Limits...
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing latanoprost with timolol in the treatment of Asian populations with chronic angle-closure glaucoma.

Li SM, Chen R, Li Y, Yang ZR, Deng QJ, Zhong Z, Ong ML, Zhan SY - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: As for relative IOP, there is 9.0% (95%CI, 6.6∼11.4, P<0.01), 9.7% (95%CI, 7.6∼11.8, P<0.01), and 10.8% (95%CI, 7.4∼14.3, P<0.01) greater reduction among latanoprost users than among timolol users.The differences were statistically significant at all time points (1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks).Compared with timolol, latanoprost was significantly more effective in lowering IOP of Asian patients with CACG, with higher risk of ocular adverse effects but lower risk of systemic adverse events, and might be a good substitute for CACG patients.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

ABSTRACT

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost compared with timolol in the treatment of Asian patients with chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG).

Methods: Relevant trials were identified through systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and several Chinese databases. The main outcome measures included absolute and relative reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) at mean, peak and trough from baseline, ocular adverse effects and systemic adverse events.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials with 685 patients were included. In comparison with timolol, latanoprost reduced absolute IOP in CACG patients by more than 2.3 mmHg (95%CI, 1.8∼2.9, P<0.01), 2.4 mmHg (95%CI, 1.9∼2.9, P<0.01) and 2.5 mmHg (95%CI, 1.6∼3.3, P<0.01) at mean, peak and trough, respectively. As for relative IOP, there is 9.0% (95%CI, 6.6∼11.4, P<0.01), 9.7% (95%CI, 7.6∼11.8, P<0.01), and 10.8% (95%CI, 7.4∼14.3, P<0.01) greater reduction among latanoprost users than among timolol users. The differences were statistically significant at all time points (1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks). More ocular adverse effects (OR = 1.49, 95% CI, 1.05∼2.10, P = 0.02) and less systemic adverse events (OR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.25∼0.84, P = 0.01) were observed in latanoprost group in comparison with timolol group.

Conclusion: Compared with timolol, latanoprost was significantly more effective in lowering IOP of Asian patients with CACG, with higher risk of ocular adverse effects but lower risk of systemic adverse events, and might be a good substitute for CACG patients.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of Relative IOP reductions between latanoprost and timolol.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016135&req=5

pone-0096852-g005: Comparison of Relative IOP reductions between latanoprost and timolol.

Mentions: Relative IOP reduction. Relative IOP reductions from baseline of two drugs were shown in Figure 5. Mean differences in relative IOP reduction between latanoprost and timolol were 9.0% (P<0.01) at mean, 9.7% (P<0.01) at peak, and 10.8% (P<0.01) at trough, respectively.


Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing latanoprost with timolol in the treatment of Asian populations with chronic angle-closure glaucoma.

Li SM, Chen R, Li Y, Yang ZR, Deng QJ, Zhong Z, Ong ML, Zhan SY - PLoS ONE (2014)

Comparison of Relative IOP reductions between latanoprost and timolol.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016135&req=5

pone-0096852-g005: Comparison of Relative IOP reductions between latanoprost and timolol.
Mentions: Relative IOP reduction. Relative IOP reductions from baseline of two drugs were shown in Figure 5. Mean differences in relative IOP reduction between latanoprost and timolol were 9.0% (P<0.01) at mean, 9.7% (P<0.01) at peak, and 10.8% (P<0.01) at trough, respectively.

Bottom Line: As for relative IOP, there is 9.0% (95%CI, 6.6∼11.4, P<0.01), 9.7% (95%CI, 7.6∼11.8, P<0.01), and 10.8% (95%CI, 7.4∼14.3, P<0.01) greater reduction among latanoprost users than among timolol users.The differences were statistically significant at all time points (1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks).Compared with timolol, latanoprost was significantly more effective in lowering IOP of Asian patients with CACG, with higher risk of ocular adverse effects but lower risk of systemic adverse events, and might be a good substitute for CACG patients.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

ABSTRACT

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost compared with timolol in the treatment of Asian patients with chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG).

Methods: Relevant trials were identified through systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and several Chinese databases. The main outcome measures included absolute and relative reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) at mean, peak and trough from baseline, ocular adverse effects and systemic adverse events.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials with 685 patients were included. In comparison with timolol, latanoprost reduced absolute IOP in CACG patients by more than 2.3 mmHg (95%CI, 1.8∼2.9, P<0.01), 2.4 mmHg (95%CI, 1.9∼2.9, P<0.01) and 2.5 mmHg (95%CI, 1.6∼3.3, P<0.01) at mean, peak and trough, respectively. As for relative IOP, there is 9.0% (95%CI, 6.6∼11.4, P<0.01), 9.7% (95%CI, 7.6∼11.8, P<0.01), and 10.8% (95%CI, 7.4∼14.3, P<0.01) greater reduction among latanoprost users than among timolol users. The differences were statistically significant at all time points (1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks). More ocular adverse effects (OR = 1.49, 95% CI, 1.05∼2.10, P = 0.02) and less systemic adverse events (OR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.25∼0.84, P = 0.01) were observed in latanoprost group in comparison with timolol group.

Conclusion: Compared with timolol, latanoprost was significantly more effective in lowering IOP of Asian patients with CACG, with higher risk of ocular adverse effects but lower risk of systemic adverse events, and might be a good substitute for CACG patients.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus