Trial reportKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2026
Comparison of Preservative-Free and Preserved Latanoprost in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Randomized Cross-Over Study.
Trial report in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effects of preservative-free (PF) and benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved latanoprost on intraocular pressure (IOP), objective ocular surface signs, and subjective symptoms in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
methodsA prospective, randomized, cross-over study was conducted with 29 POAG patients. Participants were randomized to receive either PF or BAK-preserved latanoprost for 2 months, followed by a cross-over to the alternative formulation for another 2 months. IOP, tear break-up time (TBUT), conjunctival staining, and patient-reported symptoms were assessed at baseline and after each treatment period.
resultsIOP was significantly and comparably reduced by both formulations (PF: 16.49 ± 3.89 to 15.05 ± 2.55 mmHg, p = 0.007; preserved: 15.60 ± 3.79 to 13.79 ± 3.53 mmHg, p < 0.001). However, BAK-preserved latanoprost significantly shortened TBUT (7.23 ± 2.37 to 6.07 ± 2.40 seconds, p = 0.007) and worsened conjunctival staining (0.31 ± 0.60 to 0.69 ± 0.71, p = 0.013), whereas PF latanoprost maintained tear film stability (TBUT, 5.61 ± 2.19 to 5.22 ± 2.26 seconds; p = 0.337) and improved conjunctival staining (0.76 ± 0.83 to 0.31 ± 0.60, p = 0.003). Subjective symptoms including burning (0.34 ± 0.81 [PF] vs. 1.21 ± 1.17 [preserved], p = 0.001), stinging (0.14 ± 0.35 vs. 0.79 ± 0.79, p < 0.001), and pruritus (0.21 ± 0.41 vs. 0.50 ± 0.64, p = 0.030) were markedly lower with the PF formulation. After cross-over, patients switching from preserved to PF latanoprost showed improvements in burning (p = 0.012) and photophobia (p < 0.001).
conclusionsPF latanoprost provides equivalent IOP-lowering efficacy to BAK-preserved latanoprost while offering significant advantages in ocular surface health and symptom tolerability. These findings support PF formulations as a preferred first-line option for glaucoma management to enhance treatment tolerability and patients' quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42184956What 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.