Adjunctive glaucoma therapy. A comparison of apraclonidine to dipivefrin when added to timolol maleate

The authors compared the additive intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effects of two different topical medications, apraclonidine hydrochloride and dipivefrin hydrochloride, when used in conjunction with timolol maleate. Eighteen patients with elevated IOPs entered a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Each used apraclonidine 1.0%, dipivefrin 0.1%, or placebo, twice daily for 3 weeks each, in addition to timolol 0.5% twice daily. Only apraclonidine produced a significant additional IOP lowering over timolol treatment alone at all time intervals (P less than 0.001). Its additive effect was significantly greater than that seen with dipivefrin at all time intervals (P less than 0.01), with the exception of day 22 (P = 0.061). No significant change in pulse rate or blood pressure was seen during apraclonidine administration. Apraclonidine may be a useful adjunctive agent in patients with poorly controlled glaucoma.     

Comparison of topical brinzolamide 1% and dorzolamide 2% eye drops given twice daily in addition to timolol 0.5% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: The aim was to compare topical brinzolamide 1% twice daily with dorzolamide 2% twice daily, each given with timolol 0.5% twice daily, for safety and effects on intraocular pressure in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, active controlled, parallel group study was conducted multinationally at 31 sites, in 241 patients as above, with assessments at baseline and monthly during 3 months of treatment. The primary end point was a diurnal reduction of trough/peak intraocular pressure from a timolol 0.5% twice daily baseline. RESULTS: Both treatment regimens reduced intraocular pressure significantly at all time points (P <.001): brinzolamide plus timolol by -3.6 to -5.3 mm Hg (-14.2 to -21.9%), dorzolamide plus timolol by -3.6 mm Hg to -5.1 mm Hg (-14.1 to -21.2%). Clinically relevant intraocular pressure reductions (decreases 5 mm Hg or greater or absolute intraocular pressure values 21 mm Hg or less) were manifested by 50.0% to 89.3% of patients under brinzolamide plus timolol and by 43.9% to 85.4% under dorzolamide plus timolol. The treatments were equivalent in mean intraocular pressure-lowering. In general, both regimens were well tolerated. However, more patients (P =.001) experienced at least one adverse event with dorzolamide plus timolol (32.8%) as compared with brinzolamide plus timolol (14.7%); also, more patients (P =.001) experienced ocular discomfort (stinging and burning) after dorzolamide plus timolol (13.1%) than after brinzolamide plus timolol (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of intraocular pressure reduction, brinzolamide 1% twice daily was equivalent to dorzolamide 2% twice daily, each added to timolol 0.5% twice daily, but brinzolamide produced significantly less ocular burning and stinging.     

Timolol-pilocarpine combined vs timolol and pilocarpine given separately

In a controlled, double-observer, multicenter study, we compared the effect of a fixed combination of timolol 0.5%-pilocarpine 4% twice a day with that of timolol 0.5% twice a day plus pilocarpine 4% three times a day in 80 patients with open-angle glaucoma whose intraocular pressure was greater than 21 mm Hg on timolol 0.5% twice a day alone. Administered twice daily, the combination drug lowered intraocular pressure as effectively as concomitant treatment with timolol twice a day and pilocarpine three times a day. No statistically significant differences in reduction of intraocular pressure were found between the two groups nor were any unexpected side effects observed.     

Restoring sensitivity to timolol after long-term drift in primary open-angle glaucoma

In a prospective randomized single-masked study lasting 6 months, 39 eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma showing a long-term drift with 0.5% timolol were put on a "timolol holiday" lasting 30 or 60 days. Twenty-three of them were enrolled with dipivefrin 0.1% twice daily during the holiday. When timolol therapy was restored, the dipivefrin-treated group showed a more pronounced decrease of intraocular pressure (IOP) (8.2 +/- 1.5), whereas the IOP decrease in the nondipivefrin-treated group was lower (3.9 +/- 1.2) and of shorter duration (less than 60 days). Among the dipivefrin-treated group, the response to timolol was more prolonged in the eyes treated for 60 days: the IOP of these eyes was less than 23 mmHg throughout the follow-up.     

Comparison of the additive intraocular pressure-lowering effect of latanoprost and dorzolamide when added to timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a randomized, open-label, multicenter study in Greece

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure-lowering effect of latanoprost with that of dorzolamide when added to timolol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, open-label study with two parallel groups was conducted in five centers in Greece. The study enrolled 148 patients with inadequately controlled open-angle or pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (intraocular pressure of at least 22 mm Hg) or ocular hypertension (intraocular pressure of at least 27 mm Hg) who were receiving monotherapy with a beta-blocker or dual therapy in which one of the agents was a beta-blocker. The patients were switched to timolol 0.5% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks (run-in period) before the start of the study (baseline). At baseline, the patients were randomized to receive latanoprost 0.005% once daily or dorzolamide 2% twice daily as add-on therapy to timolol. The intraocular pressure was recorded at 9:30 AM, 12:30 PM, and 3:30 PM at baseline and at 3 months. Safety was followed throughout the study. RESULTS: The diurnal intraocular pressure reduction was significant in both groups (P < 0.001). The mean intraocular pressure reduction from baseline was 32% for the latanoprost plus timolol group and 20% for the dorzolamide plus timolol group. The least square estimate of the mean diurnal intraocular pressure reduction after 3 months was -7.06 mm Hg in the latanoprost plus timolol group and -4.44 mm Hg in the dorzolamide plus timolol group (P < 0.001). Drugs administered in both treatment groups were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study clearly showed that the additive diurnal intraocular pressure-lowering effect of latanoprost is superior to that of dorzolamide in patients treated with timolol.     

A comparison of once-daily morning vs evening dosing of concomitant latanoprost/timolol

PURPOSE: To evaluate morning vs evening once daily concomitant latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% therapy in ocular hypertensive or primary open-angle glaucoma patients. DESIGN: Prospective single-center double-masked crossover comparison. METHODS: Patients who responded to timolol maleate 0.5% given twice daily were randomized to either evening or morning dosing of concomitant latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5% therapy for 7 weeks. Twenty-four hour diurnal curve intraocular pressure (IOP) testing was performed following each period. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients completed this study. There was a significant reduction at each time point in the 24-hour diurnal curve of both evening (17.1 +/- 2.7 mm Hg) and morning (17.3 +/- 3.1 mm Hg) dosed latanoprost/timolol maleate compared with timolol maleate given twice daily (21.1 +/- 3.3 mm Hg) (P <.0001). When the morning and evening dosing groups were compared directly, the 06:00 time point was statistically lower with evening dosing (16.4 +/- 2.3 mm Hg) vs morning dosing (17.9 +/- 2.8 mm Hg) (P =.01). Overall, a trend existed for greater daytime reduction with night-time dosing of the concomitant therapy, whereas morning dosing tended to give lower night-time pressures. There was a significantly lower mean range of diurnal pressure with evening (3.6 mm Hg) vs morning (4.3 mm Hg) dosing (P =.02). No differences in adverse events existed between the treated arms. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that latanoprost and timolol maleate, both given once daily in the morning or evening, effectively reduce the IOP for the 24-hour diurnal curve when compared with timolol maleate twice daily.     

Latanoprost versus combined therapy with timolol plus dorzolamide: IOP-lowering effect in open-angle glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare the effect on intraocular pressure of latanoprost versus timolol plus dorzolamide in open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with open-angle glaucoma were randomized, 18 to latanoprost once daily and 17 to timolol plus dorzolamide twice daily. Intraocular pressure and ocular side effects were recorded at baseline, and after 2 weeks and 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: Latanoprost reduced the intraocular pressure 1.09 and 1.58 mm Hg more than timolol plus dorzolamide after 2 weeks and 3 months of treatment, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (p<0.05) at the end of the study. After 3 months of treatment, 32.3% of the eyes in the latanoprost group reduced the intraocular pressure in 30% or more with respect to baseline, while 15.6% of the eyes in the timolol plus dorzolamide group achieved this reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Latanoprost administered once daily reduced the intraocular pressure at least as well as timolol plus dorzolamide twice daily in patients with open-angle glaucoma.     

Comparison of 24-hour intraocular pressure reduction with two dosing regimens of latanoprost and timolol maleate in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the 24-hour diurnal ocular hypotensive efficacy of two dosing regimens of latanoprost, once daily (8 AM or 10 PM), vs timolol maleate, twice daily. METHODS: We measured six diurnal intraocular pressure curves (6 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, 6 PM, 10 PM, and 2 AM) in one randomly selected eye of 34 Greek patients newly diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma. The first diurnal curve was an untreated baseline. Patients began taking timolol 0.5%, twice daily, for 2 months. Patients were randomly assigned to latanoprost 0.005% given at 8 AM or 10 PM for 1 month and then changed to the other dosing regimen for 1 month. A diurnal curve was performed after each dosing period. RESULTS: The baseline diurnal pressure for all 34 subjects was 23.1 +/- 3.7 mm Hg. The average intraocular pressures at 6 AM for patients who were given latanoprost in the evening (17.9 +/- 2.9 mm Hg) was statistically lower than that in patients given timolol solution (20.1 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, P = .003); however, patients who were given timolol demonstrated a similar diurnal intraocular pressure (19.1 +/- 2.8 mm Hg) to both morning (18.8 +/- 3.7 mm Hg) and evening doses (18.8 +/- 3.6 mm Hg) of latanoprost (P =.329). When the two latanoprost dosages were compared directly, evening administration provided a statistically lower intraocular pressure at 10 AM (P = .0001) and morning administration at 10 PM (P = .0001). This study had an 80% power to exclude a 1.2-mm Hg difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that in a small population, both latanoprost and timolol are effective in lowering intraocular pressure throughout a 24-hour period; however, latanoprost is most effective in the 12-hour to 24-hour period after administration.     

Brimonidine 0.2% given two or three times daily versus timolol maleate 0.5% in primary open-angle glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of brimonidine 0.2% two or three times daily versus timolol maleate 0.5% solution twice daily. METHODS: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were randomized by Latin square technique to one of the three treatment sequences in this crossover, prospective double-masked trial. Each treatment period consisted of 6 weeks of chronic dosing followed by a diurnal curve for the intraocular pressure measured at 08:00, 10:00, 16:00, 18:00, 20:00, 22:00, and 24:00 hours. Intraocular pressure was measured by applanation tonometry. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed this trial. The average diurnal intraocular pressures in the trial were measured for timolol maleate (17.7 +/- 2.7 mm Hg), brimonidine given three times daily (18.0 +/- 2.2 mm Hg), and brimonidine given twice daily (19.2 +/- 2.4 mm Hg). There was a statistical difference between groups (P <.005). When groups were compared by pairs, three times daily dosing with brimonidine and timolol maleate both reduced the pressure more than twice daily brimonidine at every time point past 10:00 hours and for the diurnal curve (P <.05). In contrast, three times daily brimonidine and timolol maleate were statistically similar for the diurnal pressure, and each time point, except timolol maleate, decreased the pressure more at 16:00 (P =.042). Safety was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that both timolol maleate twice daily and brimonidine three times daily provide a similar intraocular pressure reduction to each other. Timolol maleate twice daily and brimonidine three times daily provide a greater decrease in pressure in the late afternoon and nighttime hours, compared with brimonidine twice daily.     

Effect of adding betaxolol to dipivefrin therapy

We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of adding topically administered betaxolol 0.5% twice daily in 39 patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma already being treated with dipivefrin 0.1% twice daily. The addition of the betaxolol significantly decreased (P less than .01) the mean intraocular pressure after two weeks (2.82 mm Hg) and four weeks (3.63 mm Hg). There were no significant changes in pulse rate, mean arterial pressure, or pupil diameter. The administration of betaxolol to patients already receiving dipivefrin appears to be clinically useful.     

Role of the beta-adrenergic receptor-binding agent 'timolol' in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma

A follow-up study was performed on 54 eyes with chronic open-angle glaucoma treated with timolol maleate. It was carried out as an open clinical trial with a selected group of eyes. During 2 years of application the effect of timolol under normal conditions as well as under stress tests (darkness test, water-, coffee- or tea-drinking test, early morning measurements) was observed. Until now 40% of patients were regulated with 0.25% timolol twice daily. Another 50% obtained good pressure values under 0.5% timolol therapy and the rest with 0.5% timolol and 2% pilocarpine twice daily. Early morning measurement was shown to be the most important indicator of intraocular pressure regulation by beta-blocking agents. While timolol is usually very effective in reducing the intraocular pressure during daytime, several patients showed unattended high morning pressure values. Up to now, no severe side-effects of timolol therapy have been observed.     

Effect on the 24-hour diurnal curve of intraocular pressure of a fixed ratio combination of timolol 0.5% and pilocarpine 2% in patients with COAG not controlled on timolol 0.5%.

Eight patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma who had an intraocular pressure greater than 24 mm Hg at some time during the day while taking timolol 0.5% twice daily were given the fixed ratio combination of timolol 0.5% with pilocarpine 2% (TP2) twice daily. By comparing full 24-hour diurnal curves on timolol with those on TP2 it was possible to show that all patients except one (at a single timepoint) had an IOP less than 22 mm Hg when changed to TP2. The mean IOPs, the area under the diurnal pressure curve, and the diurnal variation were all significantly lower on TP2 twice daily than on timolol 0.5% twice daily.     

Latanoprost vs combined therapy with timolol plus dorzolamide in open-angle glaucoma a 24-month study

Objective To compare the long-term efficacy and shortterm escape from effective treatment of 0.005% latanoprost administered once daily vs 0.5% timolol plus 2% dorzolamide twice daily for 24 months to patients with open-angle glaucoma. Design Prospective study. Setting and number of patients A total of 117 eyes of 61 subjects with open-angle glaucoma were included in this study. The eligible patients were randomized to receive either 0.005% latanoprost once daily or 0.5% timolol and 2% dorzolamide twice daily. Measurements The intraocular pressure (IOP) figures were recorded at baseline and at 0.5 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 months of treatment. Results Compared with baseline measurements, both latanoprost and timolol plus dorzolamide treatments caused a significant (p<0.001) reduction of IOP at each visit trroughout the duration of therapy. The IOP was reduced to 17.1±2.4, 16.6±2.2, and 15.9±2.04 with latanoprost and 18.2±2.1, 18.6±2.4, and 18.4±1.9 with timolol plus dorzolamide after 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. After 24 months, 82% of the patients who initially responsed to treatment were still controlled in the latanoprost group, with a maintained reduction of IOP and no signs of upward drift. However, only 56% of the patients of the timolol plus dorzolamide group were controlled at the end of the study with increase of IOP figures. Conclusions Administered once daily, 0.005% latanoprost is more effective than timolol plus dorzolamide twice daily for the long-term treatment of patients with open-angle glaucoma, showing a maintained effect on IOP reduction. The authors have stated that they do not have a significant financial interest or other relationship with any product manufacturer or provider of services discussed in this article. The authors do, however, discuss the use of off-label products, which includes unlabeled, unapproved, or investigative devices.     

Latanoprost administered once daily caused a maintained reduction of intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients treated concomitantly with timolol.

The long term effects of two dose regimens of latanoprost (PhXA41) administered to eyes concomitantly treated with timolol which had not adequately been controlled by timolol alone were compared. A total of 50 patients, 17 with primary open angle glaucoma and 33 with capsular glaucoma, were recruited from five clinics. All had glaucomatous visual field defects and an intraocular pressure (IOP) of at least 22 mm Hg despite treatment with 0.5% timolol twice daily. Patients were randomised to two treatment groups. In one group 0.006% latanoprost was given twice daily, in the other group placebo was given at 8 am and latanoprost at 8 pm for 3 months, with concomitant timolol treatment in both groups. Average daytime IOP (mean (SD)) at baseline (on timolol alone) and after 4 and 12 weeks' treatment was 24.8 (3.6), 16.8 (4.3), and 15.7 (2.4) mm Hg respectively with once daily application of latanoprost and 24.9 (2.9), 18.1 (3.0), and 18.0 (3.6) mm Hg respectively with latanoprost twice daily. No clinically significant side effects were observed during treatment. Latanoprost causes a marked and sustained IOP reduction in eyes which are also being treated with timolol. Latanoprost given once daily is at least as effective and probably superior to a twice daily dose regimen.     

Levobunolol vs timolol for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

A group of 162 patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were treated twice daily for up to 15 months with one of the following topical ophthalmic solutions: 0.5% levobunolol, 1% levobunolol, or 0.5% timolol. Overall mean reductions in intraocular pressure were 8 mm Hg for patients receiving 0.5% levobunolol or timolol and 8.2 mm Hg for patients receiving 1% levobunolol. There were no significant differences between levobunolol and timolol in mean reductions in intraocular pressure, percent of patients with adequately controlled intraocular pressure, or life-table estimates of the probability of successful treatment.     

A comparison of the effects on intraocular pressure of latanoprost 0.005% and the fixed combination of dorzolamide 2% and timolol 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare the effects on intraocular pressure (IOP) of latanoprost 0.005% and the fixed combination of dorzolamide 2% and timolol 0.5%. METHODS: Overall, 226 patients whose IOP was insufficiently controlled by timolol alone were randomized to receive either latanoprost once daily or the fixed combination of dorzolamide plus timolol twice daily. Intraocular pressure was measured at 10:00 am and 5:00 pm at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: Mean IOP was reduced from baseline in both groups (p < 0.001), with a mean +/- SEM reduction of - 4.3 +/- 0.3 mmHg (19%) for the latanoprost treatment group and - 4.0 +/- 0.3 mmHg (17%) for the dorzolamide plus timolol treatment group. The two therapies were similarly effective in lowering IOP levels (mean difference in reduction: - 0.4 +/- 0.4; 95% confidence interval: - 1.1, 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with latanoprost once daily was as effective in reducing mean IOP as the fixed combination of dorzolamide plus timolol twice daily in patients with IOP insufficiently controlled by timolol alone.     

Unoprostone as adjunctive therapy to timolol: a double masked randomised study versus brimonidine and dorzolamide

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of unoprostone, brimonidine, and dorzolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol in patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomised, double masked, parallel group, multicentre (14) study. After using timolol maleate 0.5% monotherapy twice a day for 2 weeks, patients (n = 146) with an early morning intraocular pressure (IOP) between 22 and 28 mm Hg, inclusively, received unoprostone isopropyl 0.15% (n = 50), brimonidine tartrate 0.2% (n = 48), or dorzolamide hydrochloride 2.0% (n = 48) twice daily as adjunctive therapy to timolol maleate 0.5% for another 12 weeks. Safety was based on comprehensive ophthalmic examinations, adverse events, and vital signs. Efficacy was based on mean change from baseline in the 8 hour diurnal IOP at week 12. Baseline was defined as values obtained after 2 weeks of timolol monotherapy. RESULTS: Each drug was safe and well tolerated. Burning/stinging was the most common treatment emergent adverse event. No clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed for any ophthalmic examination or vital signs. At week 12, each adjunctive therapy produced statistically significant (p<0.001) reductions from timolol treated baseline in the mean 8 hour diurnal IOP (-2.7 mm Hg, unoprostone; -2.8 mm Hg, brimonidine; -3.1 mm Hg, dorzolamide). The extent of IOP reduction did not differ significantly between unoprostone and either brimonidine (p = 0.154) or dorzolamide (p = 0.101). CONCLUSION: Unoprostone was safe and well tolerated and provided a clinically and statistically significant additional reduction in IOP when added to stable monotherapy with timolol. Furthermore, unoprostone was not significantly different from brimonidine and dorzolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol.     

Effect of timolol 0.5% gel and solution on pulmonary function in older glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of timolol maleate solution or gel forming solution versus placebo on pulmonary function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease. METHODS: After a screening visit, each patient was randomized by a Latin square technique to receive placebo twice daily, 0.5% timolol solution twice daily, or 0.5% timolol gel once a day (placebo given as second dose) to each eye for 2 weeks. Subjects then were crossed over to the two other treatments for 2-week treatment intervals. At each visit, patients were received a dose 15 minutes before pulmonary function testing. RESULTS: This study began with 25 patients, and 20 finished the trial. There was no difference between treatment groups for the forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio (P > 0.1). The mean FEV1 for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 2.42 L, 2.45 L, and 2.50 L, respectively. The mean FVC for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 3.33 L, 3.38 L, and 3.44 L, respectively. No difference in intraocular pressure was observed between the timolol solution (17.1 +/- 3.3 mm Hg) and timolol gel (17.1 +/- 3.6 mm Hg) between the treatment periods (P > 0.1). No difference in side effects was observed between treatment groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease, nonselective beta-blockers should not worsen pulmonary function.     

The long-term safety and efficacy of brinzolamide 1.0% (azopt) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The Brinzolamide Long-Term Therapy Study Group

PURPOSE: Oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors used to treat glaucoma have significant systemic side effects. Brinzolamide 1.0%, a new topical ocular carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, is effective apparently without significant systemic side effects. This study was performed to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of brinzolamide 1.0% two and three times daily for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. METHODS: An 18-month, multicenter, double-masked, parallel, controlled study was conducted. Patients were randomized to brinzolamide two or three times daily or timolol 0.5% twice daily in a 2:2:1 ratio (n = 150, 153, and 75, respectively). Intraocular pressure was measured at 8:00 AM at eligibility and months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Efficacy was based on intraocular pressure reduction from baseline. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: All regimens produced clinically relevant and statistically significant (P<.05) intraocular pressure reductions from baseline. Mean changes in intraocular pressure trough measurements ranged from -2.7 to -3.9 mm Hg with brinzolamide twice-daily dosing and -2.8 to -3.8 mm Hg three times daily dosing compared with -4.7 to -5.6 mm Hg with timolol. The intraocular pressure reductions with brinzolamide two and three times daily were clinically and statistically equivalent. One hundred forty-four patients were discontinued from the study after randomization with the most common reasons being the occurrence of an adverse event (46), inadequate intraocular pressure control (23), patient decision unrelated to study medication (11), lost to follow-up (16), and noncompliance (9). Adverse events were nonserious and resolved without sequelae. There were no clinically relevant changes in safety parameters. Brinzolamide produced less ocular discomfort (burning/stinging) than timolol, and total carbonic anhydrase inhibition levels remained below that known to cause systemic side effects. CONCLUSION: Brinzolamide produced significant and equivalent reductions in intraocular pressure when dosed two and three times daily for 18 months. Brinzolamide was safe and well tolerated by patients, with minimal ocular discomfort.     

Evaluation of travoprost as adjunctive therapy in patients with uncontrolled intraocular pressure while using timolol 0.5%

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.0015% and 0.004%, dosed daily in the evening compared with vehicle, in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, whose intraocular pressure was not adequately controlled on timolol 0.5% twice daily (twice daily). METHODS: Subjects who qualified at screening began a run-in period dosing timolol twice daily for 3 weeks. If the subjects had an intraocular pressure of 24 to 36 mm Hg at 8 AM and 21 to 36 mm Hg at 10 AM and 4 pm in at least one eye on timolol, they were randomized to one of two concentrations of travoprost (0.0015% or 0.004%) or vehicle solution every day and were followed for 6 months. Four hundred twenty-six subjects were randomized. The mean intraocular pressure at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM in the patient's eye with the higher intraocular pressure was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Mean baseline values (25 mm Hg) for subjects at eligibility (while maintained on timolol) were not significantly different (P <.0001) among the treatment groups. The intraocular pressure was lowered an additional -5.7 to -7.2 mm Hg and -5.1 to -6.7 mm Hg in the travoprost 0.004% and 0.0015% concentrations, respectively. These changes were significantly (P < or =.0001) different from the vehicle group (-1.3 to -2.8 mm Hg). The intraocular pressure range on treatment at all visit times over the 6-month treatment period ranged from 17.9 to 19.2 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% and 18.3 to 20.1 mm Hg for travoprost 0.0015% compared with 22.4 to 24.1 mm Hg for vehicle. Average hyperemia scores ranged from trace to mild (mean 0.5 on a scale of 0 = none/trace; 1= mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = severe) for all treatment groups. No iris pigmentation changes were observed in any patient during this study. There were no clinically or statistically significant changes from baseline in visual acuity, ocular cells and flare, fundus parameter, cup-to-disk ratio and visual field between the treatment groups. There were no serious adverse events reported for any treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost produced clinically relevant and statistically significant additional intraocular pressure reductions from baseline when used adjunctively with timolol in subjects with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.