Cited by 29Glaucoma and retinal disordersDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Long-term safety evaluation of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%: a pooled analysis of six double-masked, randomized, active-controlled clinical trials

Open access
Wirta, David, VanDenburgh, Weng, Whitcup, Scott, Kurstjens, Beddingfield·2011·Clinical Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% was approved in the US for reducing intraoccular pressure (IOP) based on two double-masked, active-controlled clinical trials. Four additional long-term studies (≥12 months) were conducted; however, the aggregate safety profile of the six studies has not been reported. METHODS: Adverse events (AEs) were pooled from six double-masked, active-controlled, long-term clinical trials in which subjects received bimatoprost 0.03% once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) as an eyedrop. AE terms were converted to MedDRA (V.11.0) Preferred Terms and analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 1409 patients received more than one dose of bimatoprost 0.03% QD or BID. Most AEs were mild in severity and reported by 86.7% (QD) and 94.8% (BID) of subjects (≤12 months of treatment). AEs reported through month 12 (aggregate incidence of ≥5%) were conjunctival hyperemia, increased eyelash growth, eye pruritus, periocular skin hyperpigmentation, eye irritation, dry eye, and hypertrichosis. AE onset was generally reported within four months of treatment. The cumulative incidence of common AEs in the QD treatment group at 24-48 months was similar to that measured at 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost 0.03% has a favorable safety and tolerability profile as characterized by six long-term studies. Common AEs were due to the known pharmacological activity of bimatoprost and reversible with treatment cessation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/opth.s17457

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [2]Cracknell KP Grierson I Prostaglandin analogues in the anterior eye: Their pressure lowering action and side effects Exp Eye Res 2009 88 4 786 791 18930047
  2. [3]Arranz-Marquez E Teus MA Prostanoids for the management of glaucoma Expert Opin Drug Saf 2008 7 6 801 808 18983226
  3. [4]Alexander CL Miller SJ Abel SR Prostaglandin analog treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension Ann Pharmacother 2002 36 3 504 511 11895065
  4. [5]Brubaker RF Mechanism of action of bimatoprost (Lumigan) Surv Ophthalmol 2001 45 Suppl 4 S347 S351 11434937
  5. [6]Cohen JS Gross RL Cheetham JK VanDenburgh AM Bernstein P Whitcup SM Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension Surv Ophthalmol 2004 49 Suppl 1 S45 S52 15016561
  6. [7]Whitcup SM Cantor LB VanDenburgh AM Chen K for the Bimatoprost Study Group II A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension Br J Ophthalmol 2003 87 1 57 62 12488264 PMC1771463
  7. [8]Higginbotham EJ Schuman JS Goldberg I for the Bimatoprost Study Groups 1 and 2 One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension Arch Ophthalmol 2002 120 10 1286 1293 12365906
  8. [9]Williams RD Cohen JS Gross RL Liu C-C Safyan E Batoosingh AL for the Bimatoprost Study Group Long-term efficacy and safety of bimatoprost for IOP lowering in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: Year 4 Br J Ophthalmol 2008 92 10 1387 1392 18621791
  9. [10]Woodward DF Liang Y Krauss AH-P Prostamides (prostaglandin-ethanolamides) and their pharmacology Br J Pharmacol 2008 153 3 410 419 17721551 PMC2241799
  10. [12]Smith S Fagien S Somogyi C Whitcup SM Beddingfield FC Eyelash growth in subjects treated with bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%; a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel study Poster presented at the 67th annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology March 6–9, 2009 San Francisco, CA 21899919
  11. [13]Law SK Bimatoprost in the treatment of eyelash hypotrichosis Clin Ophthalmol 2010 4 349 358 20463804 PMC2861943
  12. [15]Brandt JD Cantor LB Katz LJ Batoosingh AL Chou C Bossowska I Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination: A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension J Glaucoma 2008 17 3 211 216 18414107
  13. [16]Lewis RA Gross RL Sall KN Schiffman RM Liu CC Batoosingh AL for the Ganfort Investigators Group II The safety and efficacy of bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination: A 1-year double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension J Glaucoma 2009 19 6 424 426 19855289
  14. [17]Katz LJ Cohen JS Batoosingh AL Felix C Shu V Schiffman RM Twelve-month, randomized, controlled trial of bimatoprost 0.01%, 0.0125%, and 0.03% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension Am J Ophthalmol 2010 149 4 66 71 20346780
  15. [18]Holló G The side effects of the prostaglandin analogues Expert Opin Drug Saf 2007 6 1 45 52 17181451
  16. [19]Chen J Dinh T Woodward DF Bimatoprost: Mechanism of ocular surface hyperemia associated with topical therapy Cardiovasc Drug Rev 2005 23 3 231 246 16252016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wirta, D., VanDenburgh, Weng, Whitcup, S., Kurstjens, & Beddingfield
Affiliations
  • Allergan (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Wirta, David
Venue
Clinical Ophthalmology
Published
2011-06
Volume
5
Pages
759
ISSN
  • 1177-5467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1177-5483
OpenAlex
W2094445346
Cited by
29
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Allergan
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
bimatoprost, eye drops, intraocular pressure, glaucoma, adverse events, drug safety, tolerability, conjunctival hyperemia, eyelash growth, hypertrichosis, dry eye, dosing frequency

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