Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP : a 3-month clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% instilled once daily or twice daily with timolol 0.5% twice daily. DESIGN: Multicenter, 3-month, randomized, double-masked, interventional comparison trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients diagnosed with ocular hypertension or glaucoma (n = 596). INTERVENTION: Patients received bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution once daily (8 PM, with vehicle control at 8 AM), bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM), or timolol 0.5% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM) in an uneven 2:2:1 randomization. Scheduled visits were at prestudy, baseline (day 0), weeks 2 and 6, and month 3. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 8 AM (predose), 10 AM, and 4 PM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was reduction in IOP in the eye with higher IOP at baseline. Secondary outcome measures included safety variables (adverse events, ophthalmoscopy, biomicroscopy, iris pigmentation, laser-flare meter, visual acuity, visual fields, heart rate, blood pressure, blood chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis). RESULTS: At month 3, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline at 8 AM was 9.16 mmHg (35.2%) with bimatoprost once daily, 7.78 mmHg (30.4%) with bimatoprost twice daily, and 6.74 mmHg (26.2%) with timolol twice daily. At all follow-up visits, mean IOP reductions were significantly greater in the bimatoprost once daily group than in the timolol group at each time point (8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM; P < 0.001). Twice-daily dosing of bimatoprost also provided significantly greater mean reductions in IOP than timolol at most time points but was not as effective as once-daily dosing. Bimatoprost was associated with significantly more hyperemia and eyelash growth than timolol, whereas timolol was associated with significantly more burning and stinging sensation in eyes. Overall, bimatoprost was well tolerated with few discontinuations because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily was safe and statistically superior to timolol 0.5% twice daily in lowering IOP in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Bimatoprost given once daily consistently provided IOP reductions approximately 2 to 3 mmHg greater than those provided by timolol. Once-daily dosing of bimatoprost, 0.03%, demonstrated greater IOP-lowering effect and better ocular tolerability than twice-daily dosing.     

A randomised,double masked,multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. RESULTS: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4%); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2%); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7%). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.     

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   

Comparative evaluation of bimatoprost monotherapy in primary chronic angle closure and primary open angle glaucoma eyes: a three-year study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% monotherapy in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) versus primary chronic angle closure glaucoma (PCACG) eyes. METHODS: A total of 55 consecutive primary adult glaucoma patients on bimatoprost monotherapy were prospectively evaluated in this 3-year, open-labeled, uncontrolled study. The primary outcome was the evaluation of a difference in the response to therapy of POAG eyes, as compared to PCACG eyes over a follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: In the POAG group, the mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at the 36-month followup was found to be increased by 2.10 (+/-3.90) mmHg (confidence interval [CI], 0.975-4.185), compared to the mean IOP at 1 month (P = 0.047). In the PCACG group, the mean IOP at the 36-month follow-up was increased by 3.66) (+/- 3.34) mmHg (CI, 6.241-1.092), compared to the mean IOP at 1 month (P = 0.011). This upward drift in IOP was higher in the PCACG group, compared to the POAG group, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.54). Patients with POAG and PCACG showed a 50% and 40% chance of having an IOP of <18 mmHg with bimatoprost monotherapy (P = 0.23), respectively, at the 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that bimatoprost 0.03% monotherapy significantly lowers IOP in both POAG and PCACG eyes over a period of 3 years, though its efficacy appeared to decrease over time, to a similar extent, in both groups.     

Comparison of the ocular hypotensive effects of bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 6-month study

PURPOSE: To compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of topical bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension during 6 months of treatment. METHODS: A sample of 65 patients with a diagnosis of POAG or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive either bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or timolol-dorzolamide combination twice daily. Study visits occurred at baseline and after 2 weeks and 1, 3 and 6 months of therapy. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were performed at 12.00 hours at all study visits and also at 08.00 hours and 16.00 hours at baseline and 6-month visits. At each visit, local and systemic side-effects that occurred during the treatment period were recorded. Student's t-test was used to compare the differences between IOP values. RESULTS: Differences in IOP between the bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide groups were statistically insignificant at all study visits (p > 0.05). In the bimatoprost-treated group, the IOP reduction was 6.2 +/- 1.8 mmHg, whereas it was 6.5 +/- 2.3 mmHg in the timolol-dorzolamide group after 6 months of treatment. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The IOP-lowering efficacies of bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination were similar over a 6-month follow-up. Both bimatoprost and the timolol-dorzolamide combination were well tolerated. Bimatoprost can be used as a longterm monotherapy agent in the treatment of POAG and ocular hypertension.     

Efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03 percent in untreated glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients: results from a large community-based clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure- (IOP-) lowering efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan, Allergan, Inc.) monotherapy in the treatment of patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension not currently using ocular hypotensives. METHODS: Open-label, community-based, multicenter evaluation. Patients (n = 6767) who, according to their physicians, required IOP lowering were prescribed bimatoprost for 2 months. Subgroup analyses of the results, stratified by treatment history and use of concomitant medications, were performed. This report focuses on the subgroup of patients that was not being treated with antiglaucoma medications at baseline (n = 1946, 29%). All of these patients were placed on bimatoprost monotherapy. RESULTS: The mean IOP at the untreated baseline was 23.8 mmHg. Bimatoprost provided a mean IOP reduction of 7.5 mmHg (30%, p < 0.001) from baseline after 2 months of monotherapy. Further, bimatoprost allowed patients to achieve low target pressures. For example, 41.5% of patients achieved target IOPs of < or =15 mmHg after 2 months of bimatoprost monotherapy, and 75.8% of patients reached IOPs of < or =18 mmHg. The most commonly reported adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia (7.9%). CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost monotherapy was well tolerated and reduced IOP by an average of 30% in a large population of untreated patients.     

Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

The object of this study was to compare the long term efficacy and safety of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In a 12-month extension of two identically designed 1-year, multicenter, randomized, double-masked clinical trials, patients were treated topically with bimatoprost 0.03% QD (n=167), bimatoprost 0.03% BID (n=131), or timolol 0.5% BID (n=81). Main outcome measures were IOP at 8 am and 10 am and safety parameters. Bimatoprost QD provided significantly greater mean reduction from baseline IOP than did timolol at both measurements at each study visit (P< or =.001). At 10 am (peak timolol effect) at month 24, the mean reduction from baseline IOP was 7.8 mm Hg with bimatoprost QD and 4.6 mm Hg with timolol (P<.001). Patients treated with bimatoprost QD also sustained significantly lower mean IOP than timolol-treated patients at every follow-up visit throughout the 2-year study period (P< or =.006). At 10 am at month 24, a significantly greater proportion of bimatoprost QD than timolol patients achieved target pressures of < or =13-18 mm Hg (P< or =.010). Bimatoprost sustained an excellent safety profile during the second year of treatment. Most adverse events were mild, and there were no reports of increased iris pigmentation, uveitis, or CME. The incidence of hyperemia was significantly higher with bimatoprost QD (13.8%) than with timolol (2.5%) (P=.006). Mean reduction from baseline IOP with bimatoprost BID was not significantly different from that with timolol at month 24 at 10 am (P=.474). We conclude that bimatoprost QD provides superior IOP lowering to timolol, and is safe and well tolerated over 24 months of treatment.     

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.     

Additivity of pilocarpine to bimatoprost in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma

PURPOSE: To determine if the intraocular pressure (IOP) effect of pilocarpine at various concentrations is additive to that of bimatoprost and to assess the tolerability of this combination. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective trial of patients with IOP > 21 mm Hg following appropriate medication washout. For all visits IOP was measured at 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM. Following baseline visit (#1), bimatoprost 0.03% was instilled qhs OU through visit 6. Following visits 2, 3, and 4 pilocarpine (2%, 4%, 6%) was instilled qid in one randomly selected eye. Pilocarpine was discontinued after visit 5 and bimatoprost after visit 6. Two-tailed, paired t test was used to compare treated and contralateral eyes for their IOP, IOP change, percentage IOP change from baseline, and to compare IOP in the same eye at 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM (before and after pilocarpine administration). IOPs using bimatoprost alone or in combination with various pilocarpine concentrations were compared using single variant Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled and 13 patients completed the study. Bimatoprost reduced IOP 28.7% to 30.5% (P < 0.0001) from baseline to visit 2. IOPs in eyes treated with bimatoprost alone or with bimatoprost and various pilocarpine concentrations were similar (P > 0.81, ANOVA). The IOP (P > 0.17) and percentage IOP change from baseline (P > 0.10) was similar in treated and contralateral eyes with all three strengths of pilocarpine. IOP values at 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM, before and after pilocarpine administration, were similar (P > 0.22). CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost alone reduces IOP substantially. Pilocarpine added to bimatoprost at concentrations of 2%, 4%, or 6% was neither additive nor antagonistic to the ocular hypotensive efficacy of bimatoprost.     

Combined therapy of pilocarpine or latanoprost with timolol versus latanoprost monotherapy

Adjunctive intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering therapy is widely used today, as one-third of all patients being treated for glaucoma need additional therapy to reach and maintain healthy IOPs. Timolol, latanoprost, and pilocarpine are three potent drugs that have been used in combination to reduce IOP. Timolol reduces the production rate of aqueous humor to achieve the IOP decrease. Latanoprost and pilocarpine both affect aqueous outflow, although by different mechanisms. The IOP efficacy of combined therapy with timolol and pilocarpine compared with timolol and latanoprost or with latanoprost alone has been investigated in three multicenter, randomized, clinical trials in Europe. This is a review of those published trials. In 2 of the 3 studies, the additional IOP lowering effect of latanoprost 0.005% administered once daily was compared with pilocarpine 2% administered 3 times daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension currently on monotherapy with timolol 0.5% twice daily. These 6-month studies found that the timolol and latanoprost combination reduced IOP more and was better tolerated with fewer side-effects than the timolol and pilocarpine combination. At 6 months, there was no evidence of long-term drift in IOP with timolol and latanoprost. This combined therapy provides an effective and safe option for lowering IOP in glaucoma patients. These results suggest that the timolol/latanoprost combination is preferable to the timolol/pilocarpine combination not only with regard to side effects but also to the magnitude of IOP reduction. Two of the 3 studies compared latanoprost monotherapy with timolol and pilocarpine combined therapy in patients with POAG, various other glaucomas, or ocular hypertension. Treatment was for 6 weeks or 6 months. In both studies, latanoprost was more effective and better tolerated than the combination of timolol and pilocarpine. These results suggest that latanoprost alone should be tried before the addition of pilocarpine to timolol therapy is considered. The convenience of daily administration of a single drop of latanoprost versus multiple drops of timolol and pilocarpine should improve patient compliance.     

Effect of different dose schedules of bimatoprost on intraocular pressure and pupil size in the glaucomatous Beagle.

The changes in intraocular pressure and pupil size in glaucomatous dogs were evaluated after instillations of 0.03% bimatoprost (Lumigan, Allergan, Irvine, CA USA) once in the morning, or once in the evening, or twice daily in five day multiple dose studies. Applanation tonometry (IOP) and pupil size (PS) measurements were obtained at 8 am, 10 am, 12 noon, 2 pm, and 4 pm in 8 glaucoma dogs. Methylcellulose (0.5% as placebo) was instilled in the control eye, and 0.03% bimatoprost was instilled in the opposite drug eye. Methylcellulose (0.5%) and 0.03% bimatoprost were instilled the second through the fifth days with instillations in the morning (8:30 am), or evening (8 pm), or twice daily (8:30 am and 8 pm). The mean +/- SEM diurnal changes in IOP from baseline values after 0.03% bimatoprost at 8 am once daily for the next four days were 25.0 +/- 3.2 mm Hg, 25.6 +/- 2.9 mm Hg, 25.5 +/- 3.0 mm Hg, and 26.0 +/- 3.2 mm Hg respectively, and were significantly different from the control eye. After bimatoprost was instilled at 8 pm, the mean +/- SEM changes in IOP from baseline values in the drug eyes were 27.3 +/- 2.4 mm Hg, 26.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, 27.2 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, and 27.3 +/- 2.6 mm Hg respectively. When 0.03% bimatoprost was instilled twice daily, the mean +/- SEM changes in IOP from baseline values were 39.1 +/- 2.3 mm Hg, 39.9 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, 39.9 +/- 2.3 mm Hg, and 39.6 +/- 2.1 mm Hg respectively, and were significantly different from the control eyes. Miosis of varying duration was frequent during the three studies. Bimatoprost instilled once daily (am or pm) as well as twice daily produces significant decreases in IOP and PS in the glaucomatous Beagle.     

Daily cost of glaucoma medications in China

PURPOSE: To determine and compare the daily cost of various glaucoma medications in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The majority of glaucoma medications commercially available in China were included in this research. The total number of drops in 1 bottle of each medication was counted drop by drop. The mean volume per bottle of each medication was calculated. The cost per drop, number of days for both eyes usage per bottle, and daily cost was calculated. RESULTS: (1) The volume per drop ranged from 0.03 mL (brinzolamide 1%, travoprost 0.004%, bimatoprost 0.03%, and latanoprost 0.005%) to 0.05 mL (timolol 0.5%-Chengrui and pilocarpine 0.5% and 2%-Zhenrui). (2) The cost per bottle ranged from $0.69 (US dollar) (timolol 0.5%-Malaisuan Saimaluo'er) to $40.78 (latanoprost 0.005%). (3) The number of days for both eyes usage per bottle ranged from 52 days (bimatoprost 0.03%) to 11 days (pilocarpine nitrate 0.5%-Zhenrui). (4) The daily cost for both eyes usage from expensive to cheap were latanoprost 0.005%-$0.91, travoprost 0.004%-$0.77, brimonidine 0.2%-$0.61, bimatoprost 0.03%-$0.46, D-timolol 1%-$0.36, brinzolamide 1%-$0.34, pilocarpine 2%-Zhenrui-$0.28, levobunolol 0.5%-$0.25, betaxolol 0.25%-$0.24, pilocarpine 0.5%-Zhenrui-$0.18, pilocarpine 2%-Huming-$0.16, carteolol 1%-Mikelan-$0.15, carteolol 2%-Mikelan-$0.15, pilocarpine 1%-Huming-$0.10, timolol 0.5%-Chengrui-$0.08, timolol 0.5%-Malaisuan Saimaluo'er-$0.03. CONCLUSIONS: The daily cost of glaucoma medications in China ranged much more wildly than developed countries. These data may be useful in selecting medications for glaucoma therapy. The ophthalmic solution of prostaglandins is powerful in reducing intraocular pressure. However, its high price should be considered when selecting glaucoma medications in China.     

Effects of bimatoprost 0.03% on ocular hemodynamics in normal tension glaucoma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of bimatoprost 0.03% on ocular hemodynamics in patients with normal tension glaucoma (NTG). METHODS: Twenty-two (22) patients with NTG were consecutively recruited. After basic eye examination and diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, color Doppler imaging was used to measure the peak systolic and end diastolic velocities and resistive index of the central retinal, lateral posterior ciliary, and medial posterior ciliary arteries. Patients received bimatoprost 0.03% for 4 weeks, and these measurements were then repeated. The worse eye of each NTG patient was used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Bimatoprost 0.03% significantly reduced mean IOP from 15.1 +/- 3.8 mmHg at baseline to 12.0 +/- 2.9 mmHg after treatment in our sample of NTG patients (P < 0.001). No significant changes in blood velocities or resistance indices were observed in the retrobulbar vessels after the 4-week treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost 0.03% significantly reduced IOP in our NTG patients without causing significant hemodynamic changes in the retrobulbar vessels.     

Effect of bimatoprost on patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are nonresponders to latanoprost

PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% 2D for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients affected by primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who did not respond to treatment with latanoprost 0.005% 2D. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial with a cross over design (two 30-day treatment phases with a 30-day washout phase in between). PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled. Random allocation to treatment to a single eye only of every subject. Eligibility criteria: (1) IOP > 22 mmHg in both eyes on current treatment (on three separate readings > 24 hours apart), (2) angle wide open in both eyes, (3) no pseudoexfoliation and/or pigment dispersion in either eye, (4) documented medical history consistent with < 10% IOP decrease in both eyes on 2-month treatment with latanoprost 0.005% every day. METHOD: The following variables were measured at each study visit: (1) IOP (Goldmann applanation tonometry, 5 readings, 8 AM, 12 noon, 4 PM, 8 PM, and 12 midnight); (2) visual acuity (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution); (3) estimate of conjunctival hyperemia based on 5 standard photographs (graded as "none," "trace," "mild," "moderate," and "severe"). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: IOP. RESULTS: IOP data (mean and standard deviation) were the following: baseline = 24.7 +/- 0.9 mmHg, after washout = 24.8 +/- 1.1 mmHg, after latanoprost phase = 24.1 +/- 0.9 mmHg, after bimatoprost phase = 18.1 +/- 1.7 mmHg. IOP on bimatoprost proved lower than both baseline (P < 0.0001) and latanoprost (P = 0.0001). Thirteen of 15 patients showed a > or =20% IOP decrease with bimatoprost treatment. None of the 15 patients showed a > or =20% decrease of IOP after 30 days of latanoprost treatment. No significant IOP changes were observed in the fellow untreated eye in each patient throughout the study. Trace-to-mild conjunctival hyperemia was recorded more often with bimatoprost phase (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen of 15 patients, who were nonresponders to latanoprost, 0.005%, 2D, were successfully treated with bimatoprost, 0.03%, 2D. Bimatoprost treatment was associated with a higher incidence of trace-to-mild conjunctival hyperemia than latanoprost.     

Comparison of the intraocular pressure lowering effect of latanoprost and carteolol-pilocarpine combination in newly diagnosed glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of latanoprost monotherapy versus combined carteolol and pilocarpine therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glaucoma. METHODS: Masked randomized prospective trial. This study included 51 patients (64 eyes) with newly diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The cases were randomly divided into two treatment groups for administration of latanoprost 0.005% once daily, or of carteolol 2% twice daily and pilocarpine 2% twice daily. Mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at baseline, week 2, week 4, and month 3 after the beginning of treatment. Changes in mean IOP from baseline to the 3-month visit were determined by an analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mean diurnal IOP values were 25.1 +/- 3.1 mm Hg and 25.5 +/- 2.5 mm Hg at baseline in the latanoprost monotherapy group and in the carteolol-plus-pilocarpine group, respectively. Diurnal IOP was significantly decreased from baseline to 3 months in both groups (P <.001). At this time point, latanoprost monotherapy had reduced mean diurnal IOP by 7.2 +/- 2.5 mm Hg (28.7%) and carteolol plus pilocarpine had reduced mean diurnal IOP by 7.4 +/- 2.7 mm Hg (29%). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their IOP reduction effect (P =.51). Decreased visual acuity and twilight vision, blurred vision, and headache were more frequent in the carteolol-plus-pilocarpine group than in the latanoprost group (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that latanoprost monotherapy was at least as effective as the carteolol-pilocarpine combination therapy in reducing mean diurnal IOP in newly diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension.     

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.     

2%美开朗与0.5%噻吗心安滴眼液治疗开角型青光眼与高眼压症的临床对照研究

目的以噻吗心安滴眼液作对照,在原发性开角型青光眼和高眼压症患者中评价美开朗滴眼液的降眼压、内在拟交感活性作用。方法选择开角型青光眼和高眼压症患者50例50眼,随机分为美开朗组和噻吗心安组2组,各25例25眼。美开朗组滴用2%美开朗眼液,噻吗心安组滴用0.5%噻吗心安眼液,一日2次,共12周,比较两种滴眼液的降眼压作用及局部和全身副作用。结果两组患者用药后眼压均下降,与用药前相比均有显著性差异(P<0.01)。两组间眼压下降值无显著性差异(P>0.05)。用药12周,美开朗组心率平均降低3.6次,噻吗心安组心率平均降低6.5次,两者相比有显著性差异。结论美开朗滴眼液对开角型青光眼和高眼压症患者具有明显的降眼压作用,和噻吗心安滴眼液局部降眼压作用相同,但对心率的抑制作用比噻吗心安小。     

Comparing the Efficacy of Latanoprost (0.005%), Bimatoprost (0.03%), Travoprost (0.004%), and Timolol (0.5%) in the Treatment of Primary Open Angle Glaucoma

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost and timolol in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted at a tertiary-care centre. One hundred and forty patients with newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma were randomly assigned to treatment with latanoprost (0.005%), bimatoprost (0.03%), travoprost (0.004%) or timolol gel (0.5%); 35 patients were assigned to each group. All patients were followed for 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The main outcome measure studied was the change in IOP at week 12 from the baseline values. Safety measures included recording of adverse events.

Results

The mean IOP reduction from baseline at week 12 was significantly more with bimatoprost (8.8 mmHg, 35.9%) than with latanoprost (7.3 mmHg, 29.9%), travoprost (7.6 mmHg, 30.8%) or timolol (6.7 mmHg, 26.6%) (ANOVA and Student''s t-tests, p < 0.001). Among the prostaglandins studied, bimatoprost produced a maximum reduction in IOP (-2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.25 to -3.18) followed by travoprost (-1.27; 95% CI, -0.81 to -1.27) and latanoprost (-1.25; 95% CI, -0.79 to -1.71); these values were significant when compared to timolol at week 12 (Bonferroni test, p < 0.001). Latanoprost and travoprost were comparable in their ability to reduce IOP at each patient visit. Ocular adverse-events were found in almost equal proportion in patients treated with bimatoprost (41.3%) and travoprost (41.9%), with a higher incidence of conjunctival hyperemia (24.1%) seen in the bimatoprost group. Timolol produced a significant drop in heart rate (p < 0.001) at week 12 when compared to the baseline measurements.

Conclusions

Bimatoprost showed greater efficacy when compared to the other prostaglandins, and timolol was the most efficacious at lowering the IOP. Conjunctional hyperemia was mainly seen with bimatoprost. However, the drug was tolerated well and found to be safe.     

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.     

Ocular hemodynamics in normal tension glaucoma: effect of bimatoprost

BACKGROUND: Altered ocular perfusion plays a role in the pathophysiology of normal tension glaucoma. Prostaglandin-like substances are very effective in lowering intraocular pressure. Less data are available regarding the influence of these compounds on ocular perfusion. In the present study the effects of bimatoprost, which has recently been shown to increase the vascular tone of ciliary arteries in vitro, on the blood flow velocity are investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: n = 9 eyes from 9 normal tension glaucoma patients were subjected to color Doppler imaging (CDI) before and during a 3 - 5 week therapy with bimatoprost. RESULTS: Bimatoprost reduces intraocular pressure from 14.0 +/- 0.4 to 11.0 +/- 0.5 mmHg (n = 9; P < 0.001). Systolic as well as diastolic blood flow velocities, resistive index (RI) and pulsatility index (PI), measured by CDI, were unaltered in the presence of bimatoprost. DISCUSSION: Bimatoprost does not influence blood flow velocities in the retrobulbar vessels. The in vitro observation of increased vascular tone in the presence of bimatoprost seems not to be relevant for ocular hemodynamics.