Travoprost compared with other prostaglandin analogues or timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

It is still uncertain whether travoprost has comparable or better efficacy compared with other prostaglandin analogues or timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the incidence of reported side-effects and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of travoprost versus other prostaglandin analogues (latanaprost, bimatoprost, unoprostone) or timolol.

METHODS

Systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, Chinese Bio-medicine Database and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify the potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 4.1 software that was provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The outcome measures were the incidence of reported side-effects (hyperaemia, iris pigmentation, eyelash changes) and mean IOP pooled over treatment visits.

RESULTS

In total, 12 articles involving 3048 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that travoprost 0.004% was more effective than timolol or travoprost 0.0015% in lowering IOP, but not more effective than bimatoprost or latanoprost. Travoprost 0.004% caused a higher percentage of hyperaemia than timolol, latanoprost, or travoprost 0.0015%. There was an increased incidence of pigmentation with travoprost than timolol. Travoprost 0.004% caused a higher percentage of eyelash changes than timolol, latanoprost, or travoprost 0.0015%.

CONCLUSION

According to data available, travoprost is more effective than timolol in lowering IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Compared with other prostaglandin analogues, travoprost appears to be equivalent to bimatoprost and latanoprost. Although a limited number of local side-effects were reported, no serious treatment-related side-effects were reported.