Daytime diurnal curve comparison between the fixed combinations of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol maleate 0.5%

PURPOSE: The diurnal efficacy and safety of the fixed combinations of latanoprost/timolol given once daily vs dorzolamide/timolol given twice daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients. DESIGN: A double-masked, two-centre, crossover comparison. RESULTS: In 33 patients, the mean diurnal IOP (0800-2000, measured every 2 h) for latanoprost/timolol fixed combination was 17.3+/-2.2 mmHg and for dorzolamide/timolol, the fixed combination was 17.0+/-2.0 mmHg (P = 0.36). Additionally, there was no statistical difference for individual time points following a Bonferroni correction. A bitter taste was found more frequently with the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (n = 6) than the latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (n = 0) (P = 0.040), while the latanoprost/timolol fixed combination demonstrated more conjunctival hyperaemia (n = 9) than the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (n = 2) (P = 0.045). One patient was discontinued early from the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination due to elevated IOP. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the daytime diurnal IOP is not statistically different between the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination and latanoprost/timolol fixed combination in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients.     

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

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

The effect on diurnal intraocular pressure of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% in patients with ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To measure the effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) after single-dose administration of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%. METHODS: A randomized, double-masked placebo-controlled parallel-group study was carried out. Twenty patients with ocular hypertension received the fixed combination of latanoprost+timolol, while 10 received placebo eyedrops. On baseline day no eyedrops were given, but IOP was measured repeatedly between 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. On Day 7 the eyedrops were given at 8.00 a.m., and IOP measured as on baseline day. On Day 8 and Day 9, IOP was again measured at 8.00 a.m. RESULTS: There was no difference in IOP in the placebo group. In the latanoprost+timolol group maximal IOP reduction (12.4+/-2.8 mmHg; mean+/-standard deviation) occurred 6.4 hours after drug administration (5.2--7.7 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI]). The mean IOP reduction after 24 hours was 9.8 mmHg (7.4--12.2 mmHg; 95% CI; p<0.001), and after 48 hours 5.7 mmHg (3.4--8.1 mmHg; 95% CI; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of latanoprost+timolol statistically significantly reduced IOP after single-dose administration. The maximal effect was noted after about 6 hours, and the IOP reduction was still pronounced after 48 hours.     

Comparison of daytime efficacy and safety of dorzolamide/timolol maleate fixed combination versus latanoprost

PURPOSE: To compare the 12-hour efficacy and safety of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) dosed twice daily versus latanoprost dosed every evening following a timolol run-in in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. METHODS: Following a 6-week timolol run-in patients were randomized to either DTFC or latanoprost for 6 weeks and then changed to the opposite treatment for 6 weeks. At the end of the run-in, and the end of each treatment period, the intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured every 2 hours between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients completed at least one time point in both treatment periods. Both treatments reduced the IOP for the diurnal curve, and at each time point, from the timolol run-in baseline (p<0.0001). The 12-hour IOP on timolol was 22.1+/-2.8 mmHg, whereas on DTFC it was 18.1+/-2.8 and latanoprost 18.3+/-3.1 mmHg (p=0.4). Further, there was no statistical difference in IOP between treatments at any time point (p< or =0.1). There was no statistical difference for any individual adverse event between treatments (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that following a timolol run-in both DTFC and latanoprost provide comparable daytime efficacy and safety.     

Safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% versus timolol maleate 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost given every evening versus the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) given twice daily in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. METHODS: A double-masked, three-center, prospective, randomized, crossover comparison with two 8-week treatment periods following a 4-week medicine free washout period. Diurnal curve intraocular pressures (IOPs) were taken at 08:00 (trough) and 10:00 and 16:00 hours. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled and 32 completed all evaluations. The diurnal untreated baseline intraocular pressures was 24.8 +/- 2.4 mmHg. On the last day of treatment the mean diurnal intraocular pressures was 17.4 +/- 2.9 for bimatoprost and 18.1 +/- 2.8 mmHg for DTFC (p = 0.35). The individual time points for intraocular pressures were not statistically different between groups. Both groups statistically reduced the intraocular pressures from baseline for each time point and for the diurnal curve (p < 0.05). Regarding ocular safety and tolerability, there was more conjunctival hyperemia with bimatoprost (n = 15) than with DTFC (n = 7, p = 0.013) and more burning and stinging with DTFC (n = 12) than with bimatoprost (n = 0, p = 0.0005). Few systemic adverse events were recorded and there was no statistical difference between groups for any individual event (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the intraocular pressures are lowered to a statistically similar amount with DTFC compared to bimatoprost in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients.     

A comparison of travoprost, latanoprost, and the fixed combination of dorzolamide and timolol in patients with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effect and safety of latanoprost, travoprost given every evening, and the fixed combination dorzolamide + timolol (DTFC) given twice daily in pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXG). METHODS: This randomized, prospective, investigator-masked study has been conducted with 50 PXG patients. Patients were assigned to one of three groups: travoprost 0.004%, fixed combination of dorzolamide 2%+timolol 0.5%, or latanoprost 0.005% for 6 months. At baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months of therapy, IOP (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm), blood pressures, and pulse rates were measured, and ophthalmologic examination was performed. The side effects were recorded at each visit. RESULTS: Forty-two of the 50 patients initially enrolled completed this study. Withdrawn patients included one (latanoprost) for lack of efficacy, five (three travoprost, one latanoprost, one DTFC) for adverse events, and two (one latanoprost, one DTFC) for loss of follow-up. Each of the three drugs considerably reduced the IOP in PXG cases throughout the 6 months. Mean IOP reduction at 6 months was -9.3+/-2.9 mmHg in the travoprost group, -8.2+/-1.2 mmHg in the latanoprost group, and 11.5+/-3.3 mmHg in the DTFC group. Comparing the groups, DTFC is more effective than latanoprost and travoprost in lowering IOP (p<0.05). There was no difference between travoprost and latanoprost. The most common treatment-related adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia. Intensity of ocular hyperemia was greater in the travoprost group compared with the latanoprost and DTFC groups (p<0.05). There were no significant effects on systemic safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that DTFC is more effective in reducing IOP than latanoprost and travoprost. Latanoprost and travoprost had similar ocular hypotensive effects in patients with PXG. All three drugs were well tolerated; there were fewer ocular side effects attributable in the latanoprost group.     

Additive effect of latanoprost to the combination of timolol and dorzolamide

PURPOSE: To study the additive effect of latanoprost 0.005% in patients who have uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) using timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%. METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive patients with open-angle glaucoma who were using timolol and dorzolamide and were considered to have IOP above their defined target pressure were included in this study. After a baseline diurnal tension curve (DTC) was performed, latanoprost once a day was added to the treatment, and a second DTC was performed 1 week later. RESULTS: Five patients (9.6%) were discontinued from treatment because of side effects. The remaining 47 patients showed a significant IOP reduction of 3.1 mm Hg (16%) from a baseline of 19.3 mm Hg (mean IOP registered during DTC; P < or = 0.0001). Seventeen patients (36.3%) showed a mean IOP reduction greater than 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Latanoprost had an additive effect when used as a third drug for patients on timolol and dorzolamide who were in need of further IOP reduction. These results suggest that latanoprost may be very effective in some patients with poorly controlled glaucoma on multiple therapy.     

The efficacy and safety of the timolol/dorzolamide fixed combination vs latanoprost in exfoliation glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the timolol/dorzolamide fixed combination vs latanoprost 0.005% in exfoliation glaucoma patients. METHODS: We randomized in an observer-masked fashion 65 newly diagnosed exfoliation glaucoma patients to either the timolol/dorzolamide twice daily or latanoprost daily treatment for 2 months and then crossed these over to the other treatment. RESULTS: A total of fifty-four patients completed the study. After 2 months of chronic dosing, the morning intraocular pressure (IOP) (10:00) was reduced from a baseline of 31.2+/-6.5 mmHg to 18.1+/-3.0 with the fixed combination and to 18.9+/-4.1 mmHg with latanoprost (P = 0.21). Six patients were discontinued early from both treatment periods owing to inadequate IOP control and two others were discontinued from latanoprost treatment only. The fixed combination showed a significantly greater incidence of taste perversion (P < 0.001) and stinging upon instillation (P = 0.036), while latanoprost showed a trend for increased conjunctival injection (P = 0.056). However, five patients demonstrated either bradycardia or asthmatic symptoms with initiation of the fixed combination therapy. One patient on latanoprost complained of dizziness. Patient preference was generally given to latanoprost (63 vs 20.3%) mainly because of its once daily dosing (P < 0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that both latanoprost and the timolol/dorzolamide fixed combination are efficacious in the treatment of newly diagnosed exfoliation glaucoma.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of the fixed combinations latanoprost/timolol versus dorzolamide/timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with those of the fixed combination of dorzolamide and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). DESIGN: Three-month, randomized, parallel group, evaluator-masked, multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with elevated IOP insufficiently responsive to monotherapy; 253 randomized: 125 to receive a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% once daily, and 128 to receive a fixed combination of dorzolamide 2% and timolol 0.5% twice daily. METHODS: Visits were at screening (current ocular hypotensive therapy was discontinued), 2 weeks (if needed for an IOP-safety check), baseline (randomization), and after 1 and 3 months of therapy. Intraocular pressure was measured in triplicate at 8 am, 12 pm, and 4 pm at each study visit, and diurnal IOP was calculated as the mean value of these recordings. Adverse events were recorded at each visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The difference between treatment groups in the change in mean diurnal IOP from baseline to month 3. RESULTS: Mean diurnal IOP levels were similar at baseline. Mean (+/- standard error of the mean) reductions in diurnal IOP from baseline to month 3 were 9.4+/-0.27 mmHg in the latanoprost/timolol fixed-combination group, versus 8.4+/-0.26 mmHg in patients receiving the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination. The mean difference in diurnal IOP reduction between treatments was 1.00 mmHg (95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.69; P = 0.005) in favor of the latanoprost/timolol fixed combination. Both treatments generally were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol was slightly more effective than that of dorzolamide and timolol in reducing mean diurnal IOP, and both treatments were generally well tolerated.     

Twenty-four-hour ocular hypotensive effects of 0.0015% tafluprost and 0.005% latanoprost in healthy subjects

Purpose  

To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction over 24 h achieved with tafluprost (0.0015%) with that achieved with latanoprost (0.005%).     

A comparison of the effects of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination versus latanoprost on intraocular pressure and pulsatile ocular blood flow in primary open-angle glaucoma patients

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (D/T) compared to latanoprost on intraocular pressure (IOP) and pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF) in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients. METHODS: Thirty patients with POAG were randomized in an open-label, cross-over study. Intraocular pressure reduction was achieved by 4 weeks medical therapy with D/T twice daily or latanoprost 0.005% dosed once in the evening. During a 4-week run-in and a 4-week wash-out period between study arms, patients ceased use of all other glaucoma medications and used timolol maleate 0.5% twice daily. Primary efficacy variables were IOP and POBF. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline IOP and POBF parameters between the two study arms. Both D/T and latanoprost statistically significantly reduced IOP by 4.6 mmHg (p < 0.0001) and 3.75 mmHg (p < 0.0001) and increased POBF by 2.048 microl/second (p = 0.0030) and 2.147 microl/second (p = 0.0009), respectively. Repeated measures anova detected significant changes in POBF with treatment (p = 0.0361). Dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination statistically significantly increased pulse volume by 0.767 microl (p = 0.0087), while latanoprost therapy had no significant effect (p = 0.2407). CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs had similar effects in terms of IOP reduction. Dorzolamide/timolol significantly increased pulse volume while latanoprost had no effect. Further studies are necessary to establish whether the enhancement of choroidal blood flow can prevent glaucoma progression.     

Short term efficacy and safety in glaucoma patients changed to the latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination from monotherapies and adjunctive therapies

AIMS: To evaluate efficacy and safety in patients with ocular hypertension or open angle glaucoma changed to latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC). METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, historical control in which qualified patients had their previous therapy substituted by LTFC and were followed for at least 2 months. RESULTS: In 1676 patients LTFC was continued in 93% throughout the observation period. In all patients LTFC reduced the intraocular pressure (IOP) from 20.6 (SD 3.8) to 17.7 (3.0) mm Hg (p<0.001) compared to previous monotherapies including latanoprost, timolol, alpha agonists or carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI). LTFC provided more efficacy after changing from adjunctive therapies including: a beta blocker added to either CAI, alpha agonist, or pilocarpine, or CAI added to an alpha agonist, or latanoprost added to either CAI, alpha agonist, or beta blocker (unfixed combination), and travoprost added to timolol (p<0.007). LTFC was as effective as latanoprost used with dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (-0.9 mm Hg, p = 0.1792). The most common reason to discontinue therapy was lack of efficacy (n = 70, 4%) and adverse event (n = 17, 1%). CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, patients who have their monotherapy or adjunctive therapy substituted with LTFC may experience reduced IOP, good tolerability, and continuation of therapy for the first 2-3 months of treatment.     

Dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination versus latanoprost/timolol fixed combination in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: The efficacy of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) versus latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC) in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to DTFC or LTFC for 6 weeks and switched to opposite treatment for Period 2. RESULTS: Thirty-two completed patients had a mean diurnal IOP of 19.5+/-3.2 mmHg for DTFC and 18.9+/-3.4 mmHg for LTFC (p=0.12), with no significant difference found between DTFC and LTFC at any timepoint following a Bonferroni correction (p>or=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with DTFC and LTFC have a statistically similar ocular hypotensive effect.     

Effect on intraocular pressure during 24 hours after repeated administration of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% in patients with ocular hypertension

PURPOSE: To measure the effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) for 24 hours after repeated administration of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%. METHODS: A randomized, double-masked placebo-controlled crossover study including 20 patients with ocular hypertension was carried out. Patients were randomized to treatment with the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol or with placebo. The eyedrop was taken at 8 AM. After 2 weeks of treatment, the patients were hospitalized, and the IOP was measured at 8 AM, and thereafter every other hour until midnight, and also at 3 AM, 6 AM, and 8 A.M. After a washout period of 4 weeks, they switched to the other eyedrop, and after 2 weeks of treatment were hospitalized and the IOP measurements were repeated at the same intervals. RESULTS: The mean 24-hour IOP was 14.7 +/- 0.3 mm Hg (mean +/- standard error of the mean) for latanoprost and timolol and 19.4 +/- 0.3 mm Hg for placebo. This corresponds to a significant IOP difference of 4.7 +/- 0.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 3.8-5.8; P < 0.001) between the two treatments in favor of the combination. At all measured time points, except at 3 AM, the mean IOP was lower with latanoprost and timolol than with placebo. During daytime measurements the mean IOP was 13.9 +/- 0.7 mm Hg for the fixed combination and 19.5 +/- 0.7 mm Hg for the placebo. Corresponding figures at nighttime were 16.1 +/- 0.7 mm Hg and 19.2 +/- 0.7 mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol significantly reduced IOP after administration once daily for 2 weeks in patients with ocular hypertension. A reduction of IOP during a 24-hour period was seen, with a greater IOP reduction during daytime compared with nighttime. The fixed combination applied once daily could be a convenient alternative to concomitant therapy with its individual components.     

Success rates for switching to dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination in timolol responders who are insufficiently controlled by latanoprost monotherapy

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) in timolol responders with ocular hypertension or open‐angle glaucoma who switched to DTFC because of insufficient control on latanoprost. Methods: We carried out a prospective, open‐label cohort study with an active‐historical control in which qualifying patients must have been treated with latanoprost monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, must have demonstrated insufficiently controlled intraocular pressure (IOP) (≥ 19 mmHg at 08.00 hours), and must have shown a decrease in IOP at 2 hours after timolol instillation of ≥ 3 mmHg or ≥ 15%. Patients then began DTFC dosed at 08.00 hours and 20.00 hours and discontinued latanoprost. Patients were evaluated again after 4 and 12 weeks. Results: In 57 patients IOP was further reduced by 2.4 ± 3.3 mmHg at 08.00 hours (p < 0.0001) and by 3.5 ± 3.3 mmHg at 10.00 hours (p < 0.0001) after switching to DTFC. Responses to the Comparison of Ophthalmic Medications for Tolerability (COMTol) questionnaire showed no difference between DTFC and latanoprost for in terms of overall preference, typical daily activities, limitation of activities, compliance, satisfaction or quality of life (p > 0.05). However, greater frequency in burning and/or stinging (p < 0.0001) and bitter taste (p < 0.0001) were observed with DTFC, whereas unusual taste (p = 0.02) and itchy eyes (p = 0.05) were associated with latanoprost. Conclusions: This study suggests that patients who are insufficiently controlled on latanoprost monotherapy, and who are timolol responders, can generally achieve further IOP reduction and similar tolerance levels when changed to DTFC.