Efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% compared with tafluprost 0.0015% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma
Keywords:
Primary open-angle glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Tafluprost, TravoprostAbstract
Background: This prospective, open, randomized, parallel-group, comparative study is to evaluate the efficacy and side-effect profile of travoprost (TRAV) 0.004% compared with tafluprost (TAF) 0.0015% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) over 12 weeks. A total of 80 patients of POAG selected and were randomized to either TRAV or TAF monotherapy administered once daily in the evening for 12 weeks.
Methods: The study was conducted on 80 cases of POAG, in which patients were randomized to either TRAV or TAF monotherapy administered as 1 drop daily in the evening for 12 weeks. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured (8 am, 12 noon and 4 pm) at each visit, slit-lamp bio-microscopy was done and side effects noted.
Results: The mean IOP reduction in TRAV group decreased from 27.58±2.30 to 19.03±2.326 thus resulting in fall of 8.55 (31.0%) and in TAF group it decreased from 27.38±2.676 to 20.58±2.827 resulting in fall of 6.8 mm Hg (24.8%) was significant (p<0.05). In both treatment groups, the most frequently reported adverse event at 12 weeks was red eye, noted in, 9 (22.5%) and 7 (17.5%) cases of TRAV and TAF groups respectively, though the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: TRAV 0.004% monotherapy produced lower diurnal IOP than TAF 0.0015% in patients with POAG and exhibited a similar safety profile.
Metrics
References
Vogel R, Crick RP, Newson RB, Shipley M, Blackmore H, Bulpitt CJ. Association between intraocular pressure and loss of visual field in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74(1):3-6.
Teus MA, Castejón MA, Calvo MA, Pérez-Salaíces P, Marcos A. Intraocular pressure as a risk factor for visual field loss in pseudoexfoliative and in primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(12):2225-9.
Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 3rd ed. European Glaucoma Society; 2008. Available at http://www.eugs.org/eng/EGS_guidelines.asp. Accessed 27 Jul 2010.
Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(8):1090-5.
Mao LK, Stewart WC, Shields MB. Correlation between intraocular pressure control and progressive glaucomatous damage in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111(1):51-5.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1268-79.
Holmstrom S, Buchholz P, Walt J, Wickstrøm J, Aagren M. Analytic review of bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost in primary open angle glaucoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(11):1875-83.
Travatan® [Package insert]. Fort Worth, TX: Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; 2004.
Uusitalo H, Pillunat LE, Ropo A, Phase III Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of tafluprost 0.0015% versus latanoprost 0.005% eye drops in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: 24-month results of a randomized, double-masked phase III study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88(1):12-9.
Chabi A, Varma R, Tsai JC, Lupinacci R, Pigeon J, Baranak C, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of preservative-free tafluprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(6):1187-96.
Egorov E, Ropo A, Investigators. Adjunctive use of tafluprost with timolol provides additive effects for reduction of intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(2):214-22.
Sultan MB, Mansberger SL, Lee PP. Understanding the importance of IOP variables in glaucoma: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009;54(6):643-62.
Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, Gieser D, Vitale S, Lindenmuth K. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(2):134-42.
Netland PA, Landry T, Sullivan EK, Andrew R, Silver L, Weiner A, et al. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132(4):472-84.
Konstas AG, Kozobolis VP, Katsimpris IE, Boboridis K, Koukoula S, Jenkins JN, et al. Efficacy and safety of latanoprost versus travoprost in exfoliative glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(4):653-7.
Pult H, Murphy PJ, Purslow C, Nyman J, Woods RL. Limbal and bulbar hyperaemia in normal eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28(1):13-20.
Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT, Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) Working Group. Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Results of the First International Workshop. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(3):509-16.
Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: The CV Mosby Co.; 1993: 52-61.
Holló G. The side effects of the prostaglandin analogues. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2007;6(1):45-52.
Konstas AG, Hollo G, Astakhov YS, Teus MA, Akopov EL, Jenkins JN, et al. Factors associated with long-term progression or stability in exfoliation glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(1):29-33.
