Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A noninferiority trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a single evening dose of fixed-combination latanoprost 50 μg/mL and timolol 0.5 mg/mL (Xalacom®; LTFC), in Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH) who were insufficiently controlled on β-blocker monotherapy or β-blocker-based dual therapy.

Methods

This 8-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority study compared once-daily evening dosing of LTFC with the unfixed combination of latanoprost, one drop in the evening, and timolol, one drop in the morning (LTuFC). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline to week 8 in diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP; mean of 8 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, 4 PM IOPs). LTFC was considered noninferior to LTuFC if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was < 1.5 mmHg (analysis of covariance).

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar for LTFC (N = 125; POAG, 70%; mean IOP, 25.8 mmHg) and LTuFC (N = 125; POAG, 69%; mean IOP, 26.0 mmHg). Mean diurnal IOP changes from baseline to week 8 were -8.6 mmHg with LTFC and -8.9 mmHg with LTuFC (between-treatment difference: 0.3 mmHg; 95%-CI, -0.3 to 1.0). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusions

A single evening dose of LTFC was at least as effective as the unfixed combination of latanoprost in the PM and timolol in the AM in reducing IOP in Chinese subjects with POAG or OH whose IOP was insufficiently reduced with β-blocker monotherapy or β-blocker-based dual therapy. LTFC is an effective and well tolerated once-daily treatment for POAG and OH.

SUBMITTER: Zhao JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3175210 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Zhao Jia-Liang JL Ge Jian J Li Xiao-Xin XX Li Yu-Min YM Sheng Yao-Hua YH Sun Nai-Xue NX Sun Xing-Huai XH Yao Ke K Zhong Zheng Z

BMC ophthalmology 20110819

<h4>Background</h4>A noninferiority trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a single evening dose of fixed-combination latanoprost 50 μg/mL and timolol 0.5 mg/mL (Xalacom®; LTFC), in Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH) who were insufficiently controlled on β-blocker monotherapy or β-blocker-based dual therapy.<h4>Methods</h4>This 8-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority study compared once-daily evening dosing of LTFC ...[more]

PMID: 21851642

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:IntroductionFixed-combination glaucoma medications are commonly used to achieve target intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction in patients uncontrolled with monotherapy; however, ocular discomfort associated with eye drops can decrease adherence. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily fixed-combination brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (BRINZ/TIM-FC) in Latin American patients transitioned from fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% (BRIM/TIM-FC) because of insufficient IOP control or treatment intolerance.MethodsThis 8-week, open-label, prospective study was conducted at six sites in Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. Enrolled patients were aged ≥18 years with open-angle glaucoma (including primary, exfoliative, or pigment-dispersion glaucoma) or ocular hypertension with IOP of 19-35 mmHg in ≥1 eye at baseline (on BRIM/TIM-FC). Patients self-administered BRINZ/TIM-FC to both eyes at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. daily for 8 weeks. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were mean IOP change from baseline at week 8 and percentage of patients achieving target IOP (≤18 mmHg) at week 8, respectively. Exploratory endpoints included patient and investigator preference for treatment at week 8. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed as the safety endpoint.ResultsFifty patients (mean ± SD age, 66.7 ± 11.5 years) received BRINZ/TIM-FC, and 49 were included in the intent-to-treat population. Mean ± SD IOP was significantly reduced from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment with BRINZ/TIM-FC (-3.6 ± 3.0 mmHg; P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test; 17.1% reduction). Overall, 55.3% of patients achieved IOP ≤18 mmHg at week 8. Significantly more patients (89.4%) and investigators (95.7%) preferred BRINZ/TIM-FC to BRIM/TIM-FC (both P < 0.0001, exact binomial test). Of the 13 AEs observed, 8 were related to BRINZ/TIM-FC; the most common treatment-related AEs were eye irritation (n = 4) and abnormal sensation in the eye (n = 2).ConclusionBRINZ/TIM-FC provides an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients transitioned from BRIM/TIM-FC.

Project description:PURPOSE : To compare the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of netarsudil 0.02%/latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution (NET/LAT; Roclanda®) with bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol maleate 0.5% (BIM/TIM; Ganfort®) ophthalmic solution in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT).MethodsMERCURY-3 was a 6-month prospective, double-masked, randomized, multicenter, active-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT in both eyes that was insufficiently controlled with topical medication (IOP ≥ 17 mmHg in ≥ 1 eye and < 28 mmHg in both eyes) were included. Following washout, patients were randomized to once-daily NET/LAT or BIM/TIM for up to 6 months; efficacy was assessed at Week 2, Week 4, and Month 3; safety was evaluated for 6 months. Comparison of NET/LAT relative to BIM/TIM for mean IOP at 08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 h was assessed at Week 2, Week 6, and Month 3. Non-inferiority of NET/LAT to BIM/TIM was defined as a difference of ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all nine time points through Month 3 and ≤ 1.0 mmHg at five or more of nine time points through Month 3.ResultsOverall, 430 patients were randomized (NET/LAT, n = 218; BIM/TIM, n = 212), and all received at least one dose of study medication. Efficacy analyses were performed at Month 3 on 388 patients (NET/LAT, n = 184; BIM/TIM, n = 204). NET/LAT demonstrated non-inferiority to BIM/TIM, with a between-treatment difference in IOP of ≤ 1.5 mmHg achieved at all time points and ≤ 1.0 mmHg at the majority of time points (six of nine) through Month 3. Mean diurnal IOP during the study ranged from 15.4 to 15.6 mmHg and 15.2 to 15.6 mmHg in the NET/LAT and BIM/TIM groups respectively, with no between-group statistically significant difference. No significant differences were observed in key secondary endpoints. No serious, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were observed, and AEs were typically mild/moderate in severity. The most common treatment-related AEs were conjunctival hyperemia (NET/LAT, 30.7%; BIM/TIM, 9.0%) and cornea verticillata (NET/LAT, 11.0%; BIM/TIM, 0%).ConclusionsOnce-daily NET/LAT was non-inferior to BIM/TIM in IOP reduction in OAG and OHT, with AEs consistent with previous findings. NET/LAT offers a compelling alternative FDC treatment option for OAG and OHT.

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).

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets