Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Preservative-Free versus Preserved Latanoprost for GlaucomaPreservative-Free Latanoprost Cuts Eye Redness Risk

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
PFL provides comparable long-term IOP reduction to PL while significantly reducing the risk of ocular surface hyperemia.

This meta-analysis evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety profile of preservative-free latanoprost (PFL) compared to preserved latanoprost (PL) in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The study analyzed data from 1880 eyes to determine if removing preservatives impacts intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction or surface tolerability.

Initial findings at the two-week mark showed a statistically significant greater mean IOP reduction with preserved latanoprost compared to the preservative-free version. However, this difference vanished in subsequent follow-ups; no significant differences in IOP reduction were observed at 4, 6, or 12 weeks post-treatment.

Regarding safety and tolerability, PFL demonstrated a significantly lower risk of ocular surface hyperemia compared to PL. While the overall risk of ocular adverse events was numerically lower with PFL, this specific finding did not reach statistical significance.

Clinicians may consider PFL as a viable alternative for patients sensitive to preservatives, as it maintains comparable long-term IOP reduction while improving local tissue tolerance. The evidence quality is rated as low to moderate certainty.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses a gap in comparing preservative formulations for glaucoma management. While previous evidence suggests netarsudil plus latanoprost provides additional IOP lowering compared to latanoprost alone, this study specifically evaluates the impact of removing preservatives from the latanoprost formulation. It confirms that PFL is a viable alternative to PL as it maintains comparable IOP reduction at 4, 6, and 12 weeks while significantly reducing ocular surface hyperemia (RR=0.66).

A new analysis of 1880 eyes from patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension compared two versions of the common eye drop latanoprost: one with preservatives and one without.

The study found that at 2 weeks, the preserved version lowered eye pressure slightly more (by about 0.43 mm Hg on average). But by 4, 6, and 12 weeks, there was no meaningful difference between the two in how well they controlled eye pressure.

The preservative-free version had a clear advantage in side effects. It lowered the risk of ocular surface hyperemia (eye redness) by 34% compared with the preserved version. The risk of other eye-related side effects was also lower, though that difference did not reach statistical significance.

The evidence is considered low to moderate certainty, meaning more research could change these findings. For people who have trouble with preservatives in eye drops, the preservative-free option appears to be a safe and effective alternative that may cause less eye redness.

What this means for you:
Preservative-free latanoprost may be a good option for people who get eye redness from standard drops.

Common questions

Is preservative-free latanoprost as effective as the preserved version?

After 4 weeks, there was no significant difference in eye pressure reduction between the two. At 2 weeks, the preserved version lowered pressure slightly more (by 0.43 mm Hg on average).

Who might benefit from preservative-free latanoprost?

People with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are sensitive to preservatives in eye drops may benefit. The study suggests it is a suitable alternative, especially for those who experience eye redness with preserved drops.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 1,880
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up0.5 mo
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
PRCIS: In this meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 1880 eyes, preservative-free latanoprost (PFL) demonstrated comparable intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy to preserved latanoprost (PL), but with a significantly lower risk of ocular surface hyperemia, supporting its use in patients with preservative sensitivity. PURPOSE: To review the efficacy and safety of preservative-free latanoprost (PFL) versus preserved latanoprost (PL) for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. METHODS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251027099), and a literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar in March 2025 to find eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest include IOP reduction and ocular adverse events (OAEs). Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2.0. The meta-analyses were executed in RStudio. RESULTS: The search yielded 591 records, of which 10 studies involving 1880 patients from the USA, India, South Korea, and various European countries were included in this study. Meta-analyses showed a significantly greater mean IOP reduction with PL compared with PFL at 2 weeks (MD=0.43 mm Hg, 95% CI: 0.05-0.81), with no significant difference at 4, 6, and 12 weeks (MD=0.03 mm Hg, 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.37; MD=0.14 mm Hg, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.48; and MD=0.22 mm Hg, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.59, respectively). In terms of safety, PFL was associated with a significantly lower risk of ocular surface hyperemia (RR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85) and a lower-though not statistically significant-risk of overall OAEs (RR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.66-1.00). GRADE assessment constitutes low to moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: PFL has comparable IOP-lowering efficacy compared with PL, with superior ocular tolerability. These findings support the use of PFL as a suitable alternative to PL, particularly in patients sensitive to preservatives.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.