Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2014
Late-day intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and tolerability of travoprost 0.004% versus bimatoprost 0.01% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01464424 (Assessment of Late Day IOP Control in Subjects With Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension Treated With Travoprost 0.004%), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Assessment of Late Day IOP Control in Subjects With Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension Treated With Travoprost 0.004% (TRAVATAN® Z) or Bimatoprost 0.01% (LUMIGAN®)
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost in glaucoma patients: a prospective crossover study.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Trial
- Dual-functional nanoparticle formulations for simultaneous intraocular pressure reduction and neuroprotection in glaucoma: a review.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- From Eye Care to Hair Growth: Bimatoprost.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluating intraocular pressure-lowering solutions for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma: comparison between bimatoprost 0.03% and bimatoprost 0.01% - an observational switch study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedications to control intraocular pressure (IOP) are frequently preserved using benzalkonium chloride (BAK), which can negatively affect the ocular surface. Data are needed to assess efficacy and safety of prostaglandin drugs preserved with and without BAK. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of BAK-free travoprost 0.004% (TRAV) and BAK 0.02%-preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (BIM) during late-day time points in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
methodsThis was a 12-week, phase 4, randomized, investigator-masked, crossover study. 84 patients with IOP ≥24 and <36 mmHg were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily TRAV or BIM for 6 weeks followed by an additional 6-week crossover period. IOP was measured at the end of each treatment period at 4, 6, and 8 pm. TRAV was considered noninferior to BIM if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the between-group difference in mean IOP was ≤1.5 mmHg. Adverse events were assessed throughout the study.
resultsOne patient discontinued due to allergic conjunctivitis, and 2 patients with missing data were excluded; 81 patients were included in the per-protocol population (mean ± SD age, 58.3 ± 11.4 years; TRAV/BIM, n = 41; BIM/TRAV, n = 40). After 6 weeks, mean IOP with TRAV (17.4 ± 2.7 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.0 mmHg) was similar to BIM (17.2 ± 2.6 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.3 mmHg); the between-group difference was 0.22 mmHg (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.67). Thus, noninferiority of TRAV versus BIM was demonstrated. Mean IOP at each time point and mean and percentage IOP change from baseline were not significantly different between treatments. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate. The incidences of mild ocular hyperemia with TRAV and BIM were 31% and 39%, respectively; moderate hyperemia was observed in 2% of patients receiving BIM.
conclusionLate-day IOP-lowering efficacy of BAK-free TRAV was noninferior to that of BAK 0.02%-preserved BIM; both reduced baseline IOP by 25%. Both treatments were well tolerated, although a higher incidence of moderate ocular hyperemia was observed with BIM.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01464424; registered November 1, 2011.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.