Substituting latanoprost (Xalatan) for isopropyl unoprostone (Rescula) in monotherapy and combination therapy

Clinical options for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure

Elevated IOP in clinical practice is usually seen in glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Glaucoma affects 60 million people worldwide and 8.4 million are bilaterally blind from this chronic disease.1 Options for reducing IOP rely on pharmacological agents, laser treatments and surgery which may be penetrating or non-penetrating. The last twenty years has seen significant changes in all of these strategies. This review aims to cover these clinical options and introduce some of the new technologies currently in development for the clinical lowering of IOP.

Commercially available prostaglandin analogs for the reduction of intraocular pressure: similarities and differences

Over the last 12 years, the pharmacological management of glaucoma and ocular hypertension has significantly changed with the introduction of the prostaglandin analogs, specifically, latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost. Their ability to effectively reduce intraocular pressure with once-per-day dosing, their comparable ocular tolerability with timolol, and their general lack of systemic side effects have made them the mainstay of pharmacological therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension in most parts of the world. A review of their pharmacology reveals that they are all prodrugs that are converted to their respective free acids within the eye to activate the prostanoid FP receptor and to reduce intraocular pressure by enhancing the uveoscleral and the trabecular meshwork outflow pathways. A review of numerous prospective, randomized comparative studies indicates that no clinically significant differences exist among these agents regarding their ability to lower intraocular pressure.

Additional reduction in intraocular pressure achieved with latanoprost in normal-tension glaucoma patients previously treated with unoprostone

PURPOSE

To determine whether treatment with latanoprost eye drops is able to further reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) patients whose IOP has been well controlled with unoprostone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 34 eyes (34 individuals) with NTG that had been treated with 0.12% unoprostone eye drops twice daily for >or=3 months were switched to treatment once daily with eye drops containing 0.005% latanoprost. IOP was measured before and 1, 2, and 3 months after the switch to latanoprost.

RESULTS

The mean IOP of all eyes was decreased significantly by 1.8, 2.9, and 2.3 mmHg at 1, 2, and 3 months after the switch from unoprostone to latanoprost treatment. The IOP of patients with an initial IOP of <or=12 or >12 mmHg was reduced by 11.0 or 19.9%, respectively, after 3 months on latanoprost. The IOP of 30 (88.2%) of the 34 eyes was further reduced by the switch from unoprostone to latanoprost.

CONCLUSIONS

Latanoprost reduced the IOP of NTG patients who had already been treated with unoprostone, even though both drugs are prostaglandin-related. Switching to latanoprost might thus achieve a maximal decrease in IOP and thereby better prevent damage to the optic nerve and loss of visual field in NTG patients.

Conjunctival hyperemia and the use of topical prostaglandins in glaucoma and ocular hypertension

The prostaglandin derivatives are thought to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) primarily by increasing uveoscleral outflow. The ocular side effect, hyperemia, appears to occur via a secondary, unrelated mechanism. Variations in the IOP-lowering effect and incidence of hyperemia associated with these drugs are a function of their different chemical structures. Among the currently approved prostaglandin derivatives, hyperemia occurs in as many as 50% of patients treated with travoprost and as few as 5% of patients treated with latanoprost. The side effect of hyperemia may be of concern to the ophthalmologist for at least 2 reasons: hyperemia may compromise the outcome of filtration surgery, and it may represent a cosmetic problem to the patient thereby leading to non-compliance. The extent to which hyperemia may contribute to patient noncompliance and the effect of administration of the prostaglandin derivatives on outcome of filtration surgery remain to be determined. Until more definitive data are available, when selecting a prostaglandin analogue for ocular hypotensive therapy, it seems prudent to choose an agent with a low incidence of hyperemia.

Current status of prostaglandin therapy: latanoprost and unoprostone

Latanoprost, a prostaglandin F(2alpha) analog prodrug, and unoprostone, an analog of a prostaglandin metabolite, have been shown to be effective in decreasing intraocular pressure when used alone or in combination with other ocular hypotensive agents. The increase in the uveoscleral outflow and some of the side effects are probably FP-receptor mediated, which may account for some differences between the cited drugs. This article reviews the recent literature available on the clinical efficacy of these prostanoids, as well as the studies directly comparing these drugs.

Therapeutic potential of prostaglandin analogues in glaucoma

One of the most recent contributions to the therapeutic arsenal available for the treatment of glaucoma is the prostaglandin (PG) analogues. They represent a new class of ocular hypotensive drugs, targeting the uveoscleral outflow of ocular aqueous humour. Two drugs, latanoprost and unoprostone, are presently commercially available. In terms of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, latanoprost is the most powerful drug in clinical use today. The once daily dosing promotes compliance. Additional effect is achieved in combination with other hypotensive drugs, including those that increase trabecular outflow facility. The most frequent side effect is increased iris pigmentation that seems to be irreversible. A low frequency of cystoid macular oedema has been reported, predominantly in patients whose blood-retinal barrier (BRB) is compromised. Systemic side effects are rare. The experience with unoprostone is still much less than that with latanoprost. The ocular hypotensive mechanism of action of unoprostone is not well documented but an increase in uveoscleral outflow may be at least a part of its mode of action. Systemic side effects are rare and the ocular side effects seem to be mild. The ocular hypotensive effect is less than that of latanoprost and may not be suitable for monotherapy. It is widely accepted that the IOP alone is not responsible for the development of glaucomatous visual defects. It remains to be seen if this class of drugs will preserve vision in glaucoma patients better than other classes. More PG analogues are under development for potential clinical use.