Purchase this article with an account.
C. J. Cruz Colon, J. Myers, J. Katz, T. Tai, S. Wizov, J. Wittpenn, M. R. Moster, M. Pro, C. J. Rapuano; Ocular Surface Changes in Patients Using Latanoprost and Travoprost With Sofzia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):168.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare ocular surface changes in patients using latanoprost and travoprost with sofzia.
Patients were classified into 2 groups. Group 1 patients were naive to glaucoma therapy. Group 2 patients had been on latanoprost for at least one month in both eyes. In both groups, the patients were instructed to start (or continue) latanoprost in the right eye, and to start travoprost with sofzia in the left eye. At baseline, 1 month and 2 months tear break-up time (without anesthesia) was measured, conjunctival hyperemia was graded against a standard scale, subject drug preference was obtained, impression cytology with cellular typing was performed, lissamine green vital staining was graded, and intraocular pressure (IOP) by applanation tonometry was measured.
2 month follow up for Group 1 (n=10): The eye receiving latanoprost therapy (OD) had statistically significantly less conjunctival staining than the eye receiving travoprost with sofzia (OS) therapy (3.40+/- 3.72 and 5.00+/- 4.45 p=0.029) and had less conjunctival hyperemia (3.30 +/- 2.95 and 4.50 +/- 3.21 p=0.029). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in tear break up time ( 0.710 +/- 6.71 vs 0.160 +/-6.38 p=0.669), change in IOP from baseline (-7.31+/- 7.29 vs -5.95 +/- 6.71 p=0.129), corneal staining (2.10+/- 3.00 vs 2.10 +/- 2.71 p=1.00), or impression cytology (0.457+/-0.348 vs 0.970+/-0.399).2 month follow up for Group 2 (n=8): The eye receiving latanoprost therapy (OD) had statistically significantly less corneal staining than the eye receiving travoprost with sofzia (OS) therapy (0.75+/-0.707 vs 1.50+/-0.756 p=0.048). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in tear break up time ( -1.24+/-4.61 vs -0.875 +/-4.60 p=0.761 ), conjunctival hyperemia (2.88 +/- 3.68 vs 4.00 +/- 5.01 p=0.122), change in IOP from baseline (0.188+/- 3.25 vs 0.0625 +/- 3.76 p=0.895), conjunctival staining (3.25+/- 3.92 vs 3.50+/- 3.46 p=0.598), or impression cytology ( 1.25+/-0.524 vs 0.957+/-0.394).In the last visit in Group 1, 30% preferred latanoprost, 20% preferred travoprost with sofzia and 50 % had no preference. In Group 2, 12.5% preferred latanoprost, 12.5% preferred travoprost with sofzia, and 75% had no preference.
This small study has not yet demonstrated any clinically significant difference in the ocular surface effects of monotherapy with latanoprost or travoprost with sofzia in patients naïve to therapy or on prior latanoprost monotherapy.
Clinical Trial: :
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only