This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Travoprost does in the body
High pressure inside the eye, and the nerve damage it causes
The eye drains fluid two ways, and the slower route passes through the muscle ring behind the iris. Travoprost is inactive as supplied: enzymes in the cornea strip a chemical tail off it on the way in, releasing the working form. That switches on a receptor in the muscle, the cells break down some of the connective tissue between the fibres, gaps widen and fluid leaves faster.
What happened in people
Mean pressure reduction of 4.83 mmHg (95% credible interval 4.12 to 5.54) at three months, third of fourteen agents across 114 pooled trials
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
That travoprost works better in black patients — a subgroup finding the label itself cannot attribute to race or to iris pigmentation, printed unchanged since 2001
Where it acts
Ciliary muscle and the uveoscleral outflow pathway at the front of the eye, reached through the cornea
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · WJ68R08KX9 · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C26H35F3O6, weighing 500.55 g/mol.
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 106 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Mean intraocular pressure over visits and time of day, two travoprost strengths against latanoprost and timolol
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Travoprost Study Group 12-month comparison (Netland 2001)
How many people
801
Study design
Randomised, active-controlled, four-arm, 12-month
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Measured performance
What was found
Travoprost 0.004% 0.8 mmHg below latanoprost at 4 PM pooled across visits (P = .0191); travoprost 0.0015% 0.7 mmHg below (P = .0502)
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Sponsor-run, with the winning drug’s manufacturer among the authors. One of the two efficacy comparisons missed significance at P = .0502, and iris pigmentation change was higher on travoprost 0.0015% (5.0%) than on travoprost 0.004% (3.1%), an inconsistency the paper does not address.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Non-inferiority met at all six timepoints and at months 6, 9 and 12 for the slow-eluting implant; 83.5% against 23.9% on fewer topical medications at month 12, P < 0.0001
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The comparator is timolol, which the pooled analysis ranks 1.13 mmHg below travoprost drops, so non-inferiority here is against a weaker treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 39.5% of implant eyes against 20.1% on timolol. Every listed author affiliation includes the sponsor or sponsor funding.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Adjusted hazard ratio 0.44 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.69), P = 0.0003
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Tested latanoprost, not travoprost. It is cited here because it is the only placebo-controlled visual function trial of any drop in this class, and travoprost’s claim to preserve vision is inherited from it.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Travoprost
What a person takes: Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant.
The measurement behind this step
A buffered aqueous solution at approximately pH 5.7 containing an oil that is practically insoluble in water, held in suspension by a castor-oil-derived solubiliser. Travatan Z substitutes a boric acid, propylene glycol, sorbitol and zinc chloride ionic buffer for benzalkonium chloride. The intracameral implant places the same molecule inside the anterior chamber and elutes it over months, removing daily instillation.
Getting in
One evening drop of an oil made water-compatible
Travoprost is an oil that does not dissolve in water. The bottle contains a detergent-like ingredient whose only job is to keep it suspended in a watery drop.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The label describes travoprost as a viscous oil, practically insoluble in water. The finished product is a buffered aqueous solution at approximately pH 5.7 and 290 mOsmol/kg containing 0.04 mg per millilitre of drug with polyoxyl 40 hydrogenated castor oil as solubiliser. Travatan Z uses an ionic borate-zinc buffer in place of benzalkonium chloride as preservative.
The cornea cuts the ester off as the drug passes through
What goes in is not what works. Enzymes in the cornea snip off a chemical tail during the crossing, releasing the active acid on the inside.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Corneal esterases hydrolyse the isopropyl ester to travoprost free acid during passage through the epithelium and stroma. The ester exists to raise lipophilicity for corneal penetration; the acid is the species that binds the receptor and penetrates the cornea poorly on its own.
The active form binds a single receptor on the muscle behind the iris — the same one latanoprost and bimatoprost reach. The fluorinated ring on this molecule makes it stick harder.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Travoprost free acid is a highly selective and potent agonist at the FP prostanoid receptor on ciliary muscle and trabecular meshwork. The 3-trifluoromethylphenoxy group at the omega end raises FP potency and metabolic stability relative to latanoprost’s unsubstituted phenyl, and the 13,14 double bond that latanoprost lacks contributes to the conformation at the binding site.
Connective tissue is remodelled and the secondary drain opens
The receptor tells the cells to dismantle some of the packing between the muscle bundles. Channels widen over days to weeks and fluid leaves faster.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
FP activation upregulates matrix metalloproteinases in the ciliary muscle, remodelling the extracellular matrix of the uveoscleral outflow pathway and reducing hydraulic resistance. The transcriptional nature of the response explains the lag to full effect and the sustained rather than pulsatile pressure reduction.
Pressure falls by roughly five millimetres of mercury on average. The label reports seven to eight from a high starting point, and holds it for a full year in the trials.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Pooled reduction is 4.83 mmHg (95% credible interval 4.12 to 5.54) at three months, third of fourteen. The label reports 7 to 8 mmHg reductions from a baseline of 25 to 27 mmHg. In the 12-month comparison, mean pressure on travoprost 0.004% ranged 17.7 to 19.1 mmHg across visits and times of day against latanoprost’s 18.5 to 19.2.
And a sentence about race the label cannot explain
The label adds that pressure fell up to 1.8 millimetres more in black patients, then immediately says nobody knows whether that is about race or about darker irises. Both halves have been printed unchanged since 2001.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The proposed pharmacological mechanism is melanin binding: heavily pigmented irides contain more melanin, prostaglandin analogues bind melanin, and bound drug may be released differently over time. That hypothesis is measurable in pigmented and albino iris tissue and has not resolved the label’s wording. Meanwhile the variable actually recorded in the trials was self-identified race, which is not the same measurement as iris melanin content and cannot substitute for it.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, as a once-daily evening drop. A preservative-free-of-benzalkonium formulation exists for people whose ocular surface cannot tolerate the standard preservative, and an intracameral implant exists for people who cannot manage drops at all.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “Use in pediatric patients below the age of 16 years is not recommended because of potential safety concerns related to increased pigmentation following long-term chronic use.”
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “No overall clinical differences in safety or effectiveness have been observed between elderly and other adult patients.”
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women to inform a drug-associated risk.”
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no data on the effects of travoprost on the breastfed child or milk production.”
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
The original benzalkonium-preserved formulation was replaced five years later by an ionic buffered version because the preservative damages the ocular surface with chronic use
One of the two head-to-head efficacy comparisons against latanoprost missed significance at P = .0502 and is reported alongside the one that did not
The race subgroup sentence has sat on the label for 25 years with its mechanism explicitly declared unknown, and the measurable alternative explanation was never measured
The implant produced treatment-emergent adverse events in 39.5% of eyes against 20.1% on timolol drops
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
7 containing an oil that is practically insoluble in water, held in suspension by a castor-oil-derived solubiliser. Travatan Z substitutes a boric acid, propylene glycol, sorbitol and zinc chloride ionic buffer for benzalkonium chloride. The intracameral implant places the same molecule inside the anterior chamber and elutes it over months, removing daily instillation.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Increased brown iris pigmentation, permanent, in roughly 3% of patients on the 0.004% strength in the 12-month comparison. Eyelash lengthening, thickening and darkening. Conjunctival hyperemia, scored below 1 on a 0 to 3 scale on average in the comparative trial. Eyelid skin darkening and prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy, both class effects described after approval. Rare macular oedema, chiefly in aphakic or pseudophakic eyes with a torn posterior capsule. No systemic beta-blockade and no respiratory or cardiac contraindications. The intracameral implant carries the additional risks of an intraocular procedure, with treatment-emergent adverse events in 39.5% of implant eyes against 20.1% for timolol drops in its pivotal trial.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Topical ophthalmic solution 0.004%, once daily in the evening; also a slow-eluting intracameral implant
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
in suspension by a castor-oil-derived solubiliser. Travatan Z substitutes a boric acid, propylene glycol, sorbitol and zinc chloride ionic buffer for benzalkonium chloride. The intracameral implant places the same molecule inside the anterior chamber and elutes it over months, removing daily instillation.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
31 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 31 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-2888 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as implant, liquid, oil, solution and solution/ drops, taken intracameral and ophthalmic.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-2888 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is prostaglandin analog [epc] and prostaglandins [cs].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-2888 · read 2026-08-29
17 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 17 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-29
Travoprost Ophthalmic Soluton is ophthalmic at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Ophthalmic solution containing travoprost 0.04 mg per mL., recorded as fda label in effect 2025-06-07 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 498a376e-a74e-48d8-a022-ad15a1ecadb5 · read 2026-08-30
Recorded price in US: 8.26044–9.33186 USD per one millilitre, across 12 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Travoprost studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That travoprost works better in black patients — a subgroup finding the label itself cannot attribute to race or to iris pigmentation, printed unchanged since 2001
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the 0.8 mmHg advantage over latanoprost at one time of day in a sponsor-run trial is real; the independent pooled analysis separates them by 0.02 mmHg
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That travoprost preserves vision — no trial of this drug has used a visual outcome, and the placebo-controlled field trial in this class tested latanoprost
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the implant is equivalent to travoprost drops, when its trial demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Travoprost are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Third of fourteen, and 0.02 mmHg from second
In plain words
Pooling 114 trials, travoprost lowers pressure 4.83 millimetres of mercury. Latanoprost is at 4.85. The two are indistinguishable, and both sit just behind bimatoprost.
What was measured
Mean intraocular pressure reduction at 3 months, pooled across 114 randomised trials
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
In the Bayesian network meta-analysis of 114 randomised trials with data from 20,275 participants, travoprost reduced intraocular pressure at 3 months by 4.83 mmHg (95% credible interval 4.12 to 5.54), third of fourteen first-line agents. Latanoprost was 4.85 (4.24 to 5.46) and bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94 to 6.29). Timolol, the standard comparator, was 3.70 (3.16 to 4.24). The authors state that bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, that within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful, and that adverse effects, patient preference and cost should be weighed alongside.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Twelve months against both rivals in 801 patients
In plain words
A year-long four-arm trial compared two strengths of travoprost, latanoprost and timolol. Travoprost was equal or slightly better than latanoprost and clearly better than timolol, with the advantage over latanoprost amounting to 0.8 millimetres of mercury at one time of day.
What was measured
Mean intraocular pressure over visits and time of day across 12 months, four arms
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Eight hundred and one patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to travoprost 0.0015%, travoprost 0.004%, latanoprost 0.005% or timolol 0.5% for 12 months. Mean intraocular pressure over visits and time of day ranged from 17.9 to 19.1 mmHg on travoprost 0.0015%, 17.7 to 19.1 on travoprost 0.004%, 18.5 to 19.2 on latanoprost and 19.4 to 20.3 on timolol. Pooled across visits at 4 PM, travoprost was 0.7 mmHg lower than latanoprost at 0.0015% (P = .0502) and 0.8 mmHg lower at 0.004% (P = .0191). By the criterion of a 30% or greater reduction from diurnal baseline or a pressure of 17 mmHg or less, response was 49.3% and 54.7% for the two travoprost strengths, 49.6% for latanoprost and 39.0% for timolol. Average ocular hyperemia scored under 1 on a 0 to 3 scale in every arm.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A race-based subgroup claim has been on the label since 2001, unresolved
In plain words
The label states that pressure fell up to 1.8 millimetres of mercury more in black patients, then says it is not known whether that is because of race or because of darker irises. Twenty-five years later the sentence is still there, and still says that.
What was measured
That travoprost works better in black patients — a subgroup finding from trials not designed to test it, resting on a self-identified social category as a proxy for an unmeasured biological one, and printed on the label for 25 years with the mechanism still declared unknown
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The Clinical Studies section of the current travoprost label reads: "In sub-group analyses of these studies, mean IOP reduction in black patients was up to 1.8 mmHg greater than in non-black patients. It is not known at this time whether this difference is attributed to race or to heavily pigmented irides." The finding originates in the registration programme and appears in the 12-month comparative trial, where travoprost 0.004% was more effective than latanoprost by up to 2.4 mmHg and than timolol by up to 4.6 mmHg in black patients, and the abstract states it as a conclusion. Three separate problems sit on top of each other. It is a subgroup analysis in trials not designed or powered for it. Race in these trials is self-identified social category, not a biological variable, while iris melanin is measurable and was not measured. And the mechanistic hypothesis the label raises — that melanin binding alters drug availability — is testable and, on the evidence of the label’s own wording, still untested after a quarter of a century.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The sponsor ran the trial its own drug won by 0.8 mmHg
In plain words
The head-to-head study that showed travoprost slightly ahead of latanoprost was run by the company that makes travoprost. The margin was 0.8 millimetres of mercury at one time of day, and the second strength missed statistical significance at 0.0502.
What was measured
Sponsor-run head-to-head difference against independent pooled network estimate
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
The 801-patient 12-month comparison was conducted by the Travoprost Study Group with authorship including multiple Alcon employees. The efficacy conclusion rests on differences of 0.7 and 0.8 mmHg against latanoprost at a single time of day pooled across visits, with the 0.0015% comparison at P = .0502 — a value on the wrong side of the conventional threshold reported without adjustment for the multiple time points and arms examined. Response rates by the trial’s own responder criterion were 54.7% for travoprost 0.004% against 49.6% for latanoprost, a difference of five percentage points. The independent pooled analysis of 114 trials, which is not sponsor-run, separates the two drugs by 0.02 mmHg. The safety comparison ran the other way: iris pigmentation change occurred in 5.2% of latanoprost patients against 3.1% on travoprost 0.004% and 5.0% on 0.0015%, so the sponsor’s own trial reports its drug ahead on efficacy at one dose and behind at the other on the same endpoint.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Two reformulations for problems the original formulation caused
In plain words
Travatan Z exists because the preservative in the original damaged the ocular surface. The implant exists because a daily drop is a treatment many people cannot keep up for decades. Neither improves the molecule.
What was measured
Non-inferiority of the slow-eluting implant to twice-daily timolol at 12 months, and medication burden at month 12
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Travatan Z replaced benzalkonium chloride with an ionic buffered system of boric acid, propylene glycol, sorbitol and zinc chloride, and was approved 21 September 2006 under NDA 021994, five years after the original. Benzalkonium chloride is a quaternary ammonium detergent that damages corneal and conjunctival epithelium with chronic exposure, and a glaucoma drop is chronic exposure by definition. The travoprost intracameral implant was approved 13 December 2023 under NDA 218010 after a 590-patient randomised, double-masked trial in which the slow-eluting implant was non-inferior to twice-daily timolol at months 3, 6, 9 and 12, and 83.5% of implant patients on medication at screening were on fewer topical medications at month 12 against 23.9% of the timolol group (P<0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly mild, occurred in 39.5% of implant eyes against 20.1% on timolol. The implant’s comparator was timolol, not a prostaglandin analogue, so it establishes non-inferiority to a weaker drug.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Two drugs approved on the same day, and the field never separated them
In plain words
Travoprost and bimatoprost were both approved on 16 March 2001, each with trials showing superiority to timolol. Twenty-five years and 114 pooled trials later, nobody can show a clinically meaningful difference between them or latanoprost.
What was measured
That the three prostaglandin analogues are meaningfully different from one another on efficacy — a premise every head-to-head trial was built on and the independent pooled analysis dissolved
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Travatan was approved under NDA 021257 and Lumigan under NDA 021275 on the same date. Each brought registration trials establishing superiority to timolol, and each subsequently generated head-to-head trials against latanoprost and against each other. The independent Bayesian network meta-analysis of 114 randomised trials in 20,275 participants placed all three within 0.78 mmHg of one another with overlapping credible intervals, and its authors concluded that within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. The practical consequence is that the choice between the three prostaglandin analogues is not an efficacy question at all: the acquisition-cost survey separates them by a factor of six, from US$1.57 per millilitre for latanoprost to US$9.33 for travoprost and US$8.87 for bimatoprost, and the side effect profiles differ more than the pressure numbers do.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A trifluoromethylphenoxy prostaglandin analogue that reaches the FP receptor as its hydrolysed free acid and opens the uveoscleral outflow route, lowering pressure 4.83 mmHg at three months across 114 pooled trials — third of fourteen, statistically tied with latanoprost — and carrying on its label since 2001 an unresolved subgroup finding that the reduction in black patients was up to 1.8 mmHg greater, which the label itself says may be race or may be iris pigmentation.
Recorded evidence blocks (9)
Q1
On the Travoprost label: indicated for what?
"Travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% (ionic buffered solution) is indicated for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% (ionic buffered solution) is a prostaglandin analog indicated for the reduction of…": indications and usage on Travoprost's label. DailyMed label · 2d95e26f-7cdd-462f-b32f-10cb68424aaa · 2026-05-28
Q2
92 registered trials of Travoprost — at which phases?
45 minutes; From these studies, travoprost is estimated to have a plasma half-life of 45 minutes.
metabolismpharmacokinetics
Systemically, travoprost free acid is metabolized to inactive metabolites via beta-oxidation of the α (carboxylic acid) chain to give the 1,2-dinor and 1,2,3,4-tetranor analogs, via oxidation of the 15-hydroxyl moiety, as well as via reduction of the 13, 14 double bond.
recorded 2026-05-28 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Which 34 trials of Travoprost posted no result?
Posted no result
34 of 34 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00847483, NCT00051181, NCT01655758, NCT00061503, NCT00051142 and NCT00051155, and 28 more
Completion dates
oldest 2002-08; newest 2022-08-24
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00847483
2002-08
NCT00051181
2003-06
NCT01655758
2004-02
NCT00061503
2004-03
NCT00051142
2004-06
NCT00051155
2004-07
14 further recorded trials
NCT00121147
2005-10
NCT00293761
2006-05
NCT00333125
2007-02
NCT00468988
2007-07
NCT00444665
2007-08
NCT00670033
2008-09
NCT00519753
2008-12
NCT00672997
2008-12
NCT00760539
2008-12
NCT00680329
2009-07
NCT00887029
2009-11
NCT00676637
2010-02
NCT01206361
2010-08
NCT00928590
2010-11
Q7
At the median, Travoprost's trials enrolled 91 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
91
Largest enrolment
2015
Registered trials counted
88
Q8
What do 1262 spontaneous reports say about Travoprost — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Travoprost appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 1262 reaction mentions were counted: treatment failure 516; eye irritation 141; ocular hyperaemia 141; intraocular pressure increased 109. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL1200799 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
treatment failure
516
eye irritation
141
ocular hyperaemia
141
intraocular pressure increased
109
eye pain
74
hypersensitivity
66
4 more recorded rows
glaucoma
63
visual impairment
59
vision blurred
49
eye pruritus
44
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q9
Which 10 reactions does Travoprost's label not list?
ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 6 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.