Dataset Information

A 1-year randomized study of the clinical and confocal effects of tafluprost and latanoprost in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The aim of the present study was to compare the confocal and clinical features of newly diagnosed glaucoma patients receiving unpreserved prostaglandins (tafluprost) versus preserved prostaglandins (latanoprost).

Materials and methods

40 patients were randomized to tafluprost 0.0015% (20 patients; 32 eyes) or latanoprost 0.005% + benzalkonium chloride 0.02% (20 patients; 35 eyes) once daily for 1 year. Inclusion criteria were new glaucoma diagnosis, and no ocular treatments for 6 months before the study. Patients were evaluated at baseline and every 3 months with a complete ophthalmologic evaluation, Schirmer's test, break-up time test, confocal microscopy of the central cornea, and measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). Investigators were masked to treatment. Both eyes were analyzed if they fulfilled inclusion criteria. Treatments and changes between follow-up and baseline were compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA), t test and Chi-square test.

Results

At baseline, the two groups had similar age, ocular surface and confocal findings; keratocyte activation was present in 40%, branching pattern in 85%, and beading in 75%, with no inter-group differences. At follow-up, no significant clinical changes were detected, apart from a drop of IOP by 3.6-4.2 mmHg in the two groups (p < 0.001, with no difference between treatments). Despite inter-treatment ANOVA for confocal microscopy being negative, subtle changes were present. During follow-up, all eyes without nerve branching pattern at baseline progressively developed it when treated with latanoprost, whereas no change occurred using tafluprost treatment (p = 0.05). None of the eyes without beading at baseline developed it at the end of the study in the tafluprost group, whereas beading did occur in 75% of patients treated with latanoprost (p = 0.05). Both treatments were associated with increased keratocyte activation at follow-up; the change from baseline was statistically significant after month 3 with latanoprost (p = 0.02) and after month 6 with tafluprost (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

The two study treatments had similar clinical effects, but tafluprost had a more favorable profile for some confocal parameters of the cornea.

Funding

Merck Sharp & Dohme International.

SUBMITTER: Fogagnolo P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4415941 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To compare the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose tafluprost/timolol combination (Taf/T-FDC) with those of fixed-dose latanoprost/timolol combination (Lat/T-FDC) by measuring the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect, ocular pharmacokinetics, and ocular surface toxicity.The IOP-lowering effect of Taf/T-FDC and Lat/T-FDC in ocular normotensive monkeys was evaluated at 4 and 8 h after instillation in study A, at 12, 14, 16, and 18 h after instillation in study B, and at 24, 26, 28, and 30 h after instillation in study C. Drug penetration into the eye was evaluated by measuring the concentrations of timolol, tafluprost acid (active metabolic form of tafluprost), and latanoprost acid (active metabolic form of latanoprost) using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry after single instillation of Taf/T-FDC or Lat/T-FDC to Sprague Dawley rats. Cytotoxicity following 1-30 min exposure of SV40-transformed human corneal epithelial cells to Taf/T-FDC or Lat/T-FDC was analyzed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium assays. Undiluted and 10-fold diluted solutions of each FDC were evaluated.The IOP-lowering effect of Taf/T-FDC was almost equivalent to that of Lat/T-FDC at 4-8 h after instillation. The peak IOP reduction of Taf/T-FDC and Lat/T-FDC was observed at 8 h after instillation, and there is no difference between the two. The difference between them was observed at 24-30 h after instillation, and Taf/T-FDC demonstrated a significantly greater IOP-lowering effect than Lat/T-FDC at 24-30 h after instillation. The IOP-lowering effect of Taf/T-FDC was sustained up to 30 h after instillation, while that of Lat/T-FDC had almost disappeared at 28 h after instillation. Timolol concentrations in aqueous humor after Taf/T-FDC instillation were higher than those after Lat/T-FDC instillation (Cmax, 3870 ng/mL vs 1330 ng/mL; AUCinf, 3970 ng·h/mL vs 1250 ng·h/mL). The concentrations of tafluprost acid and latanoprost acid in aqueous humor after instillation of Taf/T-FDC and Lat/T-FDC, respectively, were similar to those after instillation of mono-preparations of tafluprost and latanoprost, respectively. The cytotoxic effect of Taf/T-FDC to the human corneal epithelial cells was significantly lower than that of Lat/T-FDC at all evaluated time points in both undiluted and 10-fold diluted FDCs.Taf/T-FDC provides increased IOP-lowering effect duration and lower potential ocular surface toxicity than Lat/T-FDC.

Project description:AimWithin the clinical setting, some patients have been identified as lacking in response to PGAs. This meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the responsiveness of latanoprost, travoprost, bimatoprost, and tafluprost in OAG/OHT patients, latanoprost nonresponders (LNRs), and the IOP-reducing efficacy and safety.MethodsA literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The primary clinical endpoint was the number of responders at the end of the study. The secondary clinical endpoint was the IOP reduction at the endpoint from baseline. Safety evaluation included five common adverse events: conjunctival hyperemia, hypertrichosis, ocular burning, ocular itching, and foreign-body sensation.ResultsEleven articles containing ten RCTs were included in this meta-analysis study. The results highlighted that, in the OAG/OHT population, there was no statistically significant difference in the responsiveness of the four PGAs. Bimatoprost had a better IOP-reducing efficacy than latanoprost. There was no significant difference in the IOP-reducing efficacy of travoprost, latanoprost, and tafluprost. In LNRs, the responsiveness of bimatoprost, travoprost, and latanoprost did not show statistical differences. Bimatoprost reduced IOP with a greater extent than latanoprost and travoprost in LNRs, while there was no significant difference in the IOP-reducing efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost. No serious adverse events occurred with the treatment of the four PGAs. The prevalence of conjunctival hyperemia due to bimatoprost or tafluprost was significantly higher than that of latanoprost. Other adverse events had no significant difference between the four drugs.ConclusionThe existing studies cannot prove that latanoprost, travoprost, bimatoprost, and tafluprost have different responsiveness in OAG/OHT patients. Switching to bimatoprost or travoprost cannot achieve a significant improvement in responsiveness in LNRs. Bimatoprost has a better IOP-reducing efficacy than latanoprost and travoprost. No serious adverse events occurred during treatment with any medication we studied.