A long-term prospective study of risk factors for glaucomatous visual field loss in patients with ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To evaluate the importance of baseline risk factors for development of glaucomatous visual field loss in patients with high-risk ocular hypertension. METHODS: In the Malm? Ocular Hypertension Study, 90 patients were randomized to topical timolol or placebo treatment and observed prospectively for up to 10 years. Patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and with open angles and normal visual fields, plus at least one extra risk factor, were eligible. Risk factors were suspect disc or known disc hemorrhage, positive family history of glaucoma, pseudoexfoliation or pigment dispersion syndrome, diabetes, and mean IOP on DTC > or = 27 mm Hg. These risk factors and also the mean baseline IOP and IOP fluctuation, sex, age, and blood pressure were evaluated as predictors for development of reproducible glaucomatous visual field loss. In addition to the prospective data, post-study data were retrieved from patients' records extending maximum follow-up to 17 years. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients developed glaucomatous visual field loss. Of all factors included in the analysis, disc appearance, older age, and higher IOP came out as significant risks. Suspect disc appearance increased the risk approximately three times, with a hazard ratio of 2.90, and CI: 1.34-6.30, the hazard ratio was 1.05 and CI: 1.03-1.09 per year of age, while mean baseline IOP increased the risk with 14% per mm Hg (CI: 1.01-1.28). CONCLUSION: Patients with ocular hypertension were at higher risk for developing glaucomatous visual field loss if discs were suspect, if IOP was high, and if the patient was older in age.     

Timolol treatment of chronic open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Maintenance effect of topical timolol was investigated or 2 years in a group of 125 glaucomatous and ocular hypertensive patients (231 eyes) who had been successfully treated with timolol alone during a 6-month period preceding this trial. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was controlled with timolol alone in 135 of 183 eyes (74%) that completed the study. At the end of the trial 142 eyes (78%) showed an IOP of less than 22 mmHg. Other glaucoma medication had to be added to timolol treatment in 18% of ocular hypertensive and 35% of glaucomatous eyes because of IOP elevation. Elevation of IOP seemed to be due to worsening of glaucoma rather than to decreased efficacy of timolol. None of the ocular hypertensive patients developed visual field defects but in ten glaucomatous patients progression of existing visual field defects was observed in association with elevated IOP. Transient adverse effects were observed in 13% of cases, but timolol treatment had to be stopped in only five cases (4%) because of side effects.     

Comparison of the intraocular pressure-lowering effect of latanoprost and timolol in patients with chronic angle closure glaucoma: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing effect and side effects of 0.005% latanoprost once daily to 0.5% timolol twice daily in patients with primary chronic angle closure glaucoma (CACG). DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked two-center clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two Asian patients with CACG, defined as glaucomatous optic neuropathy with a compatible visual field defect and at least 6 clock hours of synechial angle closure on gonioscopy were recruited. All patients had previous peripheral iridotomy (PI) with IOP >21 mmHg after PI and were thereafter controlled (IOP <22 mmHg) with one or two pressure-reducing drugs. INTERVENTION: After a washout period, the patients were randomized to a 2-week treatment period with either placebo in the morning and 0.005% latanoprost in the evening or 0.5% timolol twice daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The short-term IOP reduction of latanoprost and timolol in patients with CACG. IOP was measured at baseline, and after 2, 7, and 14 days of treatment. In addition, the short-term ocular and systemic adverse events of the two drugs were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed the study. Two patients in the timolol group were withdrawn because of inadequate IOP control. Compared with baseline, the IOP after 2 weeks of treatment was statistically significantly reduced by 8.8 +/- 1.1 mmHg (mean +/- SEM, P < 0.001) in the latanoprost group, and by 5.7 +/- 0.9 mmHg (P < 0.001) in the timolol group. The difference in IOP reduction between the two treatment groups was 3.1 +/- 1.5 mm Hg in favor of latanoprost (P = 0.04). The main ocular adverse events reported in both treatment groups were conjunctival hyperemia and discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, a significantly greater IOP reduction was achieved with 0.005% latanoprost once daily compared with 0.5% timolol twice daily in patients with CACG. The results suggest that latanoprost may be a therapeutic choice for the medical treatment of primary CACG.     

Additive IOP-reducing effect of latanoprost in patients insufficiently controlled on timolol

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) of switching from timolol to latanoprost or adding latanoprost to timolol in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension where IOP is not adequately controlled with timolol. METHODS: This was a 6-week, double-masked, randomised multi-centre study. 53 patients with primary open angle glaucoma, capsular glaucoma, or ocular hypertension with an IOP of at least 21 mmHg on current therapy were recruited. After a run-in period of at least 2 weeks on timolol, 5 mg/ml twice daily, patients were randomised to one of three groups. One group continued on timolol, one switched from timolol to latanoprost, 50 microg/ml once daily, and a third group received latanoprost in addition to timolol. The efficacy was evaluated by comparing IOP at 9 AM at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: IOP at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment (mean +/- SEM) were 24.2 +/- 0.9 and 23.8 +/- 1.0 mmHg (n = 16) for patients continuing on timolol, 26.3 +/- 1.2 and 19.6 +/- 1.1 mmHg (n = 17) for patients switching to latanoprost, and 23.2 +/- 1.0 and 17.5 +/- 0.8 mmHg (n = 17) for patients with combined treatment. Adding latanoprost to timolol reduced IOP with 5.9 +/- 0.9 mmHg (p < 0.001) and switching from timolol to latanoprost reduced IOP with 5.0 +/- 0.9 mmHg (p < 0.001), which caused in each group a significant IOP reduction of about 25%. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of latanoprost was additive to that of timolol, and a good effect on IOP reduction was also achieved by switching from timolol to latanoprost, suggesting that a switch in many patients is an effective alternative to combination treatment.     

A short term study of the additive effect of timolol and brimonidine on intraocular pressure

PURPOSE: To evaluate the additive ocular hypotensive effect of the combination of brimonidine and timolol on intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, crossover study in 20 patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) on therapy receiving timolol maleate 0.5% twice daily, with IOP greater than or equal to 22 mmHg in one eye. The treatment period was 3 weeks and during this period timolol + brimonidine or timolol + placebo were applied topically twice daily and IOP, blood pressure, heart rate and pupil size were measured. RESULTS: Combined therapy (timolol + brimonidine) had clinically significant IOP-lowering effect during the treatment period P < 0.01). The mean diurnal IOP was significantly reduced by an average of 5.1-5.9 mmHg (21.2-24.5%) compared with baseline value. The timolol + placebo combination had no clinically significant IOP-lowering effect (P > 0.05). No clinically significant side effects were observed during the treatment of both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the combination of topically applied brimonidine and timolol cause a marked and sustained IOP reduction.     

Association between corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in glaucomatous and non‐glaucomatous eyes

Purpose: We aimed to determine corneal hysteresis values (CH) using the ocular response analyser (ORA) in non‐glaucomatous and glaucomatous eyes and their relationship with central corneal thickness (CCT). Methods: Corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and CCT were prospectively evaluated in 74 non‐glaucoma subjects with IOP < 21 mmHg and in 108 patients with treated primary open‐angle glaucoma (POAG). One eye in each subject was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis. Results: Mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age was 59.2 ± 14.2 years in the non‐glaucoma group and 62.4 ± 9.8 years in the glaucoma group. Mean (± SD) GAT IOP was 15.7 ± 2.65 mmHg and 16.38 ± 2.73 mmHg in the non‐glaucoma and glaucoma groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in mean age (p = 0.396) or mean GAT IOP (p = 0.098). Mean (± SD) CH was 10.97 ± 1.59 mmHg in the non‐glaucoma and 8.95 ± 1.27 mmHg in the glaucoma groups, respectively. The difference in mean CH between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). There was a strong positive correlation between CH and CCT in the non‐glaucoma group (r = 0.743) and a significantly (p = 0.001) weaker correlation (r = 0.426) in the glaucoma group. Conclusions: Corneal hysteresis was significantly lower in eyes with treated POAG than in non‐glaucomatous eyes. The corneal biomechanical response was strongly associated with CCT in non‐glaucoma subjects, but only moderately so in glaucoma patients. It can be assumed that diverse structural factors, in addition to thickness, determine the differences in the corneal biomechanical profile between non‐glaucomatous and glaucomatous eyes. Corneal hysteresis could be a useful tool in the diagnosis of glaucoma.     

Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension

Purpose To establish whether intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuations contribute to the risk of developing glaucoma in patients with high-risk ocular hypertension.Methods Ninety patients included in the Malmö Ocular Hypertension Study were examined every 3 months with office-hours diurnal tension curves and computerised perimetry. Patients were followed up prospectively for 10 years or until glaucomatous visual field loss could be demonstrated. Poststudy data were included in the analyses, extending maximum follow-up to 17 years.Results After 17 years, 37 patients had developed glaucomatous visual field defects. When applying univariate Cox regression analyses, mean IOP of all measurements during the prospective part of the study was a significant risk factor for developing glaucoma (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.39), while IOP fluctuations were almost significant (95% CI 0.98–1.93). When separating effects of mean IOP level and mean IOP fluctuation using Cox multiple regression analysis, only IOP level came out as significant (95% CI 1.09–1.38), and IOP fluctuations did not contribute to the risk (95% CI 0.80–1.60). IOP fluctuation depended linearly on IOP level (p<0.0001), i.e. IOP fluctuation was larger in eyes with higher IOP levels.Conclusion IOP fluctuations were not an independent risk factor for the incidence of glaucomatous visual field loss in subjects with ocular hypertension.     

Are large optic nerve heads susceptible to glaucomatous damage at normal intraocular pressure?

To evaluate the effects of the presence of glaucomatous visual field defects and of intraocular pressure elevations on optic nerve head topography, we analyzed 148 left optic nerve heads of 148 patients using laser scanning tomography. The optic discs are classified according to computerized static perimetry and documented IOP readings: 101 discs show normal visual fields (36 normal discs, 22 ocular hypertensives, 28 normotensive glaucoma suspects and 15 ocular hypertensive glaucoma suspects), 47 discs (34 high-pressure glaucoma discs, 13 normal-tension glaucoma discs) demonstrate glaucomatous visual field damage. A two-way analysis of variance discloses significant differences (P<0.01) between the groups of optic discs classified according to perimetry for most topometric parameters evaluated exept for disc area. Classification according to documented IOP (cut off at 21 mmHg) results in larger disc areas in normotensive discs compared to hypertensive optic nerve heads in the study population. Results suggest that large discs may be susceptible to glaucomatous visual field damage at statistically normal IOP readings.This study was supported in part by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Vo 437/1-1 Correspondence to: R.O.W. Burk     

Long-term efficacy and safety of combined topical antiglaucoma therapy--timolol & unoprostone vs. betaxolol & unoprostone

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of treatment combining topical beta-blockers and isopropyl unoprostone in primary open-angle glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma patients. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, parallel-group clinical comparison trial was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of treatment combining 0.5% betaxolol and 0.12% isopropyl unoprostone (B&U) or 0.5% timolol and 0.12% isopropyl unoprostone (T&U). Forty eyes of 40 patients, which were matched in the aging and the stage of glaucomatous visual field defect, were studied. Twenty patients were treated with B&U and the other twenty patients with T&U twice daily for 24 months. Goldmann intraocular pressure(IOP), Humphrey automated perimetry, blood pressure, heart rate, and peak flow were done every six months in each group. RESULTS: In the B&U treatment group, mean IOP was 21.2 mmHg at baseline and 18.3 mmHg(p < 0.005) after 2 years, and in the T&U treatment group it was 21.1 mmHg at baseline and 17.9 mmHg (p < 0.001) after 2 years. The cases in which MD value decreased over 2 dB were one in the B&U treatment group and three in the T&U treatment group. The average MD value was significantly improved from -7.40 dB to -5.90 dB after 2 years with B&U treatment(p < 0.05), but there was no difference with the T&U treatment. None of the patients stopped combined therapy because of side effects, though heart rate was significantly reduced only in T&U treatment group. CONCLUSION: Both combined treatments were effective for IOP reduction in glaucoma patients, and the data from the B&U treatment group suggested that B&U was more effective in maintaining visual field than T&U.     

Comparison of latanoprost monotherapy to dorzolamide combined with timolol in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension — A 3-month randomised study

· Background: The purpose of the study was to compare the effects on intraocular pressure (IOP) of adding dorzolamide to timolol or of switching from timolol to latanoprost monotherapy in glaucoma patients inadequately controlled on timolol. · Methods: The study was designed as a 3-month randomised, open-label, multicentre study comprising 183 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, capsular glaucoma with IOP above 22 mmHg on treatment with one or two ocular hypotensive drugs, or ocular hypertension with IOP above 27 mmHg. After a 2- to 4-week run-in period on timolol, 0.5% twice daily, the patients were randomised to treatment with either latanoprost, 0.005% once daily, or the combination of timolol, 0.5% twice daily, and dorzolamide, 2% twice daily. The mean diurnal IOP after 3 months of treatment was compared with baseline. · Results: Switching from timolol to latanoprost reduced mean diurnal IOP by 4.5±0.2 mmHg (mean±SEM, ANCOVA; 20%), and adding dorzolamide to timolol reduced mean diurnal by 4.4±0.2 mmHg (mean±SEM, ANCOVA; 20%). No serious side effects were observed with either treatment. · Conclusion: Latanoprost monotherapy can be an alternative to combined treatment with two aqueous flow suppressors in patients whose IOP is insufficiently controlled by timolol alone. Received: 30 March 1999 Revised version received: 27 May 1999 Accepted: 7 June 1999     

A comparison of morning and evening instillation of a combination travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure lowering efficacy and side effect profile of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution dosed in the morning and evening. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel group clinical study of 92 patients with open-angle glaucoma (with or without pseudoexfoliative or pigmentary glaucoma) or ocular hypertension. After a washout of existing glaucoma medications, patients were randomly assigned to receive one drop of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% in the morning or evening for 6 weeks. The main outcome measures were mean intraocular pressure (IOP) assessed at 9 am, 11 am, and 4 pm, and safety variables. RESULTS: Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution, dosed in the morning or evening, controlled IOP consistently throughout the day. Mean IOP ranged from 16.5 to 16.7 mmHg in the morning treatment group and from 16.1 to 17.2 mmHg in the evening treatment group. Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution produced statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in IOP from baseline; mean reductions ranged from approximately 8 to 10 mmHg (32% to 38%). Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution was safe and well tolerated with the most frequently reported adverse event being ocular hyperemia, which occurred in 12.5% of patients in the morning treatment group and 13.6% of patients in the evening treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% given once daily, either in the morning or evening, is a safe and effective treatment for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. It may be beneficial for patients judged to be inadequately controlled on a prostaglandin analogue or ophthalmic beta-blocker alone.     

12-week study comparing the fixed combination of brimonidine and timolol with concomitant use of the individual components in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-combination brimonidine tartrate 0.2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution dosed BID and demonstrate non-inferiority to concomitant use of brimonidine tartrate 0.2% BID and timolol 0.5% BID in glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients with intraocular pressure (IOP) uncontrolled on monotherapy. METHODS: Randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group study involving 371 patients with inadequate IOP control (IOP from 22 to 34 mmHg) after > or =3 weeks of run-in on any monotherapy. Patients were treated with fixed-combination brimonidine/timolol BID (fixed-combination group, n = 188) or concomitant brimonidine BID and timolol BID (concomitant group, n = 183). IOP was assessed pre-dose and 2 hours after morning dosing at weeks 2, 6, and 12. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients (96%) completed the study. Patient demographics, run-in monotherapy, and baseline mean IOP on monotherapy were comparable between treatment groups. During follow-up, the mean reduction from baseline IOP was significant (p < 0.001) at all time points and ranged from 4.4 to 5.3 mmHg in each group. Brimonidine/timolol fixed combination was as effective as concomitant therapy with respect to mean IOP and mean change from baseline IOP at all time points and visits. Between-group differences were < or =0.35 mmHg for mean IOP and < or 0.30 mmHg for mean change from baseline IOP; none were significant. No unexpected side effects were associated with the fixed combination. Both treatments were well tolerated with no difference in adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Brimonidine/timolol fixed-combination therapy is as safe and effective as concomitant treatment with the individual components. Its simplified dosing regimen has the potential to improve compliance.     

Efficacy and side effects of latanoprost monotherapy compared to adding dorzolamide to timolol in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension--a three-month randomised study. Spanish Latanoprost Study Group

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost monotherapy or dorzolamide and timolol in glaucoma patients inadequately controlled on adrenergic beta-receptor antagonist therapy. METHODS: A total of 164 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, capsular glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included in a three-month, open-label, randomised multicentre study. Patients with open-angle glaucoma were required to have IOP at least 22 mmHg and patients with ocular hypertension were required to have IOP at least 27 mmHg, on treatment with one or two ocular hypotensive drugs of which at least one had to be a beta-blocker. All patients were treated with timolol, 5 mg/ml twice daily, for a 2-4 week run-in period. They were then randomised to latanoprost, 50 microg/ml once daily, or timolol 5 mg/ml plus dorzolamide, 20 mg/ml twice daily. The difference in mean diurnal IOP change from baseline to month 3 was compared in the two groups. RESULTS: When patients were switched to latanoprost, mean diurnal IOP was reduced by 5.2 mmHg (23%) compared to 4.0 mmHg (17%) in the group in which dorzolamide was added to timolol. The difference of 1.2 mmHg was statistically significant (p = 0.005). The majority of adverse events during both treatments were judged as mild. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that a switch to latanoprost monotherapy is an alternative to combined treatment with timolol and dorzolamide in patients inadequately controlled on a topical adrenergic beta-receptor antagonist alone.     

Brimonidine and timolol fixed-combination therapy versus monotherapy: a 3-month randomized trial in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)- lowering efficacy of a fixed combination of brimonidine 0.2% and timolol 0.5% (fixed brimonidine/ timolol) versus each drug used as monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive fixed brimonidine/timolol BID (n = 385), brimonidine 0.2% TID (n = 382), or timolol 0.5% BID (n = 392) in a multicenter, double-masked study. The primary outcome measure was decrease from baseline IOP. RESULTS: Over all follow-up measurements, the mean decrease from baseline IOP ranged from 4.9 to 7.6 mmHg with brimonidine/timolol, from 3.1 to 5.5 mmHg with brimonidine, and from 4.3 to 6.2 mmHg with timolol. Mean IOP reductions from baseline were significantly larger with fixed brimonidine/timolol than with timolol at all follow-up measurements (P < or = 0.026); the difference was greater than 1.5 mmHg at 10 AM (peak effect for each treatment). Mean IOP reductions from baseline were significantly larger with fixed brimonidine/ timolol than with brimonidine at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 3 PM (P < 0.001); the difference was greater than 1.5 mmHg. The rate of discontinuations owing to adverse events was 3.6% in the fixed timolol/brimonidine group. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of brimonidine and timolol was well-tolerated and provided significantly better IOP control compared with either brimonidine or timolol used alone.     

A case of steroid-induced glaucoma after radial keratotomy

Background: We report a patient who was diagnosed as having steroid-induced glaucoma after radial keratotomy (RK) and who suffered from severe visual field defect.Case: A 29-year-old man underwent RK for both eyes. After the operation, he was treated for six months with topical medication including 0.1% and 0.01% betamethasone without an intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. When he consulted an ophthalmologist, his IOP was 43 mmHg in the right eye and 51 mmHg in the left eye. At our initial examination, his IOP was 8 mmHg in the right eye and 10 mmHg in the left eye. He was taking 750 mg acetazolamide peroral, 0.5% timolol maleate, and latanoprost eyedrops. There were 16 RK incisions on the cornea and we found severe glaucomatous visual field loss. Finally we performed trabeculotomy in both eyes for IOP control with conservative therapy.Conclusion: As keratorefractive surgery becomes popular, we must be alert for problems, such as steroid-induced glaucoma, and the change in refraction following the change in IOP. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi     

A 3-month randomized controlled trial of bimatoprost (LUMIGAN) versus combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical bimatoprost (LUMIGAN; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) once daily with that of topical combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt; Merck and Co, Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension and inadequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP) after at least 2 weeks of topical timolol maleate 0.5% monotherapy. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive bimatoprost 0.03% once daily (n = 90) or combined timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2% twice daily (n = 87) over a 3-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure, the primary end point, was measured at 8 AM and 10 AM at baseline, week 1, and months 1, 2, and 3, and also at 4 PM and 8 PM at baseline and month 3. RESULTS: Bimatoprost provided significantly greater IOP lowering compared with combined timolol and dorzolamide. At the 8 AM measurements, bimatoprost lowered mean IOP 6.8 mmHg to 7.6 mmHg from baseline, whereas combined timolol and dorzolamide lowered mean IOP 4.4 to 5.0 mmHg from baseline (P<0.001). At the last follow-up, patients had better diurnal IOP control with bimatoprost than combined timolol and dorzolamide. At 8 AM at the 3-month visit, the percentages of patients achieving IOPs of 相似文献   

Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of latanoprost monotherapy versus latanoprost or pilocarpine in combination with timolol: a randomized, observer-masked multicenter study in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Italian Latanoprost Study Group

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) after adding either latanoprost or pilocarpine to timolol treatment or switching to latanoprost monotherapy in glaucomatous eyes in which IOP was inadequately controlled with timolol. METHODS: This 6-month randomized study comprised 148 patients with primary open-angle or pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, which was inadequately controlled with topical beta-adrenergic antagonists. After a 2- to 4-week run-in period with timolol 0.5% twice daily, patients were assigned in randomized fashion to three study groups: one group received add-on therapy of latanoprost 0.005% once daily, the second group received add-on therapy of pilocarpine 2% three times daily, and the third group switched to latanoprost 0.005% once daily. Mean diurnal IOP was measured at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: At 6 months, 128 patients had completed the study. Diurnal IOP was significantly reduced from baseline in all groups. Adding latanoprost to timolol treatment reduced diurnal IOP by 6.1+/-0.3 mmHg (-28%), adding pilocarpine to timolol treatment reduced diurnal IOP by 4.2+/-0.3 mmHg (-19%), and switching from timolol to latanoprost monotherapy reduced diurnal IOP by 5.5+/-0.3 mmHg (-25%). CONCLUSION: A significantly greater reduction in diurnal IOP was achieved after addition of latanoprost than after addition of pilocarpine in patients in whom IOP was not adequately controlled with timolol alone. Further, the results of this study indicate that a switch to latanoprost monotherapy can be attempted before combination treatment is initiated.     

A long-term clinical trial of timolol therapy versus no treatment in the management of glaucoma suspects

One hundred seven patients with intraocular pressures (IOPs) between 22 and 28 mmHg with normal visual fields on Goldmann perimetry and without evidence of optic nerve damage were randomly assigned to either a timolol treatment (TT) or a no treatment (NT) arm in a prospective clinical trial. The patients were followed for an average of 56 and 51 months, respectively. Criteria for failure were a confirmed IOP of greater than 32 mmHg, stereophotographically documented optic nerve progression, or development of glaucomatous visual field loss by Goldmann or Octopus perimetry. Nine patients failed in the TT group and 17 in the NT group (P = 0.07). Of the nine TT group failures, six had discontinued timolol before failure (4 for greater than 6 months). In a Cox proportional hazards analysis controlling for confounding variables, timolol was found to be significantly protective with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval = 0.16-0.89, P = 0.03). When only field and disc failure criteria were considered, timolol treatment was found to be significantly protective in an analysis considering patients who stopped timolol as being lost to follow-up (P = 0.05). A higher tonographic facility of outflow was protective in all analyses. A trend toward a substantial loss of effectiveness of timolol on IOP was not observed. Seasonal fluctuations in IOP were observed (P = 0.0007), with higher IOP occurring in the winter. The results demonstrate a favorable influence of timolol therapy on the clinical course of patients with mildly elevated IOP.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Success criteria and success rates in trabeculectomy with and without intraoperative antimetabolites using intensified postoperative care (IPC)

Purpose: To define the success rate of trabeculectomy for surgical treatment of glaucoma under intensified postoperative care (IPC) conditions in cases of severe visual field damage or progression of visual field loss. Methods: In a retrospective study, we evaluated the outcome of trabeculectomy in 99 eyes of 99 patients from October 1995 to June 1997. In 23 eyes, antimetabolites were used intraoperatively. Regarding intraocular pressure (IOP), success was defined as lowering the preoperative, maximally treated IOP by more than 20% in addition to a postoperative IOP level lower than 21 mmHg without using further glaucoma medication. Success rate was defined by stabilisation of visual acuity and visual field in addition to IOP reduction. Results: The postoperative IOP was 14.7 mmHg (±3.4 mmHg) following standard trabeculectomy (preoperative IOP 24.3±6.7 mmHg) and 15.8 mmHg (±4.9 mmHg) following trabeculec-tomy with intraoperative anti- metabolites (preoperative IOP 27.0±9.5 mmHg). The success rate concerning the IOP was 83% in standard trabeculectomy and 74% following trabeculectomy with intraoperative antimetabolites. The visual acuity showed stabilisation in 93% of cases following standard trabeculectomy and in 100% following trabeculectomy with intraoperative antimetabolites. The visual field showed stabilisation according to the Aulhorn criteria in 95% and 94% of cases following standard trabeculectomy and trabeculectomy with intraoperative antimetabolites, respectively. The total success rate using all criteria together was 76% following standard trabeculectomy and 74% following trabeculectomy with intraoperative antimetabolites. Conclusion: The overall outcome after trabeculectomy is good with appropriate follow-up and timely decisions for after- treatment to ensure good development of the filtering bleb. Received: 24 June 1999 Revised: 6 January 2000 Accepted: 18 January 2000     

Timolol 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination versus timolol 0.5%/pilocarpine 2% fixed combination in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients

PURPOSE: To establish the efficacy and safety of timolol maleate/dorzolamide fixed combination (TDFC) versus timolol maleate/pilocarpine fixed combination (TPFC), each given twice daily, in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentred, double-masked trial, 37 patients were treated twice daily with timolol for 4 weeks. They were then randomized to one of the treatment medications for 6 weeks, after which they were treated with timolol again for 2 weeks before being placed on the opposite treatment medication for 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients completed the trial. Their mean baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) was 22.3 +/- 3.7 mmHg. Following 6 weeks of treatment, the mean trough (08.00 hours) IOP was 18.0 +/- 2.2 mmHg for TDFC and 17.4 +/- 2.0 mmHg for TPFC (p = 0.22). The mean diurnal curve IOP was 18.1 +/- 2.2 mmHg for TDFC and 16.7 +/- 1.9 mmHg for TPFC (p = 0.0007). At the remaining time-points (10.00, 18.00 and 20.00 hours), TPFC IOPs were statistically lower than TDFC IOPs (p < 0.03). There were statistically more unsolicited reports of vision change and ocular pain associated with TPFC (p = 0.04). Six patients were discontinued early from TPFC therapy (17%) versus two from TDFC (6%) (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that TPFC can provide at least a similar efficacious reduction in IOP as TDFC in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.