MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408917413 · doi:10.3389/fopht.2025.1554777

Real-world impact of latanoprostene bunod ophthalmic solution 0.024% in glaucoma therapy: a narrative review

2025· review· en· W4408917413 on OpenAlexaff
W. Daniel Stamer, Thomas Y.H. Chiu, Da‐Wen Lu, Tsing Hong Wang, Prin Rojanapongpun, Ngamkae Ruangvaravate, Youn Hye Jo, Marlene R. Moster, Murray Fingeret, Nora Lee Cothran, Jessica Steen, Ian Benjamin Gaddie, Ömür Uçakhan-Gündüz, Wesam Shamseldin Shalaby, Cindy Hutnik

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ophthalmology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatanoprostGlaucomaIntraocular pressureMedicineOcular hypertensionTolerabilityOphthalmologyDiscontinuationPharmacologyAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latanoprostene bunod ophthalmic solution (LBN) 0.024% is a topical nitric oxide (NO)-donating prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) analog first approved in November 2017 for reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG). This narrative review describes the unique mechanism of action of LBN and summarizes available real-world data. Upon instillation, LBN is metabolized into latanoprost acid and butanediol mononitrate, which is further reduced to NO and an inactive metabolite. Latanoprost acid increases aqueous humor outflow primarily through the uveoscleral (unconventional) pathway, whereas NO increases outflow through the trabecular (conventional) pathway. Eight studies were identified: 2 studies in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients with OHT or OAG, 4 studies of adjunctive therapy in patients with glaucoma receiving other IOP-lowering therapies, and 2 studies in which patients with glaucoma switched to LBN monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. Decreases in IOP after initiating LBN in newly diagnosed patients or adding/switching to LBN were generally consistent with reductions observed in clinical trials and sustained throughout the studies. Rates of discontinuation due to inadequate IOP lowering ranged from 12.2% to 17.1%. LBN was generally well tolerated in real-world studies; the most common adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of LBN. Data from real-world studies provide important insights regarding the potential effectiveness and tolerability of LBN in the clinical setting and suggest that LBN is well tolerated and associated with significant, clinically meaningful, and durable reductions in IOP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OphthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207