Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of travoprost/timolol vs dorzolamide/timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To compare the intraocular pressure- (IOP-) lowering efficacy of fixed combinations travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. METHODS:In this prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial, 319 qualifying patients received either travoprost/timolol once daily in the morning (n = 157) or dorzolamide/timolol twice daily (n = 162). IOP was assessed morning and evening at 2 and 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was mean diurnal IOP. RESULTS:Baseline mean IOP values were similar between groups. Mean pooled diurnal IOP was significantly lower in the travoprost/timolol group (16.5 mmHg +/- 0.23) than in the dorzolamide/timolol group (17.3 mmHg +/- 0.23; P = 0.011). Mean IOP was significantly lower in the travoprost/timolol group compared to the dorzolamide/timolol group at the 9 AM time point both at Week 2 (P = 0.006) and Week 6 (P = 0.002). The travoprost/timolol combination produced mean IOP reductions from baseline of 35.3% to 38.5%, while the dorzolamide/timolol combination produced mean IOP reductions from baseline of 32.5% to 34.5%. CONCLUSIONS:The fixed combination travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning demonstrated superior mean diurnal IOP-lowering efficacy compared to dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% dosed twice daily in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.

SUBMITTER: Teus MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2788589 | biostudies-literature | 2009

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of travoprost/timolol vs dorzolamide/timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Teus Miguel A MA Miglior Stefano S Laganovska Guna G Volksone Lāsma L Romanowska-Dixon Bozena B Gos Roman R Holló Gábor G

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 20091116

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the intraocular pressure- (IOP-) lowering efficacy of fixed combinations travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial, 319 qualifying patients received either travoprost/timolol once daily in the morning (n = 157) or dorzolamide/timolol twice daily (n = 162). IOP was assessed morning and evening at 2 an ...[more]

PMID: 19997566

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess ocular discomfort upon instillation and patient preference for brinzolamide/timolol relative to dorzolamide/timolol, in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.MethodsThis was a multicenter, prospective, patient-masked, randomized, crossover study. On day 0, patients received one drop of brinzolamide/timolol in one eye and one drop of dorzolamide/timolol in the contralateral eye. On day 1, patients were randomly assigned to receive one drop of either brinzolamide/timolol or dorzolamide/timolol in both eyes; on day 2, patients received one drop of the alternate treatment in both eyes. Measures included a patient preference question on day 2 (primary) and mean ocular discomfort scale scores on days 1 and 2 (secondary). Safety assessments included adverse events, visual acuity, and slit-lamp examinations.ResultsOf 120 patients who enrolled, 115 completed the study. Of these, 112 patients instilled both medications and expressed a study medication preference on day 2. A significantly greater percentage preferred brinzolamide/timolol to dorzolamide/timolol (67.0% versus 30.4%; P < 0.001). The ocular discomfort (expressed as mean [standard deviation]) with brinzolamide/timolol was significantly lower than with dorzolamide/timolol (day 2:1.9 [2.3] versus 3.7 [2.8], respectively [P = 0.0003]; both days combined: 2.1 [2.5] versus 3.5 [2.9], respectively [P = 0.00014]). On day 1, five patients receiving brinzolamide/timolol reported five nonserious adverse events (AEs): flu (n = 1), bitter taste (n = 2), and headache (n = 2). Four events, bitter taste (two events) and headache (two events), were considered related to brinzolamide/timolol. Events were mild in intensity, except bitter taste of moderate intensity reported by one patient. No AEs were reported at day 2. All AEs resolved without additional treatment. No clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in best-corrected visual acuity or slit-lamp examinations of ocular signs.ConclusionPatients had less discomfort with brinzolamide/timolol than with dorzolamide/timolol, and more expressed a preference for brinzolamide/timolol. Both treatments were generally safe and well tolerated.

Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy of lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) and safety of switching to travoprost/timolol fixed combination ophthalmic solution (Duotrav(®), Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, normal tension glaucoma or ocular hypertension undergoing prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy was investigated.MethodsPatients treated with travoprost, latanoprost, tafluprost, or bimatoprost for ≥3 months and requiring additional medication were switched to Duotrav without washout. Baseline IOP was calculated from measurements at two visits during PGA monotherapy. IOP reductions at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after switching to Duotrav and adverse events were assessed.ResultsOf 162 patients enrolled, 157 patients (96.9%) with ≥4 weeks of follow-up after switching to Duotrav were analyzed. The mean IOP decreased significantly (baseline = 16.3 ± 3.1 mmHg; 4 weeks = 14.6 ± 3.1 mmHg, 8 weeks = 14.7 ± 3.3 mmHg, 12 weeks = 14.6 ± 3.2 mmHg; all P < 0.0001). When study eyes were divided into three groups according to baseline IOP (≥19 mmHg: 33 eyes, 21.0%; ≥15 to <19 mmHg: 78 eyes, 49.7%; <15 mmHg: 46 eyes, 29.3%), all groups showed significant IOP reductions (P = 0.0324 ~ P < 0.0001) after switching to Duotrav. Twenty-seven of 166 patients (16.3%) in the safety analysis experienced adverse events and 26/166 patients (15.7%) experienced adverse events, for which a relationship to Duotrav could not be ruled out. Adverse events in five patients led to treatment discontinuation (eye pruritus; eye irritation; increased blood pressure and rash; increased blurred vision; deepening of the eyelid sulcus and blepharoptosis). Twelve weeks after treatment switching, eyelash changes, blepharal pigmentation and deepening of the eyelid sulcus occurred in 42 (26.8%), 29 (18.5%), and 13 (8.3%) cases, respectively, among 157 patients with follow-up. There was no significant worsening from baseline for superficial punctate keratopathy (SPK) or conjunctival hyperemia after switching (SPK score: baseline = 0.58 ± 1.31; 12 weeks = 0.92 ± 1.76, P = 0.1819; conjunctival hyperemia score: baseline = 0.41 ± 0.64; 12 weeks = 0.49 ± 0.63, P = 0.3774).ConclusionOur findings confirm that switching to Duotrav(®) in PGA monotherapy patients shows IOP-lowering effect with minimal safety concerns.FundingJapan Association of Health Service and Alcon Japan. Ltd.Trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry identifier, UMIN000007028.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fixed-combination ocular hypotensives have multiple advantages, but triple-therapy dorzolamide/brimonidine/timolol (dorz/brim/tim) is only available in Latin and South America, and information on its relative efficacy is limited. This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol (bim/tim) and dorz/brim/tim in Mexican patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS:In this investigator-masked, crossover study, patients with unmet target intraocular pressure (IOP) on once-daily bim/tim or twice-daily dorz/brim/tim received the opposite medication for 3 months before returning to their pre-baseline medication for 3 months. IOP was evaluated before and after morning instillation at months 2, 3, 5 and 6. Primary endpoints were mean IOP change and Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) score at each visit. The intent-to-treat population was the a priori analysis population, but due to the number of discontinuations, the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations were used for the primary efficacy and sensitivity analyses, respectively. RESULTS:Seventy-eight and 56 patients were included in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively. At month 3, statistically significant IOP reductions from baseline were observed in the bim/tim (P?<?0.01) and dorz/brim/tim (P?<?0.0001) groups, regardless of assessment time. At month 6, patients returned to bim/tim exhibited no significant IOP increase (regardless of assessment time), but patients returned to dorz/brim/tim exhibited a statistically significant IOP increase (P?<?0.001) when assessed before instillation of study treatment. Results were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations. In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at month 3 had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which declined to 58% (P?=?0.0061) at month 6 (ie, after 3 months of dorz/brim/tim treatment). In patients receiving dorz/brim/tim at month 3, 38% had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which remained comparable after return to bim/tim. OSDI scores and incidence of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this first direct comparison of the efficacy of dorz/brim/tim and bim/tim, patients switched from dorz/brim/tim to bim/tim demonstrated improved/lower IOP; when returned to dorz/brim/tim, IOP increased to levels seen at study initiation, suggesting that once-daily bim/tim may have greater IOP-lowering efficacy. Both bim/tim and dorz/brim/tim were well tolerated with minimal ocular surface damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01737853 (registered October 9, 2012).

Project description:IntroductionThis prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).MethodsThe trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8 A.M., 10 A.M., and 4 P.M.) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments.ResultsA total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (P < 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group.ConclusionsThe SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.

Project description:PurposeA randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 2 trial to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of travoprost intraocular implant, an extended-release drug delivery system designed to provide uninterrupted sustained intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering therapy, thereby reducing patient treatment burden and improving adherence with IOP-lowering medication.MethodsPatients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were administered a fast-eluting implant (FE implant, n = 51) and received twice-daily (BID) placebo eye drops, a slow-eluting (SE implant, n = 54) and received BID placebo eye drops, or underwent a sham surgical procedure and received BID timolol 0.5% (n = 49). IOP was measured at baseline, day 1-2, day 10, week 4, week 6, month 3, and every 3 months thereafter through 36 months. Efficacy was evaluated by mean change from 8:00 AM unmedicated baseline IOP through month 36, and the percentage of patients receiving the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications as at screening (pre-study). Safety was evaluated by adverse events and ophthalmic parameters.ResultsClinically and statistically relevant IOP-lowering treatment effects were observed through month 36 after a single administration of the travoprost implant compared with BID timolol with mean IOP reductions ranging from 7.6 to 8.8 mmHg for the FE implant group, from 7.3 to 8.0 mmHg for the SE implant group, and from 7.3 to 7.9 for the timolol group at the 8:00 AM timepoint (P < 0.0001 for all treatment groups at all visits). At months 12, 24, and 36, a greater percentage of FE and SE implant patients versus timolol patients were well controlled on the same or fewer topical IOP-lowering medications compared with screening with 63 and 69% for the FE and SE implants groups, respectively, versus 45% for the timolol group at month 36. The safety profile of the implant was favorable; there were no dislodgements, no explantations, no adverse events of conjunctival hyperemia or periorbital fat atrophy, no discontinuations due to study eye adverse events, nor any serious adverse events in the study eye. Comparable changes from baseline in corneal endothelial cell counts were observed in the three treatment groups over the 36 months.ConclusionThe travoprost intraocular implant demonstrated robust IOP-lowering and substantially reduced topical IOP-lowering medication burden for up to 36 months following a single administration, while maintaining a favorable safety profile. The travoprost intraocular implant promises to be a meaningful addition to the interventional glaucoma armamentarium by addressing the key shortcomings of topical IOP-lowering medications, including low adherence and topical side effects while controlling IOP for up to 36 months.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02754596 registered 28 April 2016.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of travoprost/timolol vs dorzolamide/timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of travoprost/timolol vs dorzolamide/timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets