ReviewAdvances in therapy2026
Branded Compared with Generic Latanoprost in Glaucoma Therapy: Where Do We Stand?
Review in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this literature review, branded and generic preserved latanoprost are compared with respect to comparative efficacy, tolerability, and physicochemical properties. Worldwide, latanoprost, a prostaglandin analogue, has evolved into the first-line medical treatment for patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Following the launch of multiple latanoprost generic preparations, clinicians and patients face a dilemma between prescribing the original branded product or its more affordable generic counterparts. While, in theory, branded and generic latanoprost formulations share the same active and inactive ingredients, available studies comparing their efficacy have reported conflicting results. Further, published evidence has demonstrated several subtle and sometimes manifest differences in terms of active ingredient content, benzalkonium chloride (BAK) concentration, pH level, osmolality, particulate content, and drop size. Moreover, degradation of the active ingredient under adverse temperature conditions is reportedly more pronounced with generic latanoprost. Recorded differences may negatively affect long-term efficacy, tolerability, ocular surface health, and adherence. However, to what extent these differences play a role in glaucoma care over the long term remains to be determined. Until such information becomes available, latanoprost therapy should be individualized, and careful patient monitoring is recommended. We conclude that stricter regulatory oversight of antiglaucoma eyedrops should be sought to ensure the safety and consistency of action of all available generic formulations.
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.