Li SM, Chen R, Li Y, Yang ZR, Deng QJ, Zhong Z, Ong ML, Zhan SY. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing latanoprost with timolol in the treatment of Asian populations with chronic angle-closure glaucoma.
PLoS One 2014;
9:e96852. [PMID:
24816233 PMCID:
PMC4016135 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0096852]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2013] [Accepted: 04/11/2014] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
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.
Collapse