Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Topical Prostaglandin Analogues for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of 4 prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) as first-line monotherapies for intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering in adult patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed in PubMed (1965-June 2013) and the Cochrane Library (1980-June 2013) using the search terms ocular hypertension, open-angle glaucoma, prostaglandin analogues, bimatoprost, latanoprost, tafluprost, and travoprost. Additional studies were searched from the reference lists of identified publications. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: In all, 32 randomized controlled trials comparing between PGAs (bimatoprost 0.03%, latanoprost 0.005%, tafluprost 0.0015%, and travoprost 0.004%) or PGA with timolol were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: A network meta-analysis was conducted. Using timolol as reference, the relative risks (RRs) of achieving treatment success, defined as the proportion of patients achieving at least 30% IOP reduction, with 95% CIs, were as follows: bimatoprost, 1.59 (1.28-1.98); latanoprost, 1.32 (1.00-1.74); travoprost, 1.33 (1.03-1.72); and tafluprost, 1.10 (0.85-1.42). The mean IOP reductions after 1 month were 1.98 (1.50-2.47), 1.01 (0.55-1.46), 1.08 (0.59-1.57), and 0.46 (-0.41 to 1.33) mm Hg, respectively, and the results were sustained at 3 months. Bimatoprost was associated with the highest risk of developing hyperemia, whereas latanoprost had the lowest risk, with RRs (95% CI) of 4.66 (3.49-6.23) and 2.30 (1.76-3.00), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost achieved the highest efficacy in terms of IOP reduction, whereas latanoprost had the most favorable tolerability profile. This review serves to guide selection of the optimal PGA agent for individual patient care in clinical practice.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.