Ingeborg Stalmans1, Francesco Oddone2, Maria Francesca Cordeiro3, Anton Hommer4, Giovanni Montesano5, Luisa Ribeiro6, Gordana Sunaric-Mégevand7, Luca Rossetti5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. ingeborg.stalmans@mac.com. 2. Glaucoma Research Unit, G.B.Bietti Eye Foundation - IRCCS, Via Livenza 3, 00198, Rome, Italy. 3. ICORG - Imperial College Ophthalmologic Research Group, Western Eye Hospital, 171 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QH, UK. 4. Hommer Ophthalmology Institute, Albertgasse 39, A-1080, Vienna, Austria. 5. Centre for Clinical Trials at San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, via di Rudinì, 8, 20142, Milan, Italy. 6. AIBILI - Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image, Centre for Clinical Trials, Azinhaga Santa Comba, Celas, 3000-548, Coimbra, Portugal. 7. Clinical Research Center, Mèmorial A de Rotschild, 22 Chemin Beau Soleil, 1208, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of Bimatoprost Unit Dose Preservative Free (BUDPF) and Latanoprost UnitDose Preservative Free (LUDPF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, investigator-masked, cross-over comparison was used. Inclusion criteria were ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG) with a maximum intraocular pressure (IOP) of 21 mmHg on a preservedprostaglandin monotherapy. After 6 weeks washout, patients were randomized to BUDPF or LUDPF for 3 months and then switched to the other treatment for 3 months. IOP curves were performed at baseline and after each treatment period. Statistical analysis was performed in a R programming environment. Linear mixed modeling was used to account for repeated measures on the same subject and clustering of observations from the same center. Safety outcomes included visual acuity, adverse events, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ocular tolerability, and optic nerve assessment. RESULTS: Analysis at 6 months (primary outcome) showed a 1.6 ± 0.5-mmHg difference in IOP values between LUDPF and BUDPF (p < 0.01). A mean intra-subject IOP difference of 0.9 ± 0.2 mmHg (LUDPF - BUDPF) was observed (p < 0.01).. Significant differences in IOP were observed for both drugs at 3 and at 6 months compared to baseline: -4,0 ± 0.5 mmHg for both BUDPF and LUDPF at 3 months (p < 0.01 for both drugs; p = 0.32 between the two drugs); -5.2 ± 0.5 and -3.4 ± 0.5 mmHg for BUDPF and LUDPF, respectively (both p < 0.01), at 6 months. Both drugs were tolerated well, the only statistically significant difference being lower hyperemia scores for LUDPF (albeit low for both drugs). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of BUDPF over LUDPF in lowering IOP. The results are consistent both in the parallel comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months as well as in the intra-subject pressure comparison.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of Bimatoprost Unit Dose Preservative Free (BUDPF) and Latanoprost Unit Dose Preservative Free (LUDPF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, investigator-masked, cross-over comparison was used. Inclusion criteria were ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG) with a maximum intraocular pressure (IOP) of 21 mmHg on a preserved prostaglandin monotherapy. After 6 weeks washout, patients were randomized to BUDPF or LUDPF for 3 months and then switched to the other treatment for 3 months. IOP curves were performed at baseline and after each treatment period. Statistical analysis was performed in a R programming environment. Linear mixed modeling was used to account for repeated measures on the same subject and clustering of observations from the same center. Safety outcomes included visual acuity, adverse events, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ocular tolerability, and optic nerve assessment. RESULTS: Analysis at 6 months (primary outcome) showed a 1.6 ± 0.5-mmHg difference in IOP values between LUDPF and BUDPF (p < 0.01). A mean intra-subject IOP difference of 0.9 ± 0.2 mmHg (LUDPF - BUDPF) was observed (p < 0.01).. Significant differences in IOP were observed for both drugs at 3 and at 6 months compared to baseline: -4,0 ± 0.5 mmHg for both BUDPF and LUDPF at 3 months (p < 0.01 for both drugs; p = 0.32 between the two drugs); -5.2 ± 0.5 and -3.4 ± 0.5 mmHg for BUDPF and LUDPF, respectively (both p < 0.01), at 6 months. Both drugs were tolerated well, the only statistically significant difference being lower hyperemia scores for LUDPF (albeit low for both drugs). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of BUDPF over LUDPF in lowering IOP. The results are consistent both in the parallel comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months as well as in the intra-subject pressure comparison.
Authors: David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb; Catey Bunce; Gerassimos Lascaratos; Francesca Amalfitano; Nitin Anand; Augusto Azuara-Blanco; Rupert R Bourne; David C Broadway; Ian A Cunliffe; Jeremy P Diamond; Scott G Fraser; Tuan A Ho; Keith R Martin; Andrew I McNaught; Anil Negi; Krishna Patel; Richard A Russell; Ameet Shah; Paul G Spry; Katsuyoshi Suzuki; Edward T White; Richard P Wormald; Wen Xing; Thierry G Zeyen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Balwantray C Chauhan; Frederick S Mikelberg; A Gordon Balaszi; Raymond P LeBlanc; Mark R Lesk; Graham E Trope Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2008-08
Authors: Paul J Ernest; Jan S Schouten; Henny J Beckers; Fred Hendrikse; Martin H Prins; Carroll A Webers Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Brenda W Gillespie; David C Musch; Kenneth E Guire; Richard P Mills; Paul R Lichter; Nancy K Janz; Patricia A Wren Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anders Heijl; Boel Bengtsson; Balwantray C Chauhan; Marc F Lieberman; Ian Cunliffe; Leslie Hyman; M Cristina Leske Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Douglas G Day; Thomas R Walters; Gail F Schwartz; Thomas K Mundorf; Charlie Liu; Rhett M Schiffman; Marina Bejanian Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Ana Marie L Rubenicia; Leo D P Cubillan; Victor Arni D P Sicam; Allan Patrick G Macabeo; Oliver B Villaflores; Agnes L Castillo Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Anastasios G Konstas; Leopold Schmetterer; Andreas Katsanos; Cindy M L Hutnik; Gábor Holló; Luciano Quaranta; Miguel A Teus; Hannu Uusitalo; Norbert Pfeiffer; L Jay Katz Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.845