Intraocular pressure and visual field changes in normal-tension glaucoma patients treated using either unoprostone or latanoprost: a prospective comparative study

Figures & data

Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics

Characteristic	UNO group (24 patients)	LAT group (24 patients)	p-value
Age, years	57±12	59±13	0.89a
Sex, n (%)
Men	9 (38%)	12 (50%)	0.28b
Women	15 (62%)	12 (50%)
Visual acuity, logMAR value	0.012±0.037	0.006±0.022	0.67a
Refractive value, diopter	−2.4±3.3	−2.6±2.6	0.64a
Pretreatment IOP, mmHg	15.0±2.4	15.2±1.9	0.78a
MD value, dB	−3.5±2.7	−3.7±2.9	0.65a
PSD value, dB	6.8±4.2	6.7±3.3	0.88a
Duration of follow-up, months	34±8	32±9	0.62a

Notes:

a Mann–Whitney U test;

b Fisher’s exact probability test. Values are mean ± SD unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations: IOP, intraocular pressure; LAT, latanoprost; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; UNO, unoprostone.

Figure 1 IOP over time.

Notes: IOP in the Unoprostone and the Latanoprost treatment groups. IOP decreased significantly after treatment, and posttreatment IOP values were significantly lower in the LAT group than in the UNO group.
Abbreviations: IOP, intraocular pressure; LAT, latanoprost; UNO, unoprostone.

Figure 2 Survival curve of visual field nonprogression.

Notes: (A) The cumulative probability of visual field nonprogression when the end point was defined as the first occurrence of two or more events that caused a deterioration in the visual field of −3 dB or worse from the baseline value in terms of MD. (B) The cumulative probability of visual field nonprogression when the end point was defined as the first occurrence of two or more events that caused a deterioration in the visual field of −3 dB or worse from the baseline value in terms of PSD. (C) The cumulative probability of visual field nonprogression when the end point was defined as the first occurrence of two or more events that caused a deterioration in the visual field of −3 dB or worse from baseline in terms of TD of the upper or lower hemi-visual field.
Abbreviations: LAT, latanoprost; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; TD, total deviation; UNO, unoprostone.

Figure 3 Survival curve of visual field nonprogression in GPA.

Notes: (A) The cumulative probability of visual field nonprogression when the end point was defined as the time of “possible progression” in GPA. (B) The cumulative probability of visual field nonprogression when the end point was defined as the time of “highly possible progression” in GPA.
Abbreviations: GPA, guided progression analysis; LAT, latanoprost; UNO, unoprostone.

Table 2 Analysis of the rate of nonprogression of visual field loss

Progression end point	Cumulative survival rates after 3 years (%)
	UNO group	LAT group	p-value
MD criteria	74 (55–94)	80 (63–98)	0.68
PSD criteria	94 (83–100)	90 (77–100)	0.61
Hemi-visual field TD criteria	77 (57–100)	70 (50–96)	0.59
“Possible progression” in GPA	67 (45–89)	49 (26–73)	0.21
“Highly possible progression” in GPA	94 (83–100)	75 (54–96)	0.13
TD criteria in each sector
1	94 (83–100)	81 (64–98)	0.22
2	82 (64–100)	67 (47–87)	0.22
3	83 (66–100)	95 (87–96)	0.22
4	100 (83–100)	95 (85–100)	0.36
5	72 (53–91)	86 (71–100)	0.35
6	61 (39–83)	80 (63–97)	0.21

Notes: Garway–Heath sector format¹⁵ was adopted as a division of the visual field. Each sector is described as follows: Sector 1, papillo-macular nerve fiber bundle area; Sector 2, upper inner arcuate nerve fiber bundle area; Sector 3, upper outer arcuate nerve fiber bundle area; Sector 4, nasal radial nerve fiber bundle area; Sector 5, under inner arcuate nerve fiber bundle area; Sector 6, under outer arcuate nerve fiber bundle area. The values in parentheses are the 95% CI. p-values were obtained with the log-rank test.

Abbreviations: GPA, guided progression analysis; LAT, latanoprost; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; TD, total deviation; UNO, unoprostone.

Table 3 HRT-II changes

Stereometric parameter	UNO group	LAT group	p-value
Cup area (mm^2)
Before treatment	0.97±0.52	1.00±0.54	0.85
Final visit	0.87±0.45	0.96±0.44	0.55
Rim area (mm^2)
Before treatment	1.06±0.39	1.01±0.25	0.46
Final visit	1.16±0.36	1.04±0.41	0.09
Cup/disc area ratio
Before treatment	0.46±0.20	0.47±0.14	0.82
Final visit	0.41±0.18	0.47±0.14	0.29
Cup volume (mm^3)
Before treatment	0.24±0.17	0.20±0.14	0.55
Final visit	0.22±0.16	0.21±0.16	0.97
Rim volume (mm^3)
Before treatment	0.26±0.13	0.24±0.12	0.51
Final visit	0.29±0.12	0.25±0.16	0.12

Notes: Values are mean ± SD. There were no significant differences between the groups. Data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney U test.

Abbreviations: HRT-II, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II; LAT, latanoprost; UNO, unoprostone.

Table 4 Patient dropouts

Reason for dropout	UNO group (24 patients)	LAT group (24 patients)
Adverse reactions
Superficial keratitis	1 (9 months)	1 (15 months)
Irritation	1 (6 months)	0
Hyperemia	1 (3 months)	0
Discontinuation of hospital visit	1 (3 months)	2 (30 months, 33 months)
Cataract surgery	0	1 (33 months)
Pregnancy	0	1 (18 months)
Death	1 (15 months)	0
Change of therapya	2 (15 months, 27 months)	0
Change of the drug used in the other eye	0	1 (33 months)
The total number of patient dropouts	7	6

Notes:

a Investigator’s decision to decrease IOP. Dates in parentheses denote dropout time. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of the total number of patient dropouts (p=0.50). The groups did not differ significantly in terms of the number of patient dropouts because of adverse reactions (p=0.30) or change of therapy (p=0.49). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact probability test.

Abbreviations: IOP, intraocular pressure; LAT, latanoprost; UNO, unoprostone.

Garway-HeathDFPoinoosawmyDFitzkeFWHitchingsRAMapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyesOphthalmology2000107101809181511013178

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar