The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A randomised, controlled comparison of latanoprostene bunod and latanoprost 0.005% in the treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: the VOYAGER study
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of latanoprostene bunod (LBN) compared with latanoprost 0.005%, and to determine the optimum drug concentration(s) of LBN in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Randomised, investigator-masked, parallel-group, dose-ranging study. Subjects instilled one drop of study medication in the study eye once daily each evening for 28 days and completed five study visits. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in mean diurnal IOP at Day 28. RESULTS: Of the 413 subjects randomised (LBN 0.006%, n=82; LBN 0.012%, n=85; LBN 0.024%, n=83; LBN 0.040%, n=81; latanoprost, n=82), 396 subjects completed the study. Efficacy for LBN was dose-dependent reaching a plateau at 0.024%-0.040%. LBN 0.024% led to significantly greater reductions in diurnal IOP compared with latanoprost at the primary endpoint, Day 28 (p=0.005), as well as Days 7 (p=0.033) and 14 (p=0.015). The incidence of adverse events, mostly mild and transient, was numerically higher in the LBN treatment groups compared with the latanoprost group. Hyperaemia was similar across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: LBN 0.024% dosed once daily was the lower of the two most effective concentrations evaluated, with significantly greater IOP lowering and comparable side effects relative to latanoprost 0.005%. LBN dosed once daily for 28 days was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01223378.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®
Gedde, S. J., Vinod, K., Wright, M. M., Muir, K. W., Lind, J. T., Chen, P. P., Li, T., & Mansberger, S. L. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022 · Cited by 474
Progress and Promise of Nitric Oxide‐Releasing Platforms
Yang, T., Zelikin, A. N., & Chandrawati, R. (2018) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.201701043 · Cited by 309
Pharmacology and Clinical Drug Candidates in Redox Medicine
Dao, V. T.-V., Casas, A. I., Maghzal, G. J., Seredenina, T., Kaludercic, N., Robledinos-Anton, N., Di Lisa, F., Stocker, R., Ghezzi, P., Jaquet, V., et al. (2015) · Antioxidants & Redox Signaling · doi:10.1089/ars.2015.6430 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Weinreb, R. N., Ong, T., Scassellati Sforzolini, B., Vittitow, J. L., Singh, K., & Kaufman, P. L.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-12-08
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 738-745
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2079
- OpenAlex
- W2165054247
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomised, controlled comparison of latanoprostene bunod and latanoprost 0.005% in the treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: the VOYAGER study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305908
- The paper
- Weinreb, R. N., Ong, T., Scassellati Sforzolini, B., Vittitow, J. L., Singh, K., & Kaufman, P. L. (2015). A randomised, controlled comparison of latanoprostene bunod and latanoprost 0.005% in the treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: the VOYAGER study. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305908
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.