. Conclusion: Topical latanoprost–carteolol combined therapy increased ONH blood flow in NTG patients, unlike latanoprost–timolol therapy. Because ocular perfusion pressure was unchanged, direct vasodilative effects were suspected as the mechanism.     

Comparison of the corneal effects of latanoprost, fixed combination latanoprost-timolol, and timolol: A double-masked, randomized, one-year study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effects on corneal endothelial cell density and corneal thickness of latanoprost and the fixed combination latanoprost-timolol to timolol. DESIGN: Double-masked, randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred sixty-nine subjects with bilateral ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma who had a baseline central corneal endothelial cell density of at least 1500 cells/mm(2), central corneal thickness of less than 0.68 mm, no corneal pathologic condition on slit-lamp examination, and intraocular pressure of less than 22 mmHg after a 3-week run-in on timolol, 0.5%, once daily were included. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with latanoprost 0.005% (n = 127), fixed-combination latanoprost 0.005%-timolol 0.5% (FC, n = 116), or timolol 0.5% (n = 126) one drop, once daily in the morning for 1 year. All subjects were treated in both eyes. Specular microscopy and ultrasonic pachymetry were performed before treatment, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean percent change in central endothelial cell density and central corneal thickness after 1 year of treatment. RESULTS: For both corneal endothelial cell density and corneal thickness, the mean percent changes from baseline were similar in all three treatment groups. Mean percent endothelial cell change at 1 year from baseline for latanoprost, FC, and timolol was 0.3 +/- 2.2%, 0.1 +/- 1.8%, 0.0 +/- 2.5% (mean +/- standard deviation; 95% confidence interval: latanoprost vs timolol -0.2-1.0; FC vs timolol -0.4-0.7) and mean percent change in corneal thickness was -1.1 +/- 2.5%, -1.0 +/- 2.0%, 0.2 +/- 3.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Latanoprost and FC are equivalent to timolol regarding long-term corneal effects after 1 year of treatment.     

Efficacy of latanoprost as an adjunct to medical therapy for residual angle-closure glaucoma after iridectomy.

Residual primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) after iridectomy is an important issue among Asians, especially Chinese. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of latanoprost as an intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering agent in cases of residual PACG. Twenty-six eyes of 26 PACG patients with persistently elevated IOP after iridectomy, despite treatment with conventional IOP lowering drugs (beta blockers and pilocarpine) were included. Latanoprost 0.005%, one drop daily, was added adjunctively to all eyes. Measurement of IOP at baseline and after the start of treatment with latanoprost indicated a significant IOP reduction. The IOP decreased by about 21% (p < 0.005) during the first 3 months, and showed a reduction of about 36% at the end of 1 year. At the 1-year follow up, the IOP was well controlled (below 20 mmHg) in all eyes. These findings show that, in combination with beta blockade and pilocarpine, latanoprost can ameliorate residual PACG after iridectomy and could potentially forestall the need for further therapeutic intervention.     

A cost analysis of the prostaglandin analogs.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy, ease of use, and favorable side effect profile has increased the popularity of the prostaglandin analogs for topical treatment of a variety of glaucoma types. We undertook a cost analysis study of all the prostaglandin analogs. METHODS: Mean number of drops per bottle, mean drop volume, total bottle volume, percent overfill per bottle, mean national bottle cost, daily cost of therapy, and yearly cost of therapy were calculated for all four of the prostaglandin analogs. RESULTS: Yearly cost of monocular therapy was $230.68 for latanoprost, $219.37 for travoprost, $211.34 for bimatoprost, and $178.85 for unoprostone. Unoprostone was by far the least expensive of the prostaglandin analogs tested. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost were essentially the same price, varying in yearly cost to the patient by less than twenty dollars. Bimatoprost had the most expensive bottle price, unoprostone the least expensive. Bimatoprost also had the largest percentage of overfill from labeled volume. Unoprostone had the most monocular treatment days per bottle. CONCLUSION: Cost, in addition to efficacy and side affect profile, should be considered when determining which prostaglandin analog to prescribe to glaucoma patients.