Most of the eyelash trials in these abstracts compared bimatoprost 0.03% with a vehicle group and reported results at set times. The main measure was the Global Eyelash Assessment (GEA), reported as the share of people who improved by at least 1 grade.
The randomized trials
| Trial | What the abstract says |
|---|---|
| 2012 trial, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled | Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily for 5 months: 137 subjects versus 141 on vehicle. At week 16 the share with at least a 1-grade GEA increase was 78.1% versus 18.4% (P < .0001). The bimatoprost 0.03% group had statistically significantly greater increases in eyelash length, thickness, and darkness (P < .0001). Only conjunctival hyperemia occurred at a significantly higher rate with bimatoprost 0.03% (P = .03). |
| Two Japanese studies (2014), controlled | Bimatoprost 0.03% versus vehicle. At least a 1-grade GEA improvement from baseline to month 4: 77.3 vs 17.6% in study 1 and 88.9 vs 27.8% in study 2 (P<0.001 for each). Mean eye pressure fell slightly more with bimatoprost, within the normal range for daily fluctuations. Sizes and length not stated. |
| 2015 trial, randomized controlled, idiopathic and chemotherapy-induced hypotrichosis | Bimatoprost solution 0.03% versus vehicle. Primary end point: a composite of at least a 1-grade improvement in investigator-assessed GEA and at least a 3-point improvement in the patient-reported Eyelash Satisfaction Questionnaire Domain 2 at month 4. Responder rates: idiopathic 40·2% versus 6·8%; postchemotherapy 37·5% versus 18·2%. Size and total length not stated. |
| 2015 postchemotherapy study | 130 subjects randomized 3:1 to bimatoprost 0.03% or vehicle for six months; all used bimatoprost for a second six months. Responder rate: 37.5% vs 18.2% at Month 4 (p=0.041) and 46.9% vs 18.2% at Month 6 (p=0.004). Most common adverse events: conjunctival hyperemia (16.7%) and punctate keratitis (9.4%), group not given here. The Month 4 rates match the row above; the text used here does not say if it is the same trial. |
| 2016 pediatric study | Bimatoprost (concentration and number not stated) versus vehicle in pediatric subjects. Eyelash prominence improved in 70.8% versus 26.1% at month 4 (P<0.001). With limited sample size, subgroup analyses showed treatment was effective in healthy adolescents with no concurrent contributing medical condition, but not in those with hypotrichosis due to chemotherapy or alopecia areata. |
| 2015 pooled safety analysis of six randomized, double-masked trials | Adults with baseline GEA of minimal or moderate given bimatoprost 0.03% (n=680) or vehicle, with no prior exposure to bimatoprost (n=379). Most adverse events occurred early, were mild in intensity, localized to treatment site and reversible with treatment cessation. Discontinuations due to adverse events: 3.2% for bimatoprost and 2.4% for vehicle. Length not stated. |
Observational reports
A 2022 prospective, open-label study in alopecia totalis and universalis used ophthalmic bimatoprost (0.3 mg/ml) nightly for at least 12 weeks (mean 30.6 weeks). 16 out of 17 subjects completed it, and the text used here describes no comparison group. Only subjects with eyelashes at baseline had an increase in eyelash length and thickness, and no new regrowth was induced.
A 2014 retrospective chart review of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% (size not stated) found that 27.4% of patients spontaneously recalled adverse events, while charts documented only 4. It also reports no instances of iris hyperpigmentation and no serious or severe adverse events. Both studies are observational, which cannot show cause and effect.
Which abstracts show a company tie
Author information lists Allergan, Inc. in the abstracts of a 2013 report on bimatoprost 0.03% in chemotherapy-induced eyelash loss, the 2014 chart review and the 2015 postchemotherapy study. A 2010 mechanism review discloses that its author has served as a consultant and clinical trial participant for Allergan, Inc.
The abstracts used here do not show the affiliations or funding of every trial. So this guide does not say which trials were independent. A 2021 literature review states that the literature on bimatoprost for eyelash hypotrichosis is dominated by industry-sponsored clinical trials.
Limits the sources state
The 2012 abstract lists short-term duration as a limitation and says black subjects were not enrolled because of technical requirements of digital image analysis. A 2014 abstract says clinical trials of bimatoprost 0.03% enrolled mostly Caucasian subjects. The 2021 review concludes that trials of bimatoprost for eyelash growth may have systematically underreported the incidence of drug application discomfort and prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy, and that the risk of increased iris pigmentation remains inadequately investigated.
A responder threshold counts who crossed a line, not how much each person changed. Vehicle comparisons do not show how bimatoprost 0.03% compares with another eyelash treatment, and the abstracts used here describe no such comparison.
What this does not tell you
These are group results at set times, not predictions for one person. None of the abstracts used here describes a compounded serum. The FDA states that compounded drugs are not FDA approved, which means the agency does not review their safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed. Nothing here shows a compounded product gives the same results as the approved product. A licensed provider decides whether a product fits a given person.