The susceptibility of latanoprost ophthalmic solution to the environment (heat and light) during and after patient use has been a potential concern due to the physical characteristics of the bottle (clear, pliable polyethylene) used in the commercial packaging. To our knowledge, only one previously published study on the stability of latanoprost reported degradation after exposure to extreme temperatures in the laboratory (10% degradation after 198 hours at 50°C or 31.7 hours at 70°C).
3 Similarly, direct exposure to ultraviolet irradiation from a benchtop transilluminator resulted in degradation of 10% of latanoprost within a few hours.
3 Although these findings suggest that latanoprost solution may degrade under experimental extreme temperature and light exposure conditions, the generalizability of these data to the patient care and community use environment is unclear. Further, they do not demonstrate lack of potency or stability of latanoprost under conditions of actual use.
5 6
The present study was conducted to evaluate the stability of latanoprost solution during and after use in a “real world” community environment when dispensed from two different settings. After handling by the patients and storage at room temperature, the majority (94%) of used latanoprost ophthalmic solution bottles contained latanoprost at a concentration within 10% of the labeled amount. Mean concentrations of latanoprost in the residual solution from the clinic-dispensed bottles and the pharmacy-dispensed bottles did not differ significantly. In all, one bottle contained residual latanoprost ophthalmic solution, from which latanoprost was measured in a concentration substantially lower than any of the other samples. Possible explanations include degradation of latanoprost under usual storage conditions, lower concentration of latanoprost in the unopened bottle, unusual storage conditions by the patient, errors in study procedures at the clinic, or errors during sampling or assay.
A change in the labeled concentrations of any pharmaceutical product for outpatient use could potentially negatively affect clinical response. For the latanoprost concentrations evaluated in this study, however, this appears not to be the case. Dose-finding studies with latanoprost have revealed that IOP-lowering activity exists at drug concentrations lower than that provided in the commercially available preparation.
7 8 9 In one of the original dose-finding trials, latanoprost at concentrations of 35 μg/mL (0.0035%) and 60 μg/mL (0.006%) administered twice daily produced little difference in reducing IOP, showing no clear dose–response relationship.
8 More recently, comparison of once-daily administration of either 0.005% or 0.001% latanoprost demonstrated that even when administered at a concentration of 20% of labeled product, latanoprost lowered IOP within 2 mm Hg of that produced by the labeled (0.005%) concentration. Although this study was not designed to demonstrate a relationship between the potency of latanoprost and its IOP-reducing effects, a decrease in latanoprost concentration (to 35 μg/mL) due to loss of stability, would not be likely to affect the IOP-lowering activity of the drug.
8 (In our study, the lowest concentration detected was 36 μg/mL.)
One limitation of the present study is the lack of baseline reference values for the latanoprost concentration in the unopened bottles. Such data would have allowed determination of whether final concentrations had changed significantly after the patient used the bottle. However, baseline analyses would have necessitated dispensing opened, sampled bottles, which is not feasible in a patient care environment. In addition, latanoprost ophthalmic solution bottles dispensed from pharmacies would not have been available for baseline sampling. Therefore, we are unable to conclude whether the changes in latanoprost concentration occurred before or after dispensation. Another limitation of this study was the homogeneity of the patient population, in that they were accrued from a group of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension treated at a private clinic. The applicability of these data to other populations remains unknown. However, we believe that our data suggest that latanoprost ophthalmic solution maintains its concentration when stored at room temperatures similar to that experienced in our community. Further, our data should be cautiously evaluated when extrapolating to other communities particularly those that are not similar to our community, because we do not know what the actual room temperatures were, as patients enrolled in our study may or may not have had room air conditioning. Finally, the scope of this study did not include preservative stability, nor did we evaluate the effect of the preservative on IOP lowering or on the conjunctiva in this setting.
To our knowledge, this is the first published report of latanoprost stability in latanoprost ophthalmic solution bottles that were used and stored under normal conditions. Our findings demonstrate that latanoprost is stable in an eye clinic setting and are reassuring, in that patients living in warm climatic conditions were successful in maintaining proper storage after receiving routine dispensing instructions. Further, it reassures patients and physicians that latanoprost solution is stable under conditions of normal use.