4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of Efficacy and Ocular Surface Disease Index Score between Bimatoprost, Latanoprost, Travoprost, and Tafluprost in Glaucoma Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 2018, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/1319628

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 4 prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) and to determine the incidence of ocular surface disease in newly diagnosed, primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients started on one of those 4 PGAs: bimatoprost (benzalkonium chloride, BAK, 0.3 mg/mL), latanoprost (BAK 0.2 mg/mL), travoprost (polyquad), and tafluprost (BAK-free). Patients and Methods. In this single-center, open-label trial, 32 patients newly diagnosed with POAG were randomly started on one of the four PGAs. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological exam at presentation and at 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-up. Dry eye disease (DED) was assessed using the original Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, in order to evaluate the impact of the drops on the quality of life of patients. Results. The mean age was 60.06 years +/- 11.76. All four drugs equally and significantly reduced the intraocular pressure (IOP) with respect to the baseline IOP. There was a trend for a slightly greater reduction of IOP with bimatoprost, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant when compared to other PGAs. OSDI scores were significantly superior for travoprost (10.68 +/- 5.73) compared to the other three drugs (p < 0 05). Latanoprost caused the most significant eyelash growth and iris discoloration. Conjunctival hyperemia and superficial keratitis occurrence were similar in the four groups. Conclusion. All prostaglandin analogues equally and significantly reduce the IOP in patients with POAG. According to the results of the OSDI score, latanoprost seems to be the least tolerated among the four drugs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available