ArticleBMC ophthalmology2017
Long term safety and tolerability of Tafluprost 0.0015% vs Timolol 0.1% preservative-free in ocular hypertensive and in primary open-angle glaucoma patients: a cross sectional study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of preservative-free versus preserved timolol eye drops in glaucoma: A randomized crossover study.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Trial
- Correlation of Ocular Surface Disease and Quality of Life in Indian Glaucoma Patients: BAC-preserved versus BAC-free Travoprost.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2020Trial
- Managing Ocular Surface Disease in Glaucoma Treatment: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Understanding Ocular Surface Disease in Glaucoma: A Comparative Analysis of Symptoms and Objective Parameters.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evidence in Practice: A Review of Real-Life Studies and Clinical Experience with the Preservative-Free Tafluprost (0.0015%) and Timolol (0.5%) Fixed-Dose Combination.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Glaucoma and Dry Eye Disease: Opportunity to Assess and Treat.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- A Narrative Review of Ocular Surface Disease Related to Anti-Glaucomatous Medications.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Review
- Activation of ADRB2/PKA Signaling Pathway Facilitates Lipid Synthesis in Meibocytes, and Beta-Blocker Glaucoma Drug Impedes PKA-Induced Lipid Synthesis by Inhibiting ADRB2.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Different Types of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Confocal Microscopy and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging of the Ocular Surface and Bleb Morphology in Medically and Surgically Treated Glaucoma Patients: A Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- An in vivo confocal, prospective, masked, 36 months study on glaucoma patients medically treated with preservative-free or preserved monotherapy.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Ocular Surface Changes in Prostaglandin Analogue-Treated Patients.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Review
- A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of a 0.5% Timolol + 0.2% Brimonidine + 2.0% Dorzolamide Fixed Combination, Preservative-Free Ophthalmic Solution vs. 0.5% Timolol + 0.2% Brimonidine + 2.0% Dorzolamide Fixed Combination in Patients with Controlled Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2018Article
- Review
- Ocular Surface Disease with BAK preserved Travoprost and Polyquaternium 1(Polyquad) preserved Travoprost.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of preservatives of antiglaucoma medications on corneal surface and tear function have been widely shown in literature; it's not the same as regards the active compounds themselves. The purpose of our study was to compare Ocular Surface Disease (OSD) signs and symptoms of Tafluprost 0.0015% versus preservative free (PF) Timolol 0.1% eyedrops in ocular hypertensive (OH) and in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients.
methodsA cross-sectional study included patients in monotherapy for at least 36 months with Tafluprost 0.0015% (27) or PF Timolol 0.1% (24) and 20 healthy age and sex-matched volunteers. All subjects underwent clinical tests (Schirmer I and break-up time), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and were surveyed using Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Glaucoma Symptoms Scale (GSS) questionnaires. The groups were compared with ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Bonferroni's adjustment of p-values.
resultsNo significant differences were found in questionnaires scores, clinical tests, IVCM variables between therapy groups. Tafluprost 0.0015% group showed significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity, sub-basal nerves tortuosity (p = 0.0000, 0.037, 0.006, 0.0000) and less GSS score, number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.037) than controls but similar clinical tests results (p > 0.05). PF Timolol group had significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity and sub-basal nerve tortuosity (p = 0.000, 0.014, 0.008, 0.002), less GSS score, BUT and number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.026, 0.003) than controls.
conclusionsCompared to PF Timolol 0.1%, Tafluprost 0.0015% showed similar safety with regards to tear function and corneal status and a similar tolerability profile. Both therapy groups show some alterations in corneal microstructure but no side effects on tear function except for an increased tear instability in PF Timolol 0.1% group. Ophtalmologists should be aware that even PF formulations may lead to a mild ocular surface impairment.
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.