Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 11

Switching to preservative-free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction

Authors Beck DER, El-Assal K, McGarry K, Wride NK

Received 7 June 2017

Accepted for publication 22 June 2017

Published 26 August 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 1565—1566

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S143287

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Download Article [PDF] 

Daniel Edward Robert Beck,1 Karim El-Assal,1 Ken McGarry,2 Nicholas Kloster Wride1

1Sunderland Eye Infirmary, 2Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
 
We read with interest the article by Negrete et al.1 A recent study performed at our unit found similar results on conducting a review of tolerance to preservative-free latanoprost (Monopost) in patients who were unable to tolerate preserved formulae, and we would like to take the opportunity to share the results with you.
 
View the original paper by Negrete and colleagues. 
 

Dear editor

We read with interest the article by Negrete et al.1 A recent study performed at our unit found similar results on conducting a review of tolerance to preservative-free latanoprost (Monopost) in patients who were unable to tolerate preserved formulae, and we would like to take the opportunity to share the results with you.

Notes were reviewed of 67 eyes in 35 patients started on Monopost who had shown intolerance to preserved latanoprost. It was noted that of these, only two were unable to continue the drug, demonstrating excellent tolerability. One patient stopped Monopost after 1 month, due to ocular surface discomfort. Another stopped after 7 months, as they felt the drops were the cause of their headache. The minimum follow-up was 8 months, with an average follow-up period of 15 months.

We also analyzed intraocular pressure (IOP) readings and found the mean to be 20.1 mmHg using preserved latanoprost and 18.7 mmHg 6 weeks after switching to Monopost. A paired-sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed, which demonstrated no significant difference between the effectiveness of the treatments (P=0.68, P=0.117).

Given that these findings correlate well with the study by Negrete et al, we propose that it may not be necessary to perform an early IOP review 6 weeks after switching a patient from preserved latanoprost to Monopost, and so a patient could be followed up at their next routine glaucoma clinic visit.

This new preparation of latanoprost appears to provide, therefore, significant benefits to patients, as well as a useful therapeutic option for physicians, which is most welcome.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.


Reference

1.

Negrete F, Lemij H, Erb C. Switching to preservative free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:557–566.

Dove Medical Press encourages responsible, free and frank academic debate. The content of the Clinical Ophthalmology ‘letters to the editor’ section does not necessarily represent the views of Dove Medical Press, its officers, agents, employees, related entities or the Clinical Ophthalmology editors. While all reasonable steps have been taken to confirm the content of each letter, Dove Medical Press accepts no liability in respect of the content of any letter, nor is it responsible for the content and accuracy of any letter to the editor.

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]