A comparison of intraocular pressure-lowering effect of prostaglandin F2 -alpha analogues, latanoprost, and unoprostone isopropyl.

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure-lowering effect of unoprostone isopropyl (unoprostone) 0.12% and latanoprost 0.005%. A correlation between the intraocular pressure-lowering effect of unoprostone and latanoprost was also evaluated. METHODS: A single-masked randomized study included 18 patients between 49 and 68 years (mean, 60.7 +/- 5.1 years) with an intraocular pressure of both eyes from 21 to 27 mm Hg. The patients were prospectively randomized to receive latanoprost in the right eye and unoprostone in the left eye, or unoprostone in the right eye and latanoprost in the left eye. The patients were followed up for 8 weeks. This study evaluated the intraocular pressure-lowering effect and incidence of drug-related side effects. RESULTS: Mean baseline intraocular pressure was 22.8 +/- 1.2 mm Hg in latanoprost-treated eyes and 22.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg in unoprostone-treated eyes; there was no statistically significant difference between these groups. Mean intraocular pressure at 8 weeks after the start of the administration was 16.7 +/- 2.0 mm Hg in latanoprost-treated eyes and 19.0 +/- 1.5 mm Hg in unoprostone-treated eyes. Patients in the latanoprost-treated group showed a greater intraocular pressure reduction compared with those in the unoprostone-treated group. Mean intraocular pressure changes in latanoprost-treated eyes were significantly greater at every visit (P < 0.0001). A change of intraocular pressure at 8 weeks in the latanoprost-treated eyes was significantly correlated with that in the contralateral unoprostone-treated eyes (r = 0.665, P = 0.0013) (Figure). There was no significant difference in the rate of ocular side effects between latanoprost- and unoprostone-treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Latanoprost appears to have a more beneficial effect for intraocular pressure control compared with unoprostone. An intraocular pressure reduction in the latanoprost-treated eyes was significantly correlated with that in the contralateral unoprostone-treated eyes. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ocular side effects between both drugs. Further investigation using more cases and longer follow-up periods are needed.