Conjunctival hyperemia in healthy ubject after hort-term doing with latanoprot, bimatoprot, and travoprot

Purpoe To evaluate conjunctival hyperemia after hort-term ue of latanoprot 0.005%, bimatoprot 0.03% and travoprot 0.004% in normal adult. Deign Propective, randomized, double-maked croover active controlled comparion. Method We evaluated conjunctival hyperemia by a tandard photographic meaure at the lit lamp and by anterior egment photograph in healthy ubject after doing for 5 day with latanoprot, bimatoprot, or travoprot. Conjunctival hyperemia wa evaluated at 24-hour trough (hour 0) and at hour 1 after doing. Each ubject wa croed over between period after a 1-week wahout interval. Reult Twenty-eight ubject (mean age 26 ± 9 year) completed thi tudy. everal comparion were noted to be ignificant between group by lit-lamp biomicrocopy: firt, at hour 0 latanoprot had ignificantly le hyperemia than bimatoprot; econd, at hour 0 latanoprot howed ignificantly le change than bimatoprot compared with the tudy baeline (viit 2); third, at hour 1 latanoprot had ignificantly le hyperemia than travoprot; fourth, at hour 1 latanoprot demontrated ignificantly le change from baeline in hyperemia than travoprot (viit 2); fifth, at hour 1 latanoprot had le change in hyperemia than bimatoprot or travoprot between the tudy and the nontudy eye (P = .03); and lat, at hour 1 latanoprot howed ignificantly le change than bimatoprot and travoprot compared with hour 0 (P = .04). Additionally, imilar grade were oberved by photograph with latanoprot demontrating the lowet level of hyperemia. ubject complained le about other people noticing their red eye with latanoprot than bimatoprot or travoprot (P = .048). No eriou advere event were noted. Concluion Thi tudy ugget that latanoprot may caue ignificantly le hort-term conjunctival hyperemia on average than bimatoprot or travoprot in healthy ubject.