Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bimatoprost

A Review of its Use in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

  • Adis Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abstract

Bimatoprost (Lumigan®) is a synthetic prostamide that reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) by increasing the outflow of aqueous humour. In patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, long-term treatment (for up to 48 months) with once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution was more effective than timolol twice daily in providing a sustained and stable reduction in IOP. Bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution demonstrated efficacy similar to, or greater than, the prostaglandin analogues latanoprost and travoprost in reducing IOP and achieving target IOP levels. Switching to bimatoprost was as effective in maintaining diurnal IOP control as switching to a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol (in patients with IOP levels controlled with a nonfixed combination of latanoprost plus timolol), and similarly, or more, effective in lowering IOP and providing overall diurnal IOP control than switching to a combination of dorzolamide/timolol (in patients with IOP inadequately controlled with other anti-glaucoma agents including timolol). Treatment with bimatoprost was generally well tolerated, with conjunctival hyperaemia (mostly mild), growth of eyelashes and ocular pruritus being commonly reported. Other adverse events included increases in the pigmentation of the iris, perorbital areas and eyelashes.

Pharmacological Properties

Bimatoprost is a synthetic prostamide analogue (structurally related to prostaglandin F2α) that reduces IOP by increasing the outflow of aqueous humour through the trabecular meshwork (pressure-sensitive) and uveoscleral (pressure-insensitive) routes. The IOP-reducing effect of bimatoprost starts ≈4 hours after the first administration of this agent, with the maximum effect being reached within ≈8–12 hours. Bimatoprost provides a constant level of IOP control throughout a 24-hour period.

Penetration of topically administered bimatoprost ophthalmic solution is via the sclera and cornea. After topical administration, systemic absorption of bimatoprost was minimal; peak blood concentrations of bimatoprost were reached rapidly (within 10 minutes) and then declined to below the lower limit of detection within 1.5 hours of administration. There was no accumulation of bimatoprost over time. The elimination half-life of intravenous bimatoprost was ≈45 minutes. Bimatoprost is excreted via the urine and faeces.

Therapeutic Efficacy

Treatment with topical bimatoprost 0.03% once daily for up to 48 months provided sustained reductions in IOP that were significantly greater than those with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, according to data from two large (n = 596 and 602), 12-month, phase III, randomized, double-blind trials and the extensions of these trials. Over the 48 months of treatment, reductions of IOP from baseline at 0800 and 1000 hours were ≈2–4 mmHg (35–100%) greater with bimatoprost than with timolol. Bimatoprost was more effective than timolol at maintaining overall IOP control throughout the day, and significantly more bimatoprost than timolol recipients achieved target IOP levels.

In several large (n >100), investigator-blind, multicentre trials of up to 6 months’ duration, once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% demonstrated similar, or greater, efficacy than once-daily administration of the prostaglandin analogues latanoprost 0.005% or travoprost 0.004% in lowering IOP and maintaining a stable diurnal IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Patients (inadequately controlled on latanoprost) who switched to bimatoprost achieved significantly greater reductions in IOP than those remaining on latanoprost or switching to travoprost, according to data from two 3-month, randomized, investigator-blind studies.

Switching to bimatoprost was as effective in maintaining diurnal IOP control as switching to a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% in patients with IOP levels controlled with a nonfixed combination of latanoprost plus timolol, according to data from a 3-month, randomized, double-blind trial in patients with glaucoma.

Bimatoprost once daily demonstrated similar or greater efficacy than dorzolamide/timolol twice daily in lowering IOP and in providing overall diurnal control in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma, according to data from randomized trials in patients with IOP inadequately controlled with antiglaucoma agents including topical timolol.

Pharmacoeconomic Considerations

Cost-effectiveness analyses of bimatoprost treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension conducted from a US healthcare provider perspective demonstrated that bimatoprost was associated with lower costs per treatment success than latanoprost, timolol or timolol/dorzolamide across a range of IOP targets. In all US analyses, bimatoprost was the dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy compared with latanoprost. Data from cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from a European healthcare provider perspective also demonstrated the dominance of bimatoprost over latanoprost for most of the countries assessed. One European analysis also demonstrated that a strategy of first-line timolol therapy with add-on bimatoprost was the dominant strategy compared with latanoprost (as first-line therapy or as add-on therapy to timolol) in the UK, Spain, Germany and Italy. As well as being subject to the usual limitations associated with economic models, other potential limitations associated with these analyses included the use of selected IOP data and the lack of the inclusion of costs associated with conjunctival hyperaemia or other adverse effects of therapy.

Tolerability

Once-daily treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% for up to 48 months was well tolerated in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The most commonly reported adverse events were conjunctival hyperaemia (mostly mild) and eyelash growth, occurring in 45% and 43% of bimatoprost recipients during the first year of treatment, according to data from two large, phase III trials. Only 3% of recipients of bimatoprost once daily withdrew due to ocular hyperaemia during the first year of treatment. The incidence of both of these adverse events decreased with continued treatment over a 48-month period. Ocular pruritus was another commonly reported adverse event (15%) during the first year of treatment; however, the incidence of new reports of ocular pruritus was minimal during the second year of treatment, with no new cases being reported in subsequent years. Other ocular adverse events, including ocular dryness, visual disturbance and ocular burning, occurred in up to 10% of bimatoprost recipients. The incidence of iris pigmentation reported in bimatoprost recipients in the 12-month, phase III trials was low (1.5%), and there were no new reports of iris pigmentation changes with continued bimatoprost treatment of up to 48 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Fig. 2
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kwon YH, Fingert JH, Kuehn MH, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma. N Engl J Med 2009 Mar 12; 360(11): 1113–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care. Glaucoma: diagnosis and management of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG85FullGuideline.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 24]

  3. McKinnon SJ, Goldberg LD, Peeples P, et al. Current management of glaucoma and the need for complete therapy. Am J Manag Care 2008 Feb; 14(1 Suppl.): S20–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geringer CC, Imami NR. Medical management of glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2008 Fall; 48(4): 115–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 3rd ed. Savona: Editrice Dogma, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  6. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: primary open-angle glaucoma. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2004 Sep; 111(9): 1627–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000 Apr; 9(2): 134–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burk RM, Woodward DF. A historical perspective and recent advances in prostamide research and therapeutics. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2007 Jul; 10(4): 413–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Arranz-Marquez E, Teus MA. Prostanoids for the management of glaucoma. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2008 Nov; 7(6): 801–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Easthope SE, Perry CM. Topical bimatoprost: a review of its use in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 2002; 19(3): 231–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Plosker GL, Keam SJ. Bimatoprost: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(3): 297–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Perry CM, McGavin JK, Culy CR, et al. Latanoprost: an update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 2003; 20(8): 597–630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Waugh J, Jarvis B. Travoprost. Drugs Aging 2002; 19(6): 465–71; discussion 472–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. European Medicines Agency. Lumigan®: summary of product characteristics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/lumigan/H-391-PI-en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jul 23]

  16. Allergan Inc. Lumigan® (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) 0.03%: US prescribing information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.lumigan.com/prescribing_information.aspx [Accessed 2009 Jul 23]

  17. Woodward DF, Krauss AH, Chen J, et al. The pharmacology of bimatoprost (Lumigan™). Surv Ophthalmol 2001 May; 45 (6 Suppl. 4): S337–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Toris CB, Gabelt BT, Kaufman PL. Update on the mechanism of action of topical prostaglandins for intraocular pressure reduction. Surv Ophthalmol 2008 Nov; 53Suppl. 1: S107–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brubaker RF. Mechanism of action of bimatoprost (Lumigan®). Surv Ophthalmol 2001 May; 45 (6 Suppl. 4): S347–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paolera MD, Kasahara N, Umbelino CC, et al. Comparative study of the stability of bimatoprost 0.03% and latanoprost 0.005%: a patient-use study. BMC Ophthalmol 2008 Jun 11; 8: 11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Woodward DF, Liang Y, Krauss AH. Prostamides (prostaglandin-ethanolamides) and their pharmacology. Br J Pharmacol 2008 Feb; 153(3): 410–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang Y, Woodward DF, Guzman VM, et al. Identification and pharmacological characterization of the prostaglandin FP receptor and FP receptor variant complexes. Br J Pharmacol 2008 Jul; 154(5): 1079–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ota T, Aihara M, Narumiya S, et al. The effects of prostaglandin analogues on IOP in prostanoid FP-receptor-deficient mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005 Nov; 46(11): 4159–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharif NA, Williams GW, Kelly CR. Bimatoprost and its free acid are prostaglandin FP receptor agonists. Eur J Pharmacol 2001 Dec 7; 432(2–3): 211–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Davies SS, Ju WK, Neufeld AH, et al. Hydrolysis of bimatoprost (Lumigan) to its free acid by ocular tissue in vitro. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2003 Feb; 19(1): 45–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Maxey KM, Johnson JL, LaBrecque J. The hydrolysis of bimatoprost in corneal tissue generates a potent prostanoid FP receptor agonist. Surv Ophthalmol 2002 Aug; 47Suppl. 1: S34–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bean GW, Camras CB. Commercially available prostaglandin analogs for the reduction of intraocular pressure: similarities and differences. Surv Ophthalmol 2008 Nov; 53Suppl. 1: S69–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Camras CB, Toris CB, Sjoquist S, et al. Detection of the free acid of bimatoprost in aqueous humor samples from human eyes treated with bimatoprost before cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2004; 111(12): 2193–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cantor LB, Hoop J, Wudunn D, et al. Levels of bimatoprost acid in the aqueous humour after bimatoprost treatment of patients with cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 2007 May; 91(5): 629–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lim KS, Nau CB, O’Byrne MM, et al. Mechanism of action of bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost in healthy subjects; acrossover study. Ophthalmology 2008 May; 115(5): 790–5.e4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brubaker RF, Schoff EO, Nau CB, et al. Effects of AGN 192024, a new ocular hypotensive agent, on aqueous dynamics. Am J Ophthalmol 2001 Jan; 131(1): 19–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Christiansen GA, Nau CB, McLaren JW, et al. Mechanism of ocular hypotensive action of bimatoprost (Lumigan) in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2004 Sep; 111(9): 1658–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Konstas AG, Katsimbris JM, Lallos N, et al. Latanoprost 0.005% versus bimatoprost 0.03% in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 2005 Feb; 112(2): 262–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Orzalesi N, Rossetti L, Bottoli A, et al. Comparison of the effects of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost on circadian intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 2006 Feb; 113(2): 239–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Walters TR, DuBiner HB, Carpenter SP, et al. 24-Hour IOP control with once-daily bimatoprost, timolol gel-forming solution, or latanoprost: a 1-month, randomized, comparative clinical trial. Surv Ophthalmol 2004 Mar; 49Suppl. 1: S26–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rossetti L, Karabatsas CH, Topouzis F, et al. Comparison of the effects of bimatoprost and a fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol on circadian intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 2007 Dec; 114(12): 2244–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Frenkel RE, Frenkel M, Toler A. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of prostaglandin and prostamide therapy for patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. BMC Ophthalmol 2007; 7: 16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Frenkel RE, Noecker RJ, Craven ER. Evaluation of circadian control of intraocular pressure after a single drop of bimatoprost 0.03% or travoprost 0.004%. Curr Med Res Opin 2008 Apr; 24(4): 919–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zeitz O, Matthiessen ET, Reuss J. Effects of glaucoma drugs on ocular hemodynamics in normal tension glaucoma: a randomized trial comparing bimatoprost and latanoprost with dorzolamide [ISRCTN18873428]. BMC Ophthalmology 2005; 5(1): 6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Akarsu C, Yilmaz S, Taner P, et al. Effect of bimatoprost on ocular circulation in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004 Oct; 242(10): 814–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Alagoz G, Gurel K, Bayer A, et al. A comparative study of bimatoprost and travoprost: effect on intraocular pressure and ocular circulation in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Ophthalmologica 2008; 222(2): 88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sen E, Nalcacioglu P, Yazici A, et al. Comparison of the effects of latanoprost and bimatoprost on central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 2008 Aug; 17(5): 398–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Arcieri ES, Santana A, Rocha FN, et al. Blood-aqueous barrier changes after the use of prostaglandin analogues in patients with pseudophakia and aphakia: a 6-month randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2005 Feb; 123(2): 186–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Arcieri ES, Pierre Filho PT, Wakamatsu TH, et al. The effects of prostaglandin analogues on the blood aqueous barrier and corneal thickness of phakic patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eye 2008 Feb; 22(2): 179–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hatanaka M, Vessani RM, Elias IR, et al. The effect of prostaglandin analogs and prostamide on central corneal thickness. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2009 Feb; 25(1): 51–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Romano MR, Lograno MD. Evidence for the involvement of cannabinoid CB1 receptors in the bimatoprost-induced contractions on the human isolated ciliary muscle. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007 Aug; 48(8): 3677–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yeom HY, Hong S, Kim SS, et al. Influence of topical bimatoprost on macular thickness and volume in glaucoma patients with phakic eyes. Can J Ophthalmol 2008 Oct; 43(5): 563–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kapur R, Osmanovic S, Toyran S, et al. Bimatoprost-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation: histopathological study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005 Nov; 123(11): 1541–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Quaranta L, Pizzolante T, Riva I, et al. Twenty-four-hour intraocular pressure and blood pressure levels with bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2008 Sep; 92(9): 1227–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Yildirim N, Sahin A, Gultekin S. The effect of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost on circadian variation of intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2008 Jan 28; 17(1): 36–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ozturk F, Ermis SS, Inan UU. Comparison of the ocular hypotensive effects of bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 6-month study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007 Feb; 85(1): 80–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sharpe ED, Williams RD, Stewart JA, et al. A comparison of dorzolamide/timolol-fixed combination versus bimatoprost in patients with open-angle glaucoma who are poorly controlled on latanoprost. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2008 Aug; 24(4): 408–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Day DG, Sharpe ED, Beischel CJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% versus timolol maleate 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005 May–Jun 30; 15(3): 336–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Williams RD, Cohen JS, Gross RL, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of bimatoprost for intraocular pressure lowering in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: year 4. Br J Ophthalmol 2008 Oct; 92(10): 1387–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Brandt JD, VanDenburgh AM, Chen K, et al. Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily ti-molol in patients with elevated IOP: a 3-month clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2001 Jun; 108(6): 1023–31; discussion 1032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Whitcup SM, Cantor LB, VanDenburgh AM, et al. A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 2003 Jan; 87(1): 57–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Coleman AL, Lerner F, Bernstein P, et al. A 3-month randomized controlled trial of bimatoprost (LUMIGAN) versus combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 2003 Dec; 110(12): 2362–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cantor LB, Hoop J, Morgan L, et al. Intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% and travoprost 0.004% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 2006 Nov; 90(11): 1370–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Gandolfi S, Simmons ST, Sturm R, et al. Three-month comparison of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Adv Ther 2001 May–Jun 30; 18(3): 110–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Noecker RS, Dirks MS, Choplin NT, et al. A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003 Jan; 135(1): 55–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bacharach J, Schenker HI, Caprioli J, et al. Masked, randomized, parallel comparison of IOP-lowering efficacy after switching to bimatoprost 0.03% vs continuing with latanoprost 0.005% [abstract no. 36 plus poster]. American Glaucoma Society 19th Annual Meeting; 2009 Mar 5–8; San Diego (CA)

  62. Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol 2003 May; 135(5): 688–703

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Noecker RJ, Earl ML, Mundorf TK, et al. Comparing bimatoprost and travoprost in black Americans. Curr Med Res Opin 2006 Nov; 22(11): 2175–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kammer JA, Katzman B, Ackerman SL, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of bimatoprost versus travoprost in patients previously treated with latanoprost: a 3-month, randomized, masked-evaluator, multicentre study. Br J Ophthalmol. Epub 2009 Sep 1

    Google Scholar 

  65. Manni G, Centofanti M, Parravano M, et al. A 6-month randomized clinical trial of bimatoprost 0.03% versus the association of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% in glaucomatous patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004 Sep; 242(9): 767–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cohen JS, Gross RL, Cheetham JK, et al. Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol 2004 Mar; 49Suppl. 1: S45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higginbotham EJ, Schuman JS, Goldberg I, et al. One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Oct; 120(10): 1286–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Sherwood M, Brandt J. Six-month comparison of bimatoprost once-daily and twice-daily with timolol twice-daily in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Bimatoprost Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol 2001 May; 45 (6 Suppl. 4): S361–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Simmons ST, Bernstein P, Hollander DA. A comparison of long-term intraocular pressure fluctuation in patients treated with bimatoprost or latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol 2008 Sep; 146(3): 473–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Goldberg LD, Walt J. Cost considerations in the medical management of glaucoma in the US: estimated yearly costs and cost effectiveness of bimatoprost compared with other medications. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(3): 251–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Fiscella R, Walt J. Estimated comparative costs of achieving a 20% reduction in intraocular pressure with bimatoprost or latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 2006; 23(1): 39–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Walt JG, Lee JT. A cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol 2004 Mar; 49Suppl. 1: S36–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tuil E, Hommer AB, Poulsen PB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma in adult patients: a European perspective. Int J Clin Pract 2005 Sep; 59(9): 1011–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Holmstrom S, Buchholz P, Walt J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in treatment of primary open angle glaucoma in five European countries. Curr Med Res Opin 2006 May; 22(5): 897–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Holmstrom S, Buchholz P, Walt J, et al. Analytic review of bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost in primary open angle glaucoma. Curr Med Res Opin 2005 Nov; 21(11): 1875–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Whitson JT, Trattler WB, Matossian C, et al. Ocular surface tolerability of prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension [abstract no. 34 plus poster]. American Glaucoma Society 19th Annual Meeting; 2009 Mar 5–8; San Diego (CA)

  77. Sharpe ED, Reynolds AC, Skuta GL, et al. The clinical impact and incidence of periocular pigmentation associated with either latanoprost or bimatoprost therapy. Curr Eye Res 2007 Dec; 32(12): 1037–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004 Nov; 82(11): 844–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Oct; 120(10): 1268–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Jun; 120(6): 701–13; discussion 829–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Medzihradsky F, et al. Intraocular pressure effects of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989 Jan 15; 107(1): 11–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 1998 Oct; 126(4): 487–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 130: 429–40

    Google Scholar 

  84. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1998 Oct; 126(4): 498–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Chauhan BC, Mikelberg FS, Balaszi AG, et al. Canadian Glaucoma Study: 2. Risk factors for the progression of open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2008 Aug; 126(8): 1030–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Goldberg LD. Clinical guidelines for the treatment of glaucoma. Manag Care 2002 Nov; 11(11 Suppl.): 16–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Webers CAB, Beckers HJM, Nuijts RMMA, et al. Pharmacological management of primary open-angle glaucoma: second-line options and beyond. Drugs Aging 2008; 25(9): 729–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Curran MP, Orman JS. Bimatoprost/timolol: a review of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 2009; 26(2): 169–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Hoy SM, Keam SJ, Keating GM. Travoprost/timolol. Drugs Aging 2006; 23(7): 587–97; discussion 598–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Woodward DF, Chen J. Fixed-combination and emerging glaucoma therapies. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2007 May; 12(2): 313–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, et al. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology 2005 Jun; 112(6): 953–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Zimmerman TJ, Hahn SR, Gelb L, et al. The impact of ocular adverse effects in patients treated with topical prostaglandin analogs: changes in prescription patterns and patient persistence. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2009 Mar 14; 25(2): 145–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Rait JL, Adena MA. Persistency rates for prostaglandin and other hypotensive eyedrops: population-based study using pharmacy claims data. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2007 Sep 31; 35(7): 602–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Eyawo O, Nachega J, Lefebvre P, et al. Efficacy and safety of prostaglandin analogues in patients with predominantly primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a meta-analysis. Clin Ophthalmol 2009; 3: 447–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Denis P, Lafuma A, Khoshnood B, et al. A meta-analysis of topical prostaglandin analogues intra-ocular pressure lowering in glaucoma therapy. Curr Med Res Opin 2007 Mar; 23(3): 601–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Li N, Chen XM, Zhou Y, et al. Travoprost compared with other prostaglandin analogues or timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006 Nov; 34(8): 755–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. van der Valk R, Webers CA, Schouten JS, et al. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ophthalmology 2005 Jul; 112(7): 1177–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. How AC, Kumar RS, Chen YM, et al. A randomised crossover study comparing bimatoprost and latanoprost in subjects with primary angle closure glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2009 Jun; 93(6): 782–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Agarwal HC, Gupta V, Sihota R. Effect of changing from concomitant timolol pilocarpine to bimatoprost monotherapy on ocular blood flow and IOP in primary chronic angle closure glaucoma. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2003 Apr; 19(2): 105–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Dirks MS, Noecker RJ, Earl M, et al. A 3-month clinical trial comparing the IOP-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. Adv Ther 2006; 23(3): 385–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Chen MJ, Cheng CY, Chen YC, et al. Effects of bimatoprost 0.03% on ocular hemodynamics in normal tension glaucoma. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2006 Jun; 22(3): 188–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Jenkins JN, et al. Corneal punctate staining with latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma 2003 Dec; 12(6): 475–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Pfzier Inc. Xalatan® latanoprost ophthalmic solution: US prescribing information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/uspi_xalatan.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 26]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, North Shore 0754, Auckland, New Zealand

    Monique P. Curran

Authors
  1. Monique P. Curran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique P. Curran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Curran, M.P. Bimatoprost. Drugs Aging 26, 1049–1071 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11203210-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11203210-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation