Bimatoprost 300micrograms/ml eye drops

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, and tafluprost in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in individuals with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 2025 comparing latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, and tafluprost in adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Primary outcomes were IOP reduction and conjunctival hyperemia. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated with the CINeMA framework. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in RStudio. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251034803).Results25 RCTs published between 2001 and 2024, involving 4,045 participants, were included. All studies compared monotherapy with latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, or tafluprost. Among these, bimatoprost showed the most effective reduction in intraocular pressure compared to latanoprost [mean difference (MD) 0.69; 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.28-1.1; SUCRA 95.6%; moderate confidence]. It also performed significantly better than travoprost (MD 0.64; 0.14-1.09; 39.2%; low confidence). No other comparisons showed statistically significant differences. Overall, the quality of evidence for this outcome ranged from low to moderate. In terms of safety, 16 trials, including 3,119 participants, reported on conjunctival hyperemia. Both bimatoprost [odds ratio (OR) 3.3; 2.5-4.5; 18.4%, high confidence] and travoprost (0.46; 0.33-0.63; 55%, high confidence) were associated with a higher risk of hyperemia compared to latanoprost. Bimatoprost also posed a significantly greater risk than travoprost (1.51; 1.06-2.16, high confidence).ConclusionBimatoprost provided the greatest IOP reduction but carried a higher risk of conjunctival hyperemia. Latanoprost and tafluprost offered balanced efficacy with better tolerability, making them suitable for patients with mild disease.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251034803.

Abstract licence: CC BY

PurposeTo demonstrate non-inferiority on efficacy and safety of preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% versus preserved and higher-concentration bimatoprost formulations for the treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OHT), using a network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic review and Bayesian NMA were conducted according to a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD420250650769) and PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapies of bimatoprost (preserved or preservative-free) in adults with glaucoma or OHT were included. The primary endpoint was mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at Week 12. Conjunctival hyperaemia, were descriptively analysed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.ResultsFour studies were included. The Bayesian NMA demonstrated that preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% was non-inferior to all other bimatoprost formulations in lowering IOP, with all 95% credible intervals falling within the 1.5 mmHg non-inferiority margin. Sensitivity analyses using a frequentist model confirmed these findings. Safety analysis indicated that preservative-free bimatoprost formulations were associated with lower rates of hyperaemia compared to preserved versions. At Week 12, more patients had no hyperaemia with preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% (57.3% vs. 43.6%) and fewer showed worsening scores (18.3% vs. 30.4%). Hyperaemia reported as an adverse event was also less frequent with bimatoprost 0.01% than 0.03% (28.6% vs. 37.4%).ConclusionsPreservative-free bimatoprost 0.01% provided IOP-lowering efficacy similar to preserved or higher-dose bimatoprost, with less occurrence of conjunctival hyperaemia. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm these benefits.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

AbstractEyebrows are an important feature of facial identity and communications in human beings as well as an important eye defense shield from dust and foreign bodies. To compare the efficacy and safety between 0.01%, 0.03% bimatoprost and minoxidil 2% in gel formulations for eyebrow enhancement. Sixty eligible subjects were female or male, aged 18 years or older with eyebrow hypotrichosis, defined as either a Grade 1 or 2 on the Global Eyebrow Assessment (GEBA) scale. Patients were randomized into 3 groups using block randomization. Group a (20 patients) applied topical 0.03% bimatoprost gel once daily onto both eyebrows, group b (20 patients) applied topical 0.01% bimatoprost gel once daily onto both eyebrows while group c (20 patients) applied topical minoxidil 2% gel once daily onto both eyebrows. A significant improvement in GEBA score was reported in all the three groups after treatment (P ≤ 0.001); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups (P1 = 0.091; P2 = 0.102; P3 = 0.663). Bimatoprost is equally efficacious as minoxidil in enhancement of eyebrows with a more favorable response produced by the 0.03% concentration.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

BackgroundTransepidermal drug delivery is a novel therapeutic technique to boost efficacy of topical drugs.AimIn this clinical trial we evaluate the efficacy of the combination of fractional carbon dioxide (FCO2) laser and bimatoprost solution compared to bimatoprost alone in the treatment of alopecia areata.MethodsThis is a prospective intra-patient comparative randomized clinical trial on 20 patients with alopecia areata. In each participant two patches were chosen to randomly receive either topical 0.03% bimatoprost solution (twice a day for 12 weeks) alone or in combination with FCO2 laser (every 2 weeks for 12 weeks). Then response to treatment was evaluated by the measurement of the severity of alopecia tool score system (SALT) score, percentage of hair regrowth, physician assessment and patients' satisfaction.ResultsSALT score was reduced significantly during treatment sessions and after a 3-month follow-up in both treatment groups (p = 0.000). The mean percentage of improvement in SALT score in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups were 46.43 ± 4.35% and 21.16 ± 4.06% at the end of the study and 46.42 ± 5.75% and16.11 ± 3.10% at the end of the follow-up period, respectively (p = 0.000). A general linear model of two-way analysis demonstrated a significantly superior outcome in the combination therapy group compared to the monotherapy group during time (F1.6, 13.2 = 43.8. p = 0.000).ConclusionFractional ablative laser can be considered as an assistant method for enhancing of efficacy of topical drugs especially in refractory cases of patchy alopecia areata.

Abstract licence: CC BY