Efficacy and safety of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in the treatment of glaucoma：a meta-analysis
- VernacularTitle:贝美前列素对比拉坦前列素治疗青光眼有效性与安全性的Meta分析
- Author:
Xinyi DONG
1
;
Huiyu WEI
1
;
Jun LIU
2
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital/School of Optometry/Eye Institute/Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease/Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases，Tianjin 300384，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，Tianjin Second People’s Hospital，Tianjin 300192，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
bimatoprost;
latanoprost;
glaucoma;
efficacy;
safety;
meta-analysis
- From:
China Pharmacy
2023;34(8):993-999
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost and latanoprost in the treatment of glaucoma， and to provide evidence-based reference for clinical rational drug use. METHODS PubMed， Embase， the Cochrane Library， China Biology Medicine disc， CNKI， Wanfang Data， and VIP databases were searched by computer to collect the randomized controlled trials （RCTs） about bimatoprost （trial group） versus latanoprost （control group） in the treatment of glaucoma from the inception to March 2022. After screening the literature and extracting the data， the qualities of the included literature were evaluated using the bias risk assessment tool recommended by the Cochrane system evaluator manual 5.1.0. Meta-analysis， sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed by using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 12 software. RESULTS A total of 2 181 patients were enrolled in 19 RCTs. Meta-analysis results showed that， the end point intraocular pressure reduction （IOPR） [MD＝0.89， 95%CI （0.53，1.25）， P＜0.000 01] of patients in trial group was significantly lower than control group， while the incidence of conjunctival congestion [RR＝1.89， 95%CI （1.59， 2.24）， P＜0.000 01] and eyelash growth [RR＝3.17， 95%CI （1.97，5.08）， P＜0.000 01] were significantly higher than control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of eye irritation/foreign body sensation， pruritus， dry eye， eye inflammation， eye pain， visual impairment or iris/skin pigmentation between 2 groups （P＞0.05）. Results of subgroup analysis based on different medication time points showed that， the IOPR of patients in the trial group after 1， 3 and 6 months of treatment was significantly lower than control group （P＜0.05）. Results of sensitivity analysis showed that the result of this study was robust. The publication bias analysis showed that there was little possibility of publication bias in this study. CONCLUSIONS Compared with latanoprost， bimatoprost has more advantages in improving intraocular pressure， but the risk of conjunctival congestion and eyelash growth is higher than latanoprost.
