A multicenter, retrospective chart review study comparing index therapy change rates in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients newly treated with latanoprost or travoprost-Z monotherapy
2011

Comparing Therapy Change Rates in Glaucoma Patients Treated with Latanoprost or Travoprost-Z

Sample size: 900 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Fain Joel M, Kotak Sameer, Mardekian Jack, Bacharach Jason, Edward Deepak P, Rauchman Steven, Brevetti Teresa, Fox Janet L, Lovelace Cherie

Primary Institution: Pfizer Ophthalmics

Hypothesis

The rate of index therapy change would be lower with travoprost-Z preserved with SofZia than with latanoprost preserved with BAK.

Conclusion

Medication changes were common in both treatment groups but statistically significantly more frequent with travoprost-Z.

Supporting Evidence

  • Patients treated with travoprost-Z were 52% more likely to change therapy within the first six months.
  • Insufficient IOP control was the most commonly reported reason for therapy change.
  • Hyperemia was reported significantly more frequently among those treated with travoprost-Z.

Takeaway

Doctors looked at patient records to see how often people had to change their eye medicine. They found that more people had to switch from travoprost-Z than from latanoprost.

Methodology

A retrospective chart review was conducted at 14 clinical practice sites, analyzing medical records of patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were treated with latanoprost or travoprost-Z.

Potential Biases

No formal tests of reliability were undertaken for chart abstraction across sites.

Limitations

The follow-up time frame was too short to support assessments of changes in parameters such as visual field.

Participant Demographics

Patients were ≥40 years of age, with a median age of approximately 67 years, and >50% were female.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.0026

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 1.15-2.00

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2415-11-13

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication