Timolol maleate 0.5% versus timolol maleate in gel forming solution 0.5% (Timolol GFS) in open angle glaucoma in India. Preliminary safety and efficacy study

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of Timolol maleate 0.5% versus Timolol gel forming solution (GFS) 0.5% in open angle glaucoma in Indian eyes. METHODS: In a prospective crossover study 52 patients of open angle glaucoma, well controlled intraocular pressure (IOP) on 0.5% timolol maleate solution were switched over to timolol GFS once a day, after a washout period of one month. A diurnal IOP measurement was done after 6 weeks and compared with patients on timolol maleate 0.5% twice a day. In addition, side effects reported or observed were compared. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was not observed in ocular hypotensive effect of the two treatment. The side-effects in both the treatment groups were similar except for higher incidence of blurring of vision in patients on timolol GFS. The compliance was better with timolol GFS, but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the more convenient 0.5% timolol in gel forming solution can be offered as an equally efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to twice daily 0.5% timolol solution in open angle glaucoma.     

Latanoprost versus timolol gel-forming solution once daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost and timolol gel-forming solution (GFS). METHODS: This was a randomized, crossover, investigator-masked, active-control study of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Patients received either once-daily 0.5% timolol GFS (n=40) or once-daily 0.005% latanoprost (n=35) for 8 weeks (period 1). Patients were then crossed over to the other medication and treated for another 8 weeks (period 2). Intraocular pressure (IOP) was determined every 2 hours from 8:00 to 20:00 at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. Safety was assessed by visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and adverse event reports. RESULTS: During period 1, reduction in mean (SD) diurnal IOP was significantly greater in latanoprost-treated patients (-6.9 [3.0] mm Hg) than in timolol GFS-treated patients (-5.5 [2.4] mm Hg), p=0.034. There was also a significant reduction in IOP from baseline after switching from timolol GFS to latanoprost (p<0.001), not observed when patients were switched from latanoprost to timolol GFS. After results from each drug's treatment periods were combined between treatment arms, latanoprost reduced IOP more (-6.9 [2.9] mm Hg) than did timolol GFS (-6.2 [2.7] mm Hg), p=0.018. Hyperemia was the most common adverse event in both treatment groups, with 5 incidences in timolol GFS-treated patients, and 10 in latanoprost. INTERPRETATION: Latanoprost is more effective than timolol GFS in reducing IOP, and patients switched from timolol GFS to latanoprost have a further significant reduction in IOP.     

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.     

Adjunctive therapy with brinzolamide 1% ophthalmic suspension (Azopt) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension maintained on timolol therapy

This prospective, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of brinzolamide 1% ophthalmic suspension (Azopt) when used adjunctively with open-label timolol maleate 0.5% (Timoptic). One-hundred-thirty-two patients requiring an adjunctive therapy to timolol 0.5% for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive brinzolamide or placebo three times daily (t.i.d.) in addition to timolol 0.5% twice daily (b.i.d.) for 3 months. Qualifying intraocular pressure (IOP) on timolol 0.5% b.i.d. was 24-36 mm Hg in at least one eye at 8:00 A.M. and 21-36 mm Hg at 10:00 A.M., with no greater than a 5-mm Hg difference between eyes, during two eligibility visits separated by at least 7 days. Treatments were compared using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Adjunctive therapy with brinzolamide resulted in clinically and statistically significant reductions in IOP from the timolol baseline at all visits. IOP changes from a diurnal baseline ranged from -3.3 mm Hg to -4.1 mm Hg for brinzolamide (N = 53) compared with -0.9 mm Hg to -2.5 mm Hg for placebo (N = 55). Abnormal taste (7.7%) and transient blurred vision (6.2%) were the most frequently reported adverse events. No clinically significant differences in the incidence or severity of ocular signs, visual acuity, cup/disk ratio, or parameters studied on dilated fundus examination were observed between treatment groups. Brinzolamide 1% t.i.d., used adjunctively with timolol 0.5% b.i.d., is safe and well tolerated, and produces clinically and statistically significant additional IOP reductions.     

Efficacy and safety of once-daily levobunolol for glaucoma therapy

We studied the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of 0.5% levobunolol hydrochloride and 0.5% timolol maleate administered topically once daily for 3 months in 91 patients (46 in the levobunolol group and 45 in the timolol group) with primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In this randomized double-masked parallel clinical study, intraocular pressure (IOP) was successfully controlled in 78% of the patients who received levobunolol and 89% of those who received timolol. The overall mean decrease in IOP was 5.6 mm Hg (decrease of 23%) in the levobunolol group and 6.7 mm Hg (26%) in the timolol group, a nonsignificant difference. In both groups the overall mean IOP during treatment was significantly lower than the pretreatment value (p less than 0.001). For both treatment groups changes in heart rate and blood pressure were minimal. We conclude that both 0.5% levobunolol and 0.5% timolol administered once daily are effective and safe in lowering IOP in most patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.     

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.     

A three-month, multicenter, double-masked study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution compared to travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination to the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% (TRAVATAN) and timolol 0.5% in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel group study. Three hundred sixteen patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution fixed combination once daily in the morning or concomitant administration of timolol 0.5% once daily in the morning and travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution once daily in the evening. The efficacy and safety of the fixed combination were compared with concomitant therapy over three months. The primary efficacy outcome measure was mean intraocular pressure. RESULTS: Both travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination and the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% produced statistically significant reductions from baseline in IOP, with mean IOP ranging from 15.2 to 16.5 mm Hg in the patients using travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination compared with 14.7 to 16.1 mm Hg in the concomitant group. The upper 95.1% confidence limit for the differences in mean IOP (fixed combination minus concomitant) was < or =1.5 mm Hg at 7 of 9 visits, including all three 8 AM time points, 24-hours post-dose. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.4 to 9.4 mm Hg in the fixed combination group compared with 8.4 to 9.4 mm Hg with concomitant therapy. Safety analysis demonstrated equivalent safety between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed combination of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% produced clinically relevant IOP reductions in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension that were comparable to concomitant therapy with its components. Safety and tolerability of the fixed combination were also equivalent to concomitant therapy. Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination offers IOP reduction equivalent to concomitant therapy, with potential benefits that include convenience (fewer bottles and drops per day), improved compliance, cost savings (based on fewer co-payments), and elimination of potential washout effects.     

Long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% compared with Timoptic XE 0.5% in a 12-month study

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% (Timolol GFS 0.5%, Alcon Research Ltd, Fort Worth, Texas) compared with Timoptic XE 0.5% (Merck, Inc, West Point, Pennsylvania) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Two hundred forty-one patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, who had intraocular pressure between 22 and 36 mm Hg in at least one eye, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either Timolol GFS 0.5% once daily or Timoptic XE 0.5% once daily, in a 12-month randomized, multicenter, double-masked, prospective study. The primary efficacy variable was mean trough intraocular pressure measured at 8:00 AM, approximately 24 hours after dosing. RESULTS: The Timolol GFS 0.5% group produced significant trough intraocular pressure reductions from a baseline of 4.5 to 5.2 mm Hg (P =.0001), compared with reductions of 4.1 to 5. 3 mm Hg (P =.0001) in the Timoptic XE 0.5% group. The difference in mean intraocular pressure between the two treatments was 0.9 mm Hg or less, and the upper 95% confidence limit between groups was 0.92 mm Hg or less at all time points, demonstrating both clinical and statistical equivalence. A similar percentage of patients in the Timolol GFS 0.5% group (71%) and Timoptic XE group (72%) had clinically relevant reductions in intraocular pressure. There was no significant difference in the safety profiles of the two treatments. CONCLUSION: Both treatments were clinically effective in lowering intraocular pressure and maintaining the reductions over long-term use. Timolol GFS 0.5% is a safe and effective therapy for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and is both clinically and statistically equivalent to Timoptic XE 0.5% in reducing intraocular pressure.     

Treatment of intraocular pressure elevation after photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE: To study the effect of timolol maleate, dorzolamide, or a combination of both in post photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eyes with an elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) after topical steroid administration. SETTING: Refractive Surgery Outpatient Department, 1st Department of Ophthalmology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. METHODS: Forty-five patients with elevated IOP were randomly enrolled in 3 groups: Group 1 received timolol maleate 0.5% twice a day; Group 2 received timolol maleate 0.5% twice a day and dorzolamide 2% 3 times a day; and Group 3 received only topical dorzolamide 2% 3 times a day. Intraocular pressure was measured 3 days and 1, 3, and 6 weeks after the antiglaucoma medication was started. RESULTS: The mean preoperative IOP was 15.25 mm Hg +/- 1.28 (SD). Following administration of topical fluorometholone, the IOP increased a mean of 27.39 +/- 2.88 mm Hg. Six weeks after the antiglaucoma therapy was started, the mean IOP reduction was 6.6 mm Hg in Group 1, 8.86 mm Hg in Group 2, and 4.64 mm Hg in Group 3. CONCLUSIONS: A combination therapy of timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2% was most effective in treating secondary IOP elevation after PRK. Dorzolamide alone did not adequately control secondary post-PRK IOP elevation.     

A comparison of the ocular hypotensive efficacy of twice-daily 0.25% levobunolol to 0.5% timolol in patients previously treated with 0.5% timolol

Treatment with noncardioselective beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (e.g., 0.5% timolol or 0.5% levobunolol) is standard practice for lowering elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). However, because there are risks and side effects associated with the use of these agents, a lower, yet still effective, dose may be preferred. We gave 0.5% timolol twice daily for 30 days to 143 patients. In a double-masked, randomized fashion, we then assigned patients to continue to receive 0.5% timolol twice daily or 0.25% levobunolol twice daily for 8 weeks. The mean unmedicated baseline IOP for both groups was approximately 25 mm Hg. After 30 days of timolol pretreatment, the mean IOP in both groups decreased to approximately 19 mm Hg (p = 0.210). After the 30-day timolol pretreatment period, and subsequent randomization to either 0.5% timolol or 0.25% levobunolol treatment, there was little change in overall mean IOP (0.03 mm Hg decrease for levobunolol, 0.06 mm Hg increase for timolol; p = 0.811) from the timolol pretreatment baseline. One patient assigned to the timolol treatment group was terminated from the study due to inadequate control of IOP. We conclude that the mean IOP lowering effect of 0.25% levobunolol is equivalent to 0.5% timolol, and switching patients from twice-daily 0.5% timolol to twice-daily 0.25% levobunolol poses no significant risk of decreased ocular hypotensive efficacy.     

A double-masked randomized comparison of the efficacy and safety of unoprostone with timolol and betaxolol in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma including pseudoexfoliation glaucoma or ocular hypertension. 6 month data.

PURPOSE: A long-term comparison of the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of unoprostone isopropyl 0.15% twice daily with that of timolol maleate 0.5% twice daily and betaxolol HCl 0.5% twice daily.DESIGN: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active-controlled 24-month clinical trial involving 27 centers in Europe and Israel. METHODS:The study population was composed of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (including pseudoexfoliation) or ocular hypertension. After washout of antiglaucoma medications, intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 0, + 2, + 8, and + 12 hours. Patients were randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to unoprostone, timolol, or betaxolol. Patients returned for examinations at 2 and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: 556 patients were randomized. Each drug produced a clinically and statistically (P <.001) significant reduction from baseline in 12-hour diurnal IOP at month 6 (- 4.3 mm Hg, unoprostone; - 5.8 mm Hg, timolol; - 4.9 mm Hg, betaxolol). Differences in adjusted treatment means between unoprostone and timolol and unoprostone and betaxolol were 1.57 mm Hg (95% CI: 1.00, 2.13) and 0.53 mm Hg (95% CI: - 0.03, 1.09), respectively. Unoprostone was clinically equivalent to betaxolol but did not have as great an IOP-lowering effect as timolol. Discontinued for inadequate control of IOP were 7%, 1%, and 4% of the patients for unoprostone, timolol, and betaxolol, respectively. There were no changes of note in visual acuity, pupil size, cup-to-disk ratio, visual fields, or iris color. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure were small, with no clinically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Unoprostone provided a clinically significant IOP-lowering effect equivalent to betaxolol but not to timolol. The side effect profile of unoprostone appears to be comparable to other established IOP-lowering agents.     

Additive effect of latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2 alpha analogue, and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure.

A randomised observer masked clinical study was conducted to assess the additive effect of latanoprost (13,14-dihydro-17-phenyl-18,19,20-trinorprostaglandin F2 alpha-isopropylester) to timolol maleate in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). Patients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups. One group (n = 10) received timolol, the other group (n = 9) received latanoprost twice daily for 1 week. After 1 week all patients received both timolol and latanoprost. Eyes treated with timolol (mean diurnal IOP (SD) day 0, 24.2 (2.8) mm Hg) and latanoprost (mean diurnal IOP day 0, 28.5 (5.6) mm Hg) showed an IOP reduction of 5.9 (2.3) mm Hg (24%) and 8.9 (2.5) mm Hg (31%), respectively after the first week. Adding latanoprost to the eyes treated with timolol as well as timolol to the eyes receiving latanoprost gave a further reduction of 2.6 (1.1) mm Hg (13%) and 2.6 (2.2) mm Hg (14%), respectively. Only mild transient hyperaemia was observed in patients receiving latanoprost. The results indicate that latanoprost and timolol can be combined successfully and that complete or almost complete additivity is reached even at pressure levels below 20 mm Hg.     

Tolerability and efficacy of dorzolamide versus acetazolamide added to timolol.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of dorzolamide versus acetazolamide when added to once daily 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gel forming solution (timolol gel). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, active-controlled, parallel group study of 215 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Following a two-week treatment period with timolol gel, patients with IOP > or = 22 mm Hg and who tolerated one week of acetazolamide 250-mg q.i.d. either were randomized to acetazolamide or dorzolamide 2% three times daily for 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 155 randomized patients (dorzolamide, N = 80, acetazolamide, N = 75), compared to the dorzolamide, acetazolamide had a statistically greater number of systemic adverse events (dorzolamide 50%, acetazolamide 75%, p = 0.001), adverse events associated with carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI) therapy (dorzolamide 26%, acetazolamide 53%, p < 0.001) and discontinuations due to CAI adverse experiences (dorzolamide 8%, acetazolamide 24%, p = 0.007). Intent to treat analysis found that changes from baseline in IOP were similar at both troughs (dorzolamide 1.4 +/- 0.46 mm Hg, acetazolamide 0.8 +/- 0.47 mm Hg, p = 0.386). However, per-protocol analysis found statistically improved pressure control with acetazolamide (0.1 +/- 0.42 mm Hg) compared to dorzolamide (1.9 +/- 0.43 mm Hg) (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a greater incidence of systemic and CAI adverse experiences and discontinuations due to acetazolamide compared to dorzolamide.     

Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution once daily for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% every day in the morning with a concomitant regimen of timolol 0.5% every day in the morning, plus travoprost 0.004% every day in the evening; and timolol 0.5% twice daily on the intraocular pressure (IOP) of subjects with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension over 3 months. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicenter trial. METHODS: Patients comprised adult subjects (n = 403) of either gender with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in at least one eye. To qualify, the IOP had to be between 22 to 36 mm Hg in the same eye at two consecutive eligibility visits. The primary outcome variable was IOP measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer. RESULTS: Mean IOP ranged from 16.2 to 17.4 mm Hg with the combination travoprost/timolol compared with 15.4 to 16.8 mm Hg in the concomitant travoprost + timolol group, from baselines of 23.1 to 25.6 mm Hg and 22.9 to 25.0 mm Hg, respectively. The fixed combination of travoprost/timolol significantly lowered IOP by 7 to 9 mm, similar to the IOP reductions observed with concomitant therapy. The most frequent ocular adverse event was hyperemia that occurred in 14.3% and 23.4% of subjects treated with travoprost/timolol combination and concomitant travoprost + timolol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost/timolol combination produces greater IOP reductions than the positive control, timolol 0.5%, and reductions that were similar to concomitant travoprost + timolol. This study demonstrates that the fixed combination of travoprost/timolol produces significant and clinically relevant reductions of IOP in a once-daily dosing regimen.     

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability between two gel-forming timolol maleate ophthalmic solutions in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To compare two gel-forming timolol maleate ophthalmic solutions, Timoptol XE and Lizmon TG, in regard to efficacy and tolerability in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension by means of a patient-masked prospective randomized crossover study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension under treatment with antiglaucoma ophthalmic solutions including 0.5% twice-daily timolol maleate participated in this study. Only timolol maleate was withdrawn and either Timoptol XE or Lizmon TG was randomly allocated. After instillation for 1 month, the other ophthalmic solution was subsequently instilled for another month. Routine ophthalmic examination including slit-lamp examination and intraocular pressure (IOP) monitoring was conducted before instillation of gel-forming ophthalmic solutions and just after completing the instillation of each ophthalmic solution. Patient questionnaire surveys were also performed just after completing the instillation of each ophthalmic solution. RESULTS: Mean IOP, just before the withdrawal of timolol ophthalmic solution, was 16.4 +/- 2.9 mm Hg. At the end of Timoptol XE or Lizmon TG instillation, mean IOPs were 16.3 +/- 2.5 or 16.3 +/- 3.0 mm Hg, respectively. The results of the questionnaire survey showed no significant difference between Timoptol XE and Lizmon TG in regard to all survey items. Twenty-nine patients (78.4%) preferred to use gel-forming timolol solutions rather than twice-daily timolol ophthalmic solution. The presence of concurrently used ophthalmic solutions did not effect the incidences of subjective symptoms. The incidences of objective adverse effects were not significantly different between two gel-forming timolol ophthalmic solutions. CONCLUSION: Both gel-forming timolol ophthalmic solutions could be good choices for glaucoma treatment.     

Efficacy and safety of timolol solution once daily vs timolol gel added to latanoprost

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate 0.5% (Betimol, Ciba Vision Ophthalmics, Duluth, Georgia) vs timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% (Timoptic-XE, Merck, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania), both given every morning added to latanoprost 0.005% given every evening. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, crossover comparison was performed in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After at least a 4-week run-in period with latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan), both eyes from 30 patients (60 eyes) were randomly assigned to one of the two adjunctive therapies, timolol hemihydrate or timolol maleate gel for 6 weeks. At the end of the first period, the study medicine was discontinued for a 2-week washout period. Patients then received the opposite medication for the second 6-week period. This study had an 80% power to exclude a 1-mm Hg difference between groups. RESULTS: The baseline intraocular pressure after 1 month of latanoprost treatment only for all 30 subjects was 20.8 +/- 2.6 mm Hg. After 6 weeks of timolol hemihydrate, the 24-hour trough intraocular pressure was 17.5 +/- 3.4 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 17.9 +/- 3.5 mm Hg (P = .74). The peak level 2 hours after dosing for timolol hemihydate was 16.4 +/- 2.6 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 16.8 +/- 3.8 mm Hg (P = .84). No patient was discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy. No differences were observed between treatments in visual acuity, anterior segment findings, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily beta-blocker therapy is an effective ocular hypotensive adjunctive treatment 24 hours after dosing when added to latanoprost, for which timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution and timolol maleate gel 0.5% appear equally effective and safe.     

The safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination ophthalmic solution

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination ophthalmic solution (Trav/Tim) to its components travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution, TRAVATAN, (Trav) and timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Tim) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. DESIGN: Randomized multicenter, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel group study. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive Trav/Tim once daily AM (and vehicle PM), Trav once daily PM (and vehicle AM), or Tim twice daily (AM and PM). Efficacy and safety were compared across treatment groups over 3 months. RESULTS: Trav/Tim produced a mean IOP decrease from baseline of 1.9 mm Hg to 3.3 mm Hg more than Tim, with a significant decrease in mean IOP at each of the nine study visits (P < or = .003). Trav/Tim decreased mean IOP by 0.9 mm Hg to 2.4 mm Hg more than Trav, with a significant decrease in mean IOP at seven of the nine study visits (P < or = .05). The adverse event profile for Trav/Tim was comparable to Trav or Tim alone. CONCLUSIONS: Over the 3 months of treatment, Trav/Tim produced clinically relevant IOP reductions in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension that were greater than those produced by either Trav or Tim alone. The clinical results that Trav/Tim was safe and well tolerated with an incidence of adverse events was comparable to the results of Trav or Tim alone. Trav/Tim provides both more effective IOP reduction than its components and the benefits of once-daily dosing.     

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.     

Comparison of 24 hour control with Timoptic 0.5% and Timoptic-XE 0.5% in exfoliation and primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the 24 hour intraocular pressure (IOP) curve in exfoliation glaucoma (EXG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients treated first with timolol solution 0.5% (TS) twice daily and then with timolol maleate gel forming solution 0.5% (TXE) once daily. METHODS: We prospectively investigated age-matched, newly diagnosed EXG (n = 25) and POAG (n = 25) patients who were admitted as in-patients for 24 hour phasing first with TS and then TXE. RESULTS: Generally TS and TXE controlled both POAG and EXG patients in a similar fashion. However, a trend to lower pressures was observed in both EXG and POAG patients with TS therapy. At two time points (10:00 and 22:00) in POAG patients, TS (18.4 +/- 3.7 and 17.2 +/- 3.1 mm Hg, respectively) provided lower intraocular pressures than TXE (19.8 +/- 3.5 and 18.9 +/- 3.8 mm Hg, respectively) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both TS twice daily and TXE once daily control POAG and EXG generally to a similar extent.     

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.