[Efficacy of latanoprost versus travoprost assessed by daily intraocular pressure curve]. / Eficácia do latanoprosta x travoprosta avaliada pela curva diária de pressão intraocular.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of latanoprost (L) and travoprost (T) as monotherapy as well as both drugs associated with 0.5% timolol maleate twice a day regarding the daily curve of intraocular pressure (DCPo) with the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) at 6 am in bed. METHODS: Retrospective study analyzing the daily curve of intraocular pressure of patients treated with L or T with or without 0.5% Tim. Patients who did not correctly follow the treatment were excluded. We also excluded the patients who used the prostaglandin analog associated with any other antiglaucomatous drug different from 0.5% Tim and those who were treated with more than two antiglaucomatous drugs. Statistical analysis was made through the SPSS 11.0 program calculating mean intraocular pressure (Pm), variability (V), p value and standard deviation. Ethnic aspects or type of glaucoma were no criteria of inclusion or exclusion in this study. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (142 eyes) were included. The average age was 61.7 years. Thirty-three (44.0%) patients were male and 42 (56.0%) were female. Thirteen patients (26 eyes 18.3%) used L, 18 patients (33 eyes - 23.2%) were treated with T, 18 patients (32 eyes - 22.5%) used latanoprost and 0.5% timolol (L 0.5%Tim) and 26 patients (51 eyes - 35.9%) used travoprost and 0.5% timolol (T 0.5%Tim). Chronic simple glaucoma was the most common type (92.0%), followed by congenital glaucoma (6.7%) and glaucoma secondary to cataract surgery (1.3%). Pm was 15.2 (+/- 4.2) mmHg among those treated with L and 14.8 (+/- 3.2) mmHg among the T users. Those patients showed a V of 2.0 (+/- 1.2) and 3.2 (+/- 1.9). In the group of L 0.5%Tim and T 0.5%Tim the Pm and V were 14.9 (+/- 2.2) mmHg, 15.0 (+/- 3.2) mmHg, 2.4 (+/- 1.2) and 2.8 (+/- 1.6) respectively. No statistical significant difference was found in the Pm neither with the drugs used as monotherapy nor with them associated with 0.5% timolol maleate as well as in the V with both drugs associated with 0.5% timolol maleate. However, V showed a significant statistically difference when we considered the drugs in monotherapy, the IOP fluctuation being lower with L (t= -2.9; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In the daily curve of intraocular pressure performed with the measurement of intraocular pressure at 6 am in bed, L and T associated with 0.5% timolol maleate had a similar efficacy; however, in monotherapy, Pm was similar in both drugs but the V obtained with L was lower the difference being statistically significant.