Prospective study comparing Xalatan® eye drops and two similar generics as to the efficacy and safety profile.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety between two generic prostaglandins Lataz-Xalaprost (Greece) and the corresponding original drops (Xalatan®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, 60 patients diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were enrolled, who had never received antiglaucoma treatment. Subjects were divided randomly into three groups (Xalatan, Lataz, and Xalaprost groups) and they were studied over 16 weeks. At each visit, the mean applanation tonometry values and tear break-up time were measured. The Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire was used to evaluate patient's symptoms. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the mean values of the intraocular pressure between the baseline and the last visit (Xalatan group: from 23.11 ± 1.61 mmHg to 15.81 ± 1.22 mmHg, Lataz group: from 23.26 ± 1.33 mmHg to 15.80 ± 1.47 mmHg, and Xalaprost group: from 23.08 ± 1.45 mmHg to 16.08 ± 1.38 mmHg). Both generic eye drops showed mean percentage intraocular pressure reduction comparable to the standards of prostaglandin analogues (Xalatan: 31.57%, Lataz: 32.06%, and Xalaprost: 30.34%). Xalatan reduced the tear break-up time less, followed by Lataz and then by Xalaprost (Xalatan: from 8.5 to 8 s, Lataz: from 8.2 to 7.4 s, and Xalaprost: from 8.7 to 7.7 s). Xalatan presented the best safety profile, followed by Lataz and least was Xalaprost, according to Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire's results. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was recorded in the effectiveness of each generic prostaglandin compared to the original. Furthermore, no patient had to change medication. The differences that arose in the safety profile of the three eye drops suggest a prompt closer initial monitoring of patients who are administered generic eye drops.

Acute ocular pain during magnetic resonance imaging due to retained intraocular metallic foreign body: the role of ultrasonography and ultrasound biomicroscopy in diagnosis and management of this condition.

PURPOSE: To report the case of a 65-year-old metalworker with no known history of ocular trauma, who suffered from intense ocular pain during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, due to a retained intraocular metallic foreign body (IOFB). CASE REPORT: Meticulous ophthalmological examination was inconclusive. An IOFB was confirmed with X-ray scan, whereas its exact localization was enabled by means of ultrasonography and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM). CONCLUSIONS: Despite appropriate screening protocols, MRI-related ocular complications might occur in the presence of a hidden metallic IOFB. Clinical detection of ocular foreign bodies can sometimes be challenging. Ultrasonography and UBM are valuable adjuncts for the accurate localization, especially of small or hidden particles.