Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up

Background: Glaucoma is a progressive optic nerve disease that, despite its treatment, is associated with retinal ganglion cell damage. However, timely treatment hinders the progression of visual field damage and preserves visual function. Our study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and adver...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gentian Hoxha, Flaka Shoshi, Fëllanza Ismajli Hoxha, Agim Xhafa, Fitore Shoshi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: International Medical Research and Development Corporation 2024-12-01
Series:International Journal of Biomedicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijbm.org/articles/i56/ijbm_14(4)_oa15.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850168482687090688
author Gentian Hoxha
Flaka Shoshi
Fëllanza Ismajli Hoxha
Agim Xhafa
Fitore Shoshi
author_facet Gentian Hoxha
Flaka Shoshi
Fëllanza Ismajli Hoxha
Agim Xhafa
Fitore Shoshi
author_sort Gentian Hoxha
collection DOAJ
description Background: Glaucoma is a progressive optic nerve disease that, despite its treatment, is associated with retinal ganglion cell damage. However, timely treatment hinders the progression of visual field damage and preserves visual function. Our study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and adverse effects in glaucomatous patients of using a single anti-glaucomatous agent, 0.5% timolol maleate, or 0.005% latanoprost, for 24 months. Methods and Results: This prospective, single-arm, open-label study included 87 patients (47.13% men and 52.87% women) with open-angle glaucoma treated with a single hypotensive agent. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 patients (n=43) were treated with 0.5% timolol, and Group 2 patients (n=44) were treated with 0.005% latanoprost. We assessed the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 7 visits for 24 months, the cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), and the drug's side effects. At baseline (Visit 1), Group 1 showed an IOP(OD) of 26.46±1.99 mmHg and an IOP(OS) of 26.34±2.14 mmHg. Group 2 showed an IOP(OD) of 26.18±1.98 mmHg and an IOP(OS) of 26.18±2.03 mmHg. There were no significant differences between the two treatments at the initial stage. At the second follow-up visit, the mean IOP(OD) and IOP(OS) significantly decreased from baseline in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two treatments at this stage. By the third follow-up visit, IOP continued to decrease effectively in both groups, and no significant difference was observed between the two treatments at this stage. At Visits 4 and 5, in Group 1, the IOP remained without significant dynamics compared to Visit 3. At the same time, in Group 2, the IOP continued to decrease slightly. However, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments at these stages. Latanoprost appears to result in slightly lower IOP levels overall. By the sixth follow-up visit, IOP continued to decrease effectively in both groups. Although latanoprost provided lower IOP values, there was no significant difference between groups. By Visit 7, the difference between the two treatments becomes more noticeable. Group 1 has an IOP(OD) of 16.09±1.26 mmHg and IOP(OS) of 16.00±1.38 mmHg, while Group 2 continued to show lower IOP levels: IOP(OD) of 14.18±1.04 mmHg and IOP(OS) of 14.13±1.09 mmHg. The differences between the groups became significant (P=0.029), indicating that latanoprost was more effective in reducing IOP in the long term. Changes in the CDR used to assess the optic nerve were assessed before and after 24 months of treatment. In Group 1, CDR before treatment was 0.451±0.112 and slightly increased by the end of treatment to 0.484±0.123. In Group 2, CDR before treatment was 0.436±0.138 and slightly increased to 0.452±0.15. With timolol therapy, side effects were found in 11(25.58%) patients, and with latanoprost therapy only in 7(15.9%) patients. Although the differences were not statistically significant, latanoprost had a slightly more favorable safety profile than timolol. Conclusion: The consistently lower mean IOP values for latanoprost treatment suggest it may be more effective in reducing IOP than timolol. However, the lack of statistically significant differences indicates that while one may perform slightly better on average, both treatments are generally effective and may be chosen based on individual patient needs and tolerability.
format Article
id doaj-art-c6da244b701348d98d4459ef9ae679de
institution OA Journals
issn 2158-0510
2158-0529
language English
publishDate 2024-12-01
publisher International Medical Research and Development Corporation
record_format Article
series International Journal of Biomedicine
spelling doaj-art-c6da244b701348d98d4459ef9ae679de2025-08-20T02:20:57ZengInternational Medical Research and Development CorporationInternational Journal of Biomedicine2158-05102158-05292024-12-0114462663110.21103/Article14(4)_OA15Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-upGentian Hoxha0Flaka Shoshi1Fëllanza Ismajli Hoxha2Agim Xhafa3Fitore Shoshi4Faculty of Medicine, University of Pristina “Hasan Prishtina,” Prishtina, Kosovo; University Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, KosovoUniversity Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, KosovoUniversity Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, KosovoUniversity Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, KosovoUniversity Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, KosovoBackground: Glaucoma is a progressive optic nerve disease that, despite its treatment, is associated with retinal ganglion cell damage. However, timely treatment hinders the progression of visual field damage and preserves visual function. Our study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and adverse effects in glaucomatous patients of using a single anti-glaucomatous agent, 0.5% timolol maleate, or 0.005% latanoprost, for 24 months. Methods and Results: This prospective, single-arm, open-label study included 87 patients (47.13% men and 52.87% women) with open-angle glaucoma treated with a single hypotensive agent. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 patients (n=43) were treated with 0.5% timolol, and Group 2 patients (n=44) were treated with 0.005% latanoprost. We assessed the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 7 visits for 24 months, the cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), and the drug's side effects. At baseline (Visit 1), Group 1 showed an IOP(OD) of 26.46±1.99 mmHg and an IOP(OS) of 26.34±2.14 mmHg. Group 2 showed an IOP(OD) of 26.18±1.98 mmHg and an IOP(OS) of 26.18±2.03 mmHg. There were no significant differences between the two treatments at the initial stage. At the second follow-up visit, the mean IOP(OD) and IOP(OS) significantly decreased from baseline in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two treatments at this stage. By the third follow-up visit, IOP continued to decrease effectively in both groups, and no significant difference was observed between the two treatments at this stage. At Visits 4 and 5, in Group 1, the IOP remained without significant dynamics compared to Visit 3. At the same time, in Group 2, the IOP continued to decrease slightly. However, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments at these stages. Latanoprost appears to result in slightly lower IOP levels overall. By the sixth follow-up visit, IOP continued to decrease effectively in both groups. Although latanoprost provided lower IOP values, there was no significant difference between groups. By Visit 7, the difference between the two treatments becomes more noticeable. Group 1 has an IOP(OD) of 16.09±1.26 mmHg and IOP(OS) of 16.00±1.38 mmHg, while Group 2 continued to show lower IOP levels: IOP(OD) of 14.18±1.04 mmHg and IOP(OS) of 14.13±1.09 mmHg. The differences between the groups became significant (P=0.029), indicating that latanoprost was more effective in reducing IOP in the long term. Changes in the CDR used to assess the optic nerve were assessed before and after 24 months of treatment. In Group 1, CDR before treatment was 0.451±0.112 and slightly increased by the end of treatment to 0.484±0.123. In Group 2, CDR before treatment was 0.436±0.138 and slightly increased to 0.452±0.15. With timolol therapy, side effects were found in 11(25.58%) patients, and with latanoprost therapy only in 7(15.9%) patients. Although the differences were not statistically significant, latanoprost had a slightly more favorable safety profile than timolol. Conclusion: The consistently lower mean IOP values for latanoprost treatment suggest it may be more effective in reducing IOP than timolol. However, the lack of statistically significant differences indicates that while one may perform slightly better on average, both treatments are generally effective and may be chosen based on individual patient needs and tolerability.http://www.ijbm.org/articles/i56/ijbm_14(4)_oa15.pdfglaucomaintraocular pressuretimolollatanoprostcup-to-disc ratioadverse effects
spellingShingle Gentian Hoxha
Flaka Shoshi
Fëllanza Ismajli Hoxha
Agim Xhafa
Fitore Shoshi
Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
International Journal of Biomedicine
glaucoma
intraocular pressure
timolol
latanoprost
cup-to-disc ratio
adverse effects
title Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
title_full Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
title_fullStr Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
title_short Timolol 0.5% versus Latanoprost 0.005% as A Single Hypotensive Drug in Glaucoma Patients: A 2-year Follow-up
title_sort timolol 0 5 versus latanoprost 0 005 as a single hypotensive drug in glaucoma patients a 2 year follow up
topic glaucoma
intraocular pressure
timolol
latanoprost
cup-to-disc ratio
adverse effects
url http://www.ijbm.org/articles/i56/ijbm_14(4)_oa15.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT gentianhoxha timolol05versuslatanoprost0005asasinglehypotensivedruginglaucomapatientsa2yearfollowup
AT flakashoshi timolol05versuslatanoprost0005asasinglehypotensivedruginglaucomapatientsa2yearfollowup
AT fellanzaismajlihoxha timolol05versuslatanoprost0005asasinglehypotensivedruginglaucomapatientsa2yearfollowup
AT agimxhafa timolol05versuslatanoprost0005asasinglehypotensivedruginglaucomapatientsa2yearfollowup
AT fitoreshoshi timolol05versuslatanoprost0005asasinglehypotensivedruginglaucomapatientsa2yearfollowup