Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12027782›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging2002

Topical bimatoprost: a review of its use in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Stephanie E Easthope, Caroline M Perry

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Eyelash Rejuvenation Using Bimatoprost 0.03%: A Prospective Pilot Split-Face Study in Indian Population.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephanie E EasthopeAdis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
Caroline M Perry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bimatoprost, a synthetic prostamide analogue, is a new ocular hypotensive agent indicated for the second-line treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The drug is formulated as a 0.03% ophthalmic solution. Bimatoprost lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) by increasing aqueous humour outflow. When applied topically once daily in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma, bimatoprost 0.03% significantly reduced IOP. Mean IOP was reduced by approximately 7.5 to 9.2mm Hg 12 hours after drug administration in randomised clinical trials. The reduction in IOP was maintained throughout the 24-hour dosage interval. Once-daily treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% was found to be significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% (administered twice daily as an ophthalmic solution or once daily as a gel-forming solution) in randomised comparative trials in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Furthermore, after 1 to 6 months' treatment, the percentage of patients reaching a target IOP of < or =17mm Hg was significantly greater in the bimatoprost-treated groups than in those receiving timolol. Bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution was found to be at least as effective as topical latanoprost 0.005% administered once daily in two clinical trials. Reductions in IOP 16 and 20 hours postdose were greater in patients treated with bimatoprost, indicating superior control of IOP at timepoints throughout the dosage interval. In patients refractory to beta-blocker therapy, treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% produced greater reductions in diurnal IOP measurements than combination therapy with topical dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%; approximately twice as many bimatoprost 0.03% recipients achieved an IOP of < or =16mm Hg. The most commonly reported adverse effect during clinical trials of once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% was conjunctival hyperaemia which occurred in 42 to 46% of patients treated. However, most cases were mild and only 1 to 4% of patients withdrew from treatment as a result. Overall withdrawal rates as a result of adverse events during clinical trials ranged from 2.6 to 7%. Bimatoprost has been reported to cause changes in the pigmentation of the periorbital skin, eyelashes and iris, and increase eyelash growth. The long-term consequences of these effects are unknown. Cardiopulmonary adverse effects, which have been associated with the use of beta-blockers such as timolol, were not reported in clinical trials of bimatoprost. Thus, in clinical trials of up to 1-year duration, bimatoprost 0.03% has been found to be effective in significantly lowering IOP and is generally well tolerated. It provides an alternative treatment option for patients in whom beta-blockers are contraindicated. Furthermore, bimatoprost provides an effective second-line treatment option in patients who do not achieve target IOP with other topical ocular hypotensive agents, or who experience unacceptable adverse effects. Wider clinical use of this drug will establish the place of bimatoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAmidesAntihypertensive AgentsBimatoprostCloprostenolConjunctival DiseasesDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationGlaucoma, Open-AngleIntraocular PressureLatanoprostLipidsOcular HypertensionProstaglandins F, SyntheticRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSulfonamidesAmidesAntihypertensive AgentsBimatoprostCloprostenoldorzolamideLatanoprostLipidsProstaglandins F, SyntheticSulfonamidesThiophenesTimolol

Identifiers

PMID12027782
OpenAlexW2047243692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.