Comparative effect of latanoprot (Xalatan) and unoprotone (Recula) in patient with open-angle glaucoma and upected glaucoma

PURPOE: To compare, in paired eye of open-angle glaucoma patient and glaucoma upect, hydrodynamic and viual change after 1 month of topical latanoprot in one eye and unoprotone in the other. DEIGN: ingle-center, intitutional randomized clinical trial. METHOD: After completing a wahout period off all topical medication, 25 adult (mean age 54 ± EM 2 year) with bilateral open-angle glaucoma or glaucoma upect tatu underwent morning (8 to 10 ) and afternoon (1 to 3 ) meaurement of intraocular preure (IOP), pulatile ocular blood flow (POBF), contrat, enitivity, frequency doubling technology, and Humphrey 10-2 perimetry (HVFA II) in both eye. Each then tarted unoprotone 0.15% (Recula) in one randomly aigned eye and latanoprot 0.005% (Xalatan) in the other. Unoprotone wa adminitered at 8 and 8 and latanoprot at 8 with placebo at 8 , both from maked bottle. After 28 day, difference were determined for each meaured variable by two-tailed paired t tet. REULT: tarting from imilar baeline IOP level, after 1 month of treatment, the mean morning IOP value differed according to the topical agent received (16.2 ± EM 0.6 mm Hg for latanoprot v 17.9 ± 0.7 mm Hg for unoprotone; P = .001). Thee morning preure were 2.6 mm Hg lower than baeline in the eye receiving latanoprot (P < .0001), and 1.6 mm Hg lower in unoprotone-treated eye (P = .02). Afternoon value were 3.1 ± EM 0.6 lower than correponding baeline in eye receiving latanoprot, and 2.4 ± EM 0.6 mm Hg in unoprotone-treated eye (P < .0001 from baeline for both medication; interdrug mean IOP difference; P = .04). Eye receiving unoprotone howed a 1.7-db improvement in frequency doubling mean deviation (P = .03), the only ignificant viual function change oberved. Pulatile ocular blood flow increaed 30% relative to baeline in eye receiving latanoprot, (P < .0001) and 16% in eye receiving unoprotone (P = .05) by the morning of day 28. That afternoon, mean POBF had increaed 30% (P < .0001) relative to afternoon baeline value among eye receiving latanoprot and 18% (P = .03) among thoe receiving unoprotone (interdrug change difference, P = .05). Humphrey perimetry and contrat enitivity remained table with both protanoid. CONCLUION: Both latanoprot and unoprotone produced ignificant reduction in IOP and increae in POBF, with table central and perimacular viual function. Latanoprot once daily produced IOP reduction and POBF increae nearly twofold greater than thoe obtained with unoprotone twice daily. Thee difference in IOP and POBF change between unoprotone and latanoprot were tatitically ignificant.