Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 247–262 | Cite as

Bimatoprost versus latanoprost in lowering intraocular pressure in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: Results from parallel-group comparison trials

  • Steven T. Simmons
  • Monte S. Dirks
  • Robert J. Noecker
Article

Abstract

This review evaluated the clinical evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of bimatoprost and latanoprost in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Four head-to-head, randomized, and controlled clinical trials of bimatoprost and latanoprost with treatment periods ranging from 1 to 6 months were identified from searches of the MEDLINE data-base through February 2004. According to a review and comparison of the results, bimatoprost, when compared with latanoprost, was associated with greater mean reductions in IOP, greater mean increases in the percentage of patients demonstrating target IOP, and greater response rates. The differences between drugs were not always statistically significant. Overall, the between-group differences in mean IOP ranged from 0 to 1.5 mm Hg. In 92% of the IOP measurements, the mean IOP was lower among patients given bimatoprost than among those given latanoprost; in the remaining 8%, the IOP reduction was equal. Transient, mild conjunctival hyperemia was the most frequently reported adverse effect associated with either drug, but it occurred more frequently with bimatoprost. Overall, both drugs were well tolerated. As a 1-mm Hg change in IOP has been shown to reduce the risk of progression in patients with glaucoma (according to the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial), the greater efficacy demonstrated by bimatoprost in lowering IOP may be clinically significant.

Keywords

bimatoprost latanoprost ocular hypertension glaucoma intraocular pressure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wand M, Gaudio AR. Cystoid macular edema associated with ocular hypotensive lipids.Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:403–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hedman K, Alm A. A pooled-data analysis of three randomized, double-masked, six-month clinical studies comparing the intraocular pressure reducing effect of latanoprost and timolol.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2000;10:95–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sherwood M, Brandt J; Bimatoprost Study Groups 1 and 2. Six-month comparison of bimato prost once-daily and twice-daily with timolol twice-daily in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45(suppl 4):S361-S368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Netland PA, Landry T, Sullivan EK, et al; Travoprost Study Group. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:472–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma.Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:701–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators.Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group.Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al; CIGTS Study Group. Interim clinical outcomes in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery.Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1943–1953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the early manifest glaucoma Trial.Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–1279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial.Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:48–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palmberg P. Answers from the ocular hypertension treatment study.Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120: 829–830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.BMJ. 1995;311:485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alm A, Stjernschantz J. Effects on intraocular pressure and side effects of 0.005% latanoprost applied once daily, evening or morning. A comparison with timolol. Scandinavian Latanoprost Study Group.Ophthalmology. 1995; 102:1743–1752.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camras CB. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: a six-month masked, multicenter trial in the United States. The United States Latanoprost Study Group.Ophthalmology. 1996;103:138–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson P, Stjernschantz J. A six-month, randomized, double-masked study comparing latanoprost with timolol in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The Latanoprost Study Group.Ophthalmology. 1996;103:126–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP; XLT Study Group. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked evaluator multicenter study.Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:688–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DuBiner H, Cooke D, Dirks M, Stewart WC, VanDenburgh AM, Felix C. Efficacy and safety of bimatoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 30-day comparison with latanoprost.Surv Ophthalmol. 2001; 45(suppl 4):S353-S360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gandolfi S, Simmons ST, Sturm R, Chen K, VanDenburgh AM; Bimatoprost Study Group 3. Three-month comparison of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.Adv Ther. 2001;18:110–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noecker RS, Dirks MS, Choplin NT, Bernstein P, Batoosingh AL, Whitcup SM; Bimatoprost/ Latanoprost Study Group. A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma.Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:55–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Susanna R Jr, Giampani J Jr, Borges AS, Vessani RM, Jordao ML. A double-masked, randomized clinical trial comparing latanoprost with unoprostone in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Ophthalmology. 2001;108:259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer N; European Latanoprost Fixed Combination Study Group. A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with its individual components.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:893–899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jampel HD, Bacharach J, Sheu WP, Wohl LG, Solish AM, Christie W; Latanoprost/Unoprostone Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of latanoprost and unoprostone in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:863–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mishima HK, Masuda K, Kitazawa Y, Azuma I, Araie M. A comparison of latanoprost and timolol in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. A 12-week study.Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:929–932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suzuki M, Mishima HK, Masuda K, Araie M, Kitazawa Y, Azuma I. Efficacy and safety of latanoprost eye drops for glaucoma treatment: a 1-year study in Japan.Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000; 44:33–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aung T, Chew PT, Yip CC, et al. A randomized double-masked crossover study comparing latanoprost 0.005% with unoprostone 0.12% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:636–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stewart WC, Day DG, Stewart JA, Schuhr J, Latham KE. The efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% once daily versus brimonidine 0.2% twice daily in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:631–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noecker RJ, Earl ML, Mundorf T, Peace J, Williams RD. Bimatoprost 0.03% versus travoprost 0.004% in black Americans with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Adv Ther. 2003;20:121–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Higginbotham EJ, Schuman JS, Goldberg I, et al; Bimatoprost Study Groups 1 and 2. One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension.Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1286–1293.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eisenberg DL, Toris CB, Camras CB. Bimatoprost and travoprost: a review of recent studies of two new glaucoma drugs.Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47(suppl 1):S105-S115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eisenberg D. Latanoprost versus bimatoprost.Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1861–1862.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hedman K, Alm A. A pooled-data analysis of three randomized, double-masked, six-month clinical studies comparing the intraocular pressure reducing effect of latanoprost and timolol.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2000;10:95–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brandt JD, VanDenburgh AM, Chen K, Whitcup SM; Bimatoprost Study Group. Comparison of once-or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP: a 3-month clinical trial.Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:1023–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whitcup SM, Cantor LB, VanDenburgh AM, Chen K. A randomised, double masked, multicen tre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:57–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scherer WJ. A retrospective review of non-responders to latanoprost.J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2002;18:287–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Williams RD. Efficacy of bimatoprost in glaucoma and ocular hypertension unresponsive to latanoprost.Adv Ther. 2002;19:275–281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gandolfi SA, Cimino L. Effect of bimatoprost on patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are nonresponders to latanoprost.Ophthalmology. 2003;110:609–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abelson MB, Mroz M, Rosner SA, Dirks MS, Hirabayashi D. Multicenter, open-label evaluation of hyperemia associated with use of bimatoprost in adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Adv Ther. 2003;20:1–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science and Business Media and LLC 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven T. Simmons
    • 1
  • Monte S. Dirks
    • 2
  • Robert J. Noecker
    • 3
  1. 1.Glaucoma Consultants of the Capital RegionSlingerlandsUSA
  2. 2.Black Hills Regional Eye InstituteRapid City
  3. 3.University of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations