[Original preparations versus generics--latanoprost: how similar is different?]

Impact of benzalkonium chloride-preserved and preservative-free latanoprost eye drops on cultured human conjunctival goblet cells upon acute exposure and differences in physicochemical properties of the eye drops

Objective

To investigate the short-term impact on human conjunctival goblet cell (GC) survival and mucin release of acute exposure to benzalkonium chloride (BAK) preserved and preservative-free (PF) 0.005% (w/v) latanoprost (LT) eye drops, and to compare the eye drops’ physicochemical properties.

Methods and analysis

Primary GC cultures were established from human conjunctival donor tissue. The impact of eye drops on GC survival was assessed using a lactate dehydrogenase assay. Mucin release was evaluated through mucin-specific immunostaining. pH value, osmolality, drop mass and surface tension for all LT eye drops were measured.

Results

After application with PF-LT for 30 min (min), the GC survival was maintained compared with control (p=0.9941), while all BAK-LT eye drops reduced survival with approximately 30% (p<0.02). Following application with PF-LT for 30 min, mucin was found around the GC nucleus, as seen in the vehicle control, indicating no secretion. In contrast, BAK-LT caused diffuse staining of mucin, similar to the secretagogue histamine, indicating stimulation of secretion. The pH value of the BAK-LT and PF-LT eye drops were 6.0–6.9 and 6.8, respectively. The osmolality was 258–288 mOsm/kg for the BAK-LT eye drops and 276 for PF-LT eye drops. The mean drop mass was 26–31 mg for the BAK-LT eye drops and 30 mg for PF-LT. The surface tension was lower for all BAK-LT eye drops (31.1–32.1 mN/m) compared with PF-LT (42 mN/m).

Conclusion

PF-LT compared with various branded and generic LT preparations containing BAK are less cytotoxic when applied to cultured GCs.

The Use of Generic Medications for Glaucoma

The use of generic medicines has grown considerably in recent years providing considerable cost savings. In England, generic items represented 11.7% of prescriptions for glaucoma and ocular hypertension in 2009, increasing to 55.2% of prescriptions in 2018. Generics can be brought to the market quickly and at low cost as manufacturers are not required to repeat animal or clinical research on active ingredients already approved for safety and efficacy. Although there is no regulatory requirement for studies comparing branded and generic eye drops, several randomised crossover studies have been performed comparing branded and generic prostaglandin analogues. While most have shown similar intraocular pressure lowering, studies are of short duration and have not evaluated visual field endpoints. Furthermore, differences in inactive ingredients, pH, viscosity, levels of particulate matter, and degradation over time have been reported. Other potential problems with generic eye drops include differences in bottle design affecting adherence, problems with supply, and the possibility that reduced revenue for innovator companies will lead to reduced investment in new drug development. This article reviews the potential advantages and disadvantages of generic antiglaucoma medications.

Prospective study comparing Xalatan® eye drops and two similar generics as to the efficacy and safety profile

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety between two generic prostaglandins Lataz-Xalaprost (Greece) and the corresponding original drops (Xalatan^®).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized study, 60 patients diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were enrolled, who had never received antiglaucoma treatment. Subjects were divided randomly into three groups (Xalatan, Lataz, and Xalaprost groups) and they were studied over 16 weeks. At each visit, the mean applanation tonometry values and tear break-up time were measured. The Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire was used to evaluate patient's symptoms.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the mean values of the intraocular pressure between the baseline and the last visit (Xalatan group: from 23.11 ± 1.61 mmHg to 15.81 ± 1.22 mmHg, Lataz group: from 23.26 ± 1.33 mmHg to 15.80 ± 1.47 mmHg, and Xalaprost group: from 23.08 ± 1.45 mmHg to 16.08 ± 1.38 mmHg). Both generic eye drops showed mean percentage intraocular pressure reduction comparable to the standards of prostaglandin analogues (Xalatan: 31.57%, Lataz: 32.06%, and Xalaprost: 30.34%). Xalatan reduced the tear break-up time less, followed by Lataz and then by Xalaprost (Xalatan: from 8.5 to 8 s, Lataz: from 8.2 to 7.4 s, and Xalaprost: from 8.7 to 7.7 s). Xalatan presented the best safety profile, followed by Lataz and least was Xalaprost, according to Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire's results.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was recorded in the effectiveness of each generic prostaglandin compared to the original. Furthermore, no patient had to change medication. The differences that arose in the safety profile of the three eye drops suggest a prompt closer initial monitoring of patients who are administered generic eye drops.

[Possibilities and limitations of eye drops for glaucoma therapy]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, chronic open-angle glaucoma is mostly treated by daily eye drop application. The possibilities and limitations of this form of therapy are presented. Reasons for the change in the selection of the preferred substances over time are also discussed and the limits of local drug therapy are described.

OBJECTIVES

What effects can be expected of the available drugs?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article provides a review of the literature from PubMed and clinical experience.

RESULTS

In chronic open-angle glaucoma, eye drops containing a single agent can achieve an intraocular pressure decrease of 15-35 % compared to the initial pressure level. This is dependent on the substance and is achievable when used as directed. Difficulties in administration are often observed in older patients where regular use over extended periods of time is required. In addition, there are limits in the achievable pressure reduction by combining several active ingredients. Novel systems are being developed for future applications. The idea is to achieve a continuous slow release of the active substance by surgical application of a biodegradable carrier.

CONCLUSION

A treatment regimen which is individually tailored to the individual patient's needs should be developed by the attending physician and the achievement of the set objectives should be monitored at regular intervals. However, restrictions induced by patients due to inadequate adherence or by the drug due to limited efficacy of the drug have to be considered. Therefore, eye drop therapy in open-angle glaucoma is not always sufficient. It should be supplemented in due time by laser or filtering surgery before the affected patients and their optic nerves suffer advanced glaucomatous damage.